There are people and businesses who are now paying $200 per month
for the use of commercial software that is not even worth half of
that amount if purchased outright.

Furthermore, they are giving away all of their critical business,
scientific, or artistic data for largely irretrievable storage
on a remote server that is beyond their control.

Criminal cartels wish that they they could have it so good.

Proprietary software is a racket that exploits the ignorant
masses and anyone who defends it is degenerate scum.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Le 11-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> There are people and businesses who are now paying $200 per month
> for the use of commercial software that is not even worth half of
> that amount if purchased outright.

Once again, you prove you have no idea about business. For someone,
giving $200 a month is something. For the business or the industry, it's
nothing. An IT engineer cost something like $1500 a day (in France, I believe
it's more in the US). So paying $200 per month for being able to have
responses in case of need is nothing compared to hire someone full time
in case of need.

So, it's a good idea to spend a very few money to get sure you have
support in case of need. It's well spent money and you are, once again,
at loss.

I don't know if DFS is right when he says you are living in your mum
basement, but it looks like you never went out of it. You should learn
how things work in real life before giving your opinion.

> Proprietary software is a racket that exploits the ignorant
> masses and anyone who defends it is degenerate scum.

You are defending it because your arguments are so lame you make
proprietary software being a good idea. Please, defend Windows. It would
be as fun and it will at least help Linux.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 8/11/2024 7:22 AM, Larry 'The Liability' Piet wrote:

> There are people and businesses who are now paying $200 per month
> for the use of commercial software that is not even worth half of
> that amount if purchased outright.
> Furthermore, they are giving away all of their critical business,
> scientific, or artistic data for largely irretrievable storage
> on a remote server that is beyond their control.

Another ludicrous Feeb statement.

Too much time alone with your Gentoo crapboxes has made your view of the
IT world ignorant and warped.

> Criminal cartels wish that they they could have it so good.
>
> Proprietary software is a racket that exploits the ignorant
> masses

'Cause only you are qualified to evaluate software costs vs functionality.

> and anyone who defends it is degenerate scum.

Spare us, bozo. Don't pretend for 2 seconds you won't develop
closed-source for money (if you had the skills).

On 11 Aug 2024 12:47:27 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
> An IT engineer cost something like $1500 a day (in France, I believe
> it's more in the US). So paying $200 per month for being able to have
> responses in case of need is nothing compared to hire someone full time
> in case of need.
>

Listen, idiot.

I am not referring to huge enterprise packages like an airline
reservation system or an ERP serving hundreds of global locations.
In such cases an expensive maintenance contract is certainly
warranted.

I am referring to simple and common packages like Adobe Photoshop
or AutoCAD. These packages were once sold at the corner office
supply store for a one-time, perpetual license. The only gimmick
was the fabricated yearly "updates" that were intended to to
keep the revenue flowing, but any user could choose to skip
the updates completely.

As any programmer knows, software lasts forever. Such simple
programs require no maintenance or updates. Software companies,
however, do not last forever. Thus, a gimmick of some kind is
always necessary to ensure continued sales.

Adobe was the first to introduce the gimmick of the "software
subscription." The result was that revenue was doubled at the
cost of doing absolutely nothing. Needless to say, every other
commercial software company followed suit.

I am aware of some moron who pays over $1600 annually for a
subscription to AutoDesk. When I asked why he wants to waste
his money like that his response was that he is obtaining all
the security updates. What a clown! He has completely fallen
for that bullshit ruse.

There is no cure for stupidity.

Software lasts forever. I have written programs years ago
that are still working normally with no updates whatsoever.

But any software company would soon be bankrupt and out of
business if they followed that model. To keep the sales
flowing they must invent reasons that will fool the ignorant
masses -- and they do.

FOSS, however, is not in business and thus is the natural
and superior choice.

>
>Proprietary software is a racket that exploits the ignorant
>masses and anyone who defends it is degenerate scum.

Hitler supported proprietary software.

On 11 Aug 2024 12:47:27 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> For someone, giving $200 a month is something. For the business or the
> industry, it's nothing.

It may be nothing if they are paying it to some name-brand vendor like
Microsoft or Adobe, but ask them about paying something for the Free
Software they’re using (as they almost certainly are), and all too often
suddenly they become quite miserly.

They need to appreciate that Free Software doesn’t write itself. If they
want it to improve, it would help if they contributed something back to
it.

Le 11-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 11 Aug 2024 12:47:27 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>> An IT engineer cost something like $1500 a day (in France, I believe
>> it's more in the US). So paying $200 per month for being able to have
>> responses in case of need is nothing compared to hire someone full time
>> in case of need.
>>
>
> Listen, idiot.

You want to teach me something? Great, let me a few seconds to fetch some
pop-corn... OK, I'm ready. You can go on.

> idiot.

You teach me nothing with that. You repeat yourself and we are both
loosing our time. It's something which should be avoided by someone
with a brain.

> I am not referring to huge enterprise packages like an airline
> reservation system or an ERP serving hundreds of global locations.
> In such cases an expensive maintenance contract is certainly
> warranted.

Of course, you are not. And neither did I. And you prove, once again,
that you know nothing about the industry. First, as I said $200 a month
for someone is nothing in the industry. Second, an ERP is very expensive
and it costs way more than $200 a month. For a big company, an ERP COST
millions a year.

> I am referring to simple and common packages like Adobe Photoshop
> or AutoCAD. These packages were once sold at the corner office
> supply store for a one-time, perpetual license. The only gimmick
> was the fabricated yearly "updates" that were intended to to
> keep the revenue flowing, but any user could choose to skip
> the updates completely.

You are comparing two different things, which you clearly don't
understand.

So, first, about Photoshop. I'm not that sure it's that used in the
industry. And except for special cases, it can be replaced by something
else.

But for AutoCAD, it's something well different. And that you don't know
the difference show you never worked outside of you asylum. Because when
you work, in any activity sector, you know that have some suppliers and
some customers. And you need to request things to your suppliers and
provide things to your customers.

And that's where you should have seen the difference. Because it's huge.
For Photoshop, as its purpose is to change images, and the final format
is a well known one, you can use any tool you prefer to provide a jpg,
png, bmp, whatever. Anyone can open it, make some changes, and give it
back to you.

For AutoCAD, it's not the same. They have their own format. And if you
refuse to use it, you can't work for customers who request AutoCAD and
you can't find suppliers who refuse to use AutoCAD. So, your business
will be very limited. So, choosing AutoCAD can't be bad if it's your
business. And refusing it is just stupid it it's your business.

> As any programmer knows, software lasts forever.

Any programmer knows that's one of the stupidest things you ever said.
And it's telling. You should know better because you pretend to compile
your kernel every week. So the kernel lasts only a week. And the kernel
is related to the glibc, which must be updated from time to time for the
same reason. And the core tools of Linux depend on the Kernel and on the
glibc, so they must be updated from time to time for the same reason.
And the softwares rely on the glibc, the kernel and the core tools. So
the softwares must be updated to follow the systems updates.

It's one of the biggest issues in the IT: to update softwares without
breaking everything.

I can see two reasons why you don't know that. First, it was well known,
but you just confirmed it, once again: you are not a programmer. And
second, it was well known too, and you confirmed it, once again: you
don't know what's running on your computer and how it works.

Of course, you'll come with a "hello world" program or a loop in a
script which runs forever. But I'm speaking about real useful programs.

> Such simple programs require no maintenance or updates.

So why do you update your kernel every week? Because you can only do
useless tasks? Because you don't understand what you do? Because your
claims or not related to your actions?

> I am aware of some moron who pays over $1600 annually for a
> subscription to AutoDesk. When I asked why he wants to waste
> his money like that his response was that he is obtaining all
> the security updates. What a clown! He has completely fallen
> for that bullshit ruse.

Your report of his answer is clearly a lie. The real answer is easy to
know. You are the only one unable to understand it. If he wants to
work, he needs to know AutoDesk and to pay the licence. If he knows
AutoDesk, I don't know the prices in the USA, but I'd say he could claim
easily $200K a year. And he can invoice the licence to the company which
want him to work for them. And $1600 compare to $200K a year is nothing,
so even the company refuse to pay for the licence he can rise his wages
to include the licence and if he's good it will be easy.

So paying $1600 to win $200h is one of the smartest things to to. And
he's right to pay for the licence which will grant him money and cost
him nothing. And he couldn't have answered you what you claim.

> There is no cure for stupidity.

Yes, you prove it with every message: you only become more stupid with
each message.

> I have written programs years ago
> that are still working normally with no updates whatsoever.

Yes, I believe something like "hello world". Anything beyond that would
be: not working anymore today and beyond your limited capacities.

> FOSS, however, is not in business and thus is the natural
> and superior choice.

There are business based on FOSS. That's a fact which contradicts your
claim. So you are just plain wrong. And, guess what, Linus is paid to
work on Linux. So, even if you limit your claim to the kernel, it's
stay wrong.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 17 Aug 2024 10:12:15 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
> For AutoCAD, it's not the same. They have their own format. And if you
> refuse to use it, you can't work for customers who request AutoCAD and
> you can't find suppliers who refuse to use AutoCAD.
>

That is the whole problem with proprietary software: no adherence
to universal standards.

For CAD/CAM work there seems to be no standards for a file format.
AutoCAD has become the defacto standard and this is unacceptable
because it prevents other CAD/CAM software from succeeding in the
market.

There is a similar problem with Microslop. Its office file formats are
also a defacto standard and they have become the universal medium of
exchange in the business world. Fortunately, however, most other word
processors and spreadsheets, including LibreOffice, can easily (but not always)
read/write Microslop formats even though the formats are proprietary and closed.

The Open Document project has attempted to establish a universal office
format:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument

However, because the majority of business and personal computer users
are ignorant idiots, the hegemony of Microslop will continue.

Engineers and scientists, although they should not be, are also
ignorant idiots when it comes to computing and hence the AutoCAD
file format will continue to be the unofficial standard.

There needs to be universal standards for all types of file formats,
just as with everything else. Proprietary software companies, like
Microslop and AutoCAD, and etc., should not be allowed to establish
their own, closed, file formats.

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2024 10:12:15 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> For AutoCAD, it's not the same. They have their own format. And if you
>> refuse to use it, you can't work for customers who request AutoCAD and
>> you can't find suppliers who refuse to use AutoCAD.
>
>That is the whole problem with proprietary software: no adherence
>to universal standards.
>
>For CAD/CAM work there seems to be no standards for a file format.
>AutoCAD has become the defacto standard and this is unacceptable
>because it prevents other CAD/CAM software from succeeding in the
>market.
>
>There is a similar problem with Microslop. Its office file formats are
>also a defacto standard and they have become the universal medium of
>exchange in the business world. Fortunately, however, most other word
>processors and spreadsheets, including LibreOffice, can easily (but not always)
>read/write Microslop formats even though the formats are proprietary and closed.
>
>The Open Document project has attempted to establish a universal office
>format:
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
>
>However, because the majority of business and personal computer users
>are ignorant idiots, the hegemony of Microslop will continue.
>
>Engineers and scientists, although they should not be, are also
>ignorant idiots when it comes to computing and hence the AutoCAD
>file format will continue to be the unofficial standard.
>
>There needs to be universal standards for all types of file formats,
>just as with everything else. Proprietary software companies, like
>Microslop and AutoCAD, and etc., should not be allowed to establish
>their own, closed, file formats.

It's probably hackable, but the concept of a proprietary, closed
standard is valid.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 16:30:34 -0400, Joel wrote:

> It's probably hackable, but the concept of a proprietary, closed
> standard is valid.

They usually don't take long to be hacked. Esri developed the shapefile
format partially based in dBase. Ashton-Tate's format got hacked in so
many ways it's now referred to as XBase. Only the attributes of each
geometry were stored in the dbf, with references to the .shp and .shx
files with the geometry. They were quickly figured out and shapefiles
became the default exchange dormat.

Esri then tried a proprietary format using Access. That didn't last long.
Ditto using SQL Server.

Realizing the shortcomings of Access they developed FileGDB. The open
source GIS tools handle reading the data fine so far. Sooner or later
they'll figure out writing.

Esri keeps tweaking formats to maintain their king of the hill status but
it's a losing battle.

M$ does the same with the various Office products with as much success.
The more a particular piece of software costs the more people will be
interested in reverse engineering it.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 8/17/2024 3:59 PM, Ludicrous Larry Piet wrote:
>
>> Proprietary software companies, like Microslop and AutoCAD, and etc.,
>> should not be allowed to establish their own, closed, file formats.
>
>You shouldn't be allowed to live in Mom's basement.
>
>You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
>companies can do with their own software.

Yeah, this kind of bullshit is why Larry is a total joke, as if the
government is going to regulate the production of file formats, the
open-source community can compete as it is, can reverse engineer the
files even. Larry wants some totalitarian computing department of
government, just moronic.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:37:22 -0400, DFS wrote:

> You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
> companies can do with their own software.

One thing they shouldn’t be allowed to do is use that software as a lock
to control their users.

Proprietary file formats are a notorious example of this.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:37:22 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
>> companies can do with their own software.
>
>One thing they shouldn’t be allowed to do is use that software as a lock
>to control their users.
>
>Proprietary file formats are a notorious example of this.

It's one thing if they're deliberately anticompetitive, with a file
format, but the concept of a proprietary file format is not inherently
invalid. They're reverse engineered just like compiled code itself,
our community can cope.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:25:51 -0400, Joel wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:37:22 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
>>> companies can do with their own software.
>>
>>One thing they shouldn’t be allowed to do is use that software as a lock
>>to control their users.
>>
>>Proprietary file formats are a notorious example of this.
>
> It's one thing if they're deliberately anticompetitive, with a file
> format, but the concept of a proprietary file format is not inherently
> invalid. They're reverse engineered just like compiled code itself, our
> community can cope.

Sometimes the vendors actively try to hinder reverse-engineering efforts.

Also, proprietary file format + rentware = having to keep paying just to
keep control over your own work.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 01:25:51 -0400, Joel wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:37:22 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
>>>> companies can do with their own software.
>>>
>>>One thing they shouldn’t be allowed to do is use that software as a lock
>>>to control their users.
>>>
>>>Proprietary file formats are a notorious example of this.
>>
>> It's one thing if they're deliberately anticompetitive, with a file
>> format, but the concept of a proprietary file format is not inherently
>> invalid. They're reverse engineered just like compiled code itself, our
>> community can cope.
>
>Sometimes the vendors actively try to hinder reverse-engineering efforts.

Try being the operative word.

>Also, proprietary file format + rentware = having to keep paying just to
>keep control over your own work.

Well, people should reject that, but they like the convenience of
commercial software, so they pay. I'm different, I like freedom,
Linux and LibreOffice and GIMP give me that.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 05:07:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <va6h2l$8t8g$7@dont-email.me>:

> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:37:22 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
>> companies can do with their own software.
>
> One thing they shouldn’t be allowed to do is use that software as a lock
> to control their users.
>
> Proprietary file formats are a notorious example of this.

And standards bodies do come up with standard file formats.

Microsoft loves to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" such
standards, of course...

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0-rc4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G

Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>On 8/17/2024 3:59 PM, Ludicrous Larry Piet wrote:
>>
>>> Proprietary software companies, like Microslop and AutoCAD, and etc.,
>>> should not be allowed to establish their own, closed, file formats.
>>
>>You shouldn't be allowed to live in Mom's basement.
>>
>>You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
>>companies can do with their own software.
>
> Yeah, this kind of bullshit is why Larry is a total joke, as if the
> government is going to regulate the production of file formats, the
> open-source community can compete as it is, can reverse engineer the
> files even. Larry wants some totalitarian computing department of
> government, just moronic.

Actually, the government DOES mandate file formats. And project RFPs (request
for proposal) often state stuff like "the documents shall be in Word format"
and the database shall be MS SQL.

Years ago, when the ODF (Open Document Format) was sanctioned, but Word was
not, Microsoft scrambled to create a multi-thousand page "Specification"
that tried (and failed) to describe all of the quirks in the Word "format".

They got their people to sit on standards committees and shove this
"specification" through for ISO approval.

--
Think twice before speaking, but don't say "think think click click".

vallor wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 05:07:33 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <va6h2l$8t8g$7@dont-email.me>:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 14:37:22 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
>>> companies can do with their own software.
>>
>> One thing they shouldn’t be allowed to do is use that software as a lock
>> to control their users.
>>
>> Proprietary file formats are a notorious example of this.
>
> And standards bodies do come up with standard file formats.
>
> Microsoft loves to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" such
> standards, of course...

Yes. See my post about the ODF, Word, and ISO approval.

--
For years a secret shame destroyed my peace--
I'd not read Eliot, Auden or MacNiece.
But now I think a thought that brings me hope:
Neither had Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Pope.
-- Justin Richardson.

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>On 8/17/2024 3:59 PM, Ludicrous Larry Piet wrote:
>>>
>>>> Proprietary software companies, like Microslop and AutoCAD, and etc.,
>>>> should not be allowed to establish their own, closed, file formats.
>>>
>>>You shouldn't be allowed to live in Mom's basement.
>>>
>>>You gotta be a real shitbird to want to control what people and
>>>companies can do with their own software.
>>
>> Yeah, this kind of bullshit is why Larry is a total joke, as if the
>> government is going to regulate the production of file formats, the
>> open-source community can compete as it is, can reverse engineer the
>> files even. Larry wants some totalitarian computing department of
>> government, just moronic.
>
>Actually, the government DOES mandate file formats. And project RFPs (request
>for proposal) often state stuff like "the documents shall be in Word format"
>and the database shall be MS SQL.
>
>Years ago, when the ODF (Open Document Format) was sanctioned, but Word was
>not, Microsoft scrambled to create a multi-thousand page "Specification"
>that tried (and failed) to describe all of the quirks in the Word "format".
>
>They got their people to sit on standards committees and shove this
>"specification" through for ISO approval.

But that sounds like regulating specific software customers' choices,
not whether the vendor has an inherent right to create a proprietary
format, certainly it's in their interest to make something people will
buy, but they can't have a gun held to their head to that effect.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 08:56:26 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Actually, the government DOES mandate file formats. And project RFPs
> (request for proposal) often state stuff like "the documents shall be in
> Word format" and the database shall be MS SQL.

When we bid on a Parks contract the requirement was Oracle. Fortunately
the code developed for DB2 could be adapted with a few tweaks. Luckily
Lockheed Martin won the job. We did have a few individual national parks
but dealing with the DOI is almost as bad as the DOD.

On 22 Aug 2024 06:35:59 GMT, vallor wrote:

> And standards bodies do come up with standard file formats.
>
> Microsoft loves to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" such standards, of
> course...

I hate defending Microsoft but in quite a few cases Microsoft did their
own thing while the standards bodies were screwing the pooch.

rbowman wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 22 Aug 2024 06:35:59 GMT, vallor wrote:
>
>> And standards bodies do come up with standard file formats.
>>
>> Microsoft loves to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" such standards, of
>> course...
>
> I hate defending Microsoft but in quite a few cases Microsoft did their
> own thing while the standards bodies were screwing the pooch.

Microsoft just screwed a different pooch :-)

From the movie "Shakes the Clown": "When he gets home he's gonna fuck that
little dog."

That was from the actor who played Aunt Esther on "Sanford and Son".

--
Your object is to save the world, while still leading a pleasant life.

On 2024-08-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2024 06:35:59 GMT, vallor wrote:
>
>> And standards bodies do come up with standard file formats.
>>
>> Microsoft loves to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" such standards, of
>> course...
>
> I hate defending Microsoft but in quite a few cases Microsoft did their
> own thing while the standards bodies were screwing the pooch.

Kind of the opposite with the Windows Phone. Just as Microsoft was beginning
to get some traction in the corporate market for their Windows Phones,
Microsoft tried to force their voice mail (voice to text) protocol on their
customers instead of using Cisco's (which was the established, standard
protocol). It stopped corporations in mid-Windows Phone roll out. Where my
brother worked they stopped the roll-out, then (after a pause) reversed back
to Android. Microsoft finally buckled and accepted the Cisco protocol, but
it was too late by then. It took a lot of gall to think their market share
warranted changing everyone else's standard. I think idiot Ballmer was still
running the M$ show at the time.

--
Look for the vacuosities, empty Woke stupidities
Forget about your worries and your strife
I mean the vacuosities
That's why the Woke can rest at ease
With just the vacuosities of life

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:49:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> From the movie "Shakes the Clown": "When he gets home he's gonna fuck
> that little dog."
>
> That was from the actor who played Aunt Esther on "Sanford and Son".

Such language... I watched 'Hillbilly Elegy' a couple of nights ago. The
movie was so-so but Glenn Close does foul-mouthed grandmother like she was
born for the role.

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 20:54:01 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> Ballmer was still running the M$ show at the time.

He has NIH tattooed on his left butt cheek.