Somewhat OT: The JerryLeeCooper Saga

[Josh Coffman]

sry too long and the statements by said person are too stupid to read.


On 9/14/07, David Munson <david.munson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This should not be read by those who experience blinding rage when
> confronted by people who obviously don't know what they're talking
> about, those with heart conditions, those with psychological
> conditions, women who are pregnant or nursing, or any sane human
> being.
>
> This is a little bit (a lot) off topic, but it does relate to Linux,
> so I felt I would pass it along. You may already be familiar with Mr
> Jerry Lee Cooper and his works through digg.com and similar sites. If
> so, you know what follows. If not, and if you wish to bear witness to
> a new level of crazy, keep reading. If you haven't see the dozen or
> more of his complete works, they are presented below, in chronological
> order.
>
> The AUSLUG and PLUG lists have been kind of quiet today, so I figured
> I'd kick up some activity if anyone's listening. What follows is not
> for the faint of heart, and probably not safe for human consumption.
>
> This guy either has no idea what he's talking about, or he's a troll.
> I think he's a troll, but it's up to you to decide for yourself. The
> JerryLeeCooper that comes up on some other forums is probably not the
> same guy, or evidence that this is in fact a troll. I suspect he's not
> the same guy, since the name on the forums shows up some months after
> the ZDnet postings.
>
> Each of these entries is either in response to a ZDnet report or
> editorial, or a comment posted under one of the reports or editorials.
>
> He seems to have something against Linux, and is under the  impression
> that MS is the Lord and Master of All Things Computer. Anyway, I've
> collected his comments off of ZDnet here, in chronological order, for
> your  enjoyment.
>
> A little Google search for < site:talkback.zdnet.com "jerryleecooper's
> comment">, will turn up all his posts in all their glory, but not in
> chronological order, if you want  to see the original stories and
> comments that prompted each insanity.
>
> I have added commentary above each entry, to better clarify the topic
> he's addressing. Each comment of his has a title, and the date it was
> posted. Again, these should all be in chronological order, for better
> enjoyment of the crazy. Same-day posts are arranged in what I perceive
> to be the proper order, but that's just my opinion.
>
> Enjoy, if you dare!
>
>
>
> On Vista:
>
> Vista is the Future
> Its clearly evident that vista is the future.
>
> One only has to watch TV for a short period of time and see the
> advertising.
>
> WOW !!
>
> I personally love the part where the young man is taking a stroll in
> the delightful snow covered streets, and sees firsthand a young deer
> with a gleefull  glint in its eye. It sends a shiver down my spine.
> WOW is all I can say.
>
> Vista is clearly the future of enterprise computing.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 03/13/07
>
>
> On hearing about Linux:
>
> that wont work without THEFT of intellectual property
> Linux looks very interesting, even if some of the screen colours and
> menu options appear to be a little out of the ordinary.
>
> But you are missing a vital point, a point which takes some experience
> and depth of knowledge in the field of computers. You see, when a
> computer boots up,  it needs to load various drivers and then load
> various services. This happens long before the operating system and
> other applications are available.
>
> Linux is a marvellous operating system in its own right, and even
> comes in several different flavours. However, as good as these
> flavours are, they first  need Microsoft Windows to load the services
> prior to use.
>
> In Linux, the open office might be the default for editing your
> wordfiles, and you might prefer ubuntu brown over the grassy knoll of
> the windows desktop,  but mark my words young man - without the
> windows drivers sitting below the visible surface, allowing the linus
> to talk to the hardware, it is without worth.
>
> And so, by choosing your linux as an alternative to windows on the
> desktop, you still need a windows licence to run this operating system
> through the windows  drivers to talk to the hardware. Linux is only a
> code, it cannot perform the low level function.
>
> My point being, young man, that unless you intend to pirate and steal
> the Windows drivers and services, how is using the linux going to save
> money ? Well ?  It seems that no linux fan can ever provide a straight
> answer to that question !
>
> May as well just stay legal, run the Windows drivers, and run Office
> on the desktop instead of the linus.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 03/13/07
>
>
> on being told that Vista might prompt people to choose Linux:
>
> It wont happen
> I dont see how this will happen at all.
>
> Vista is far more powerful than windows XP, and runs twice as fast. It
> is also much harder to pirate, and this point more than anything else
> has the Linux  crowd in a panic.
>
> It wont be long until Windows XP is no longer supported, and when that
> happens, what is Linux going to do ?
>
> Linux will have to find a way to work under Vista from here on, since
> it wont be able to rely on XP being readily available anymore.
>
> Linux may seem like a good alternative to Office, but all that is
> happening in linux is that the windows interface is cleverly hidden
> away. It still needs  the drivers and software services in order to
> run, and in most cases - that happens WITHOUT a valid windows licence.
>
> This is just plain piracy.
>
> Vista will finally put an end to this blatant abuse of intellectual
> property, and linux should decline, taking the pirates with it.
>
> Anyone that supports the continuation of Windows XP in place of Vista
> surely has a hidden agenda .. and you will surely be caught out.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 03/13/07
>
>
> on being told that Linux is a true operating system, and doesn't need
> Windows:
>
> You are kidding arent you ?
> Are you saying that this linux can run on a computer without windows
> underneath it, at all ? As in, without a boot disk, without any
> drivers, and without any  services ?
>
> That sounds preposterous to me.
>
> If it were true (and I doubt it), then companies would be selling
> computers without a windows. This clearly is not happening, so there
> must be some error in  your calculations. I hope you realise that
> windows is more than just Office ? Its a whole system that runs the
> computer from start to finish, and that is a  very difficult thing to
> acheive. A lot of people dont realise this.
>
> Microsoft just spent $9 billion and many years to create Vista, so it
> does not sound reasonable that some new alternative could just snap
> into existence  overnight like that. It would take billions of dollars
> and a massive effort to achieve. IBM tried, and spent a huge amount of
> money developing OS/2 but could  never keep up with Windows. Apple
> tried to create their own system for years, but finally gave up
> recently and moved to Intel and Microsoft.
>
> Its just not possible that a freeware like the Linux could be extended
> to the point where it runs the entire computer fron start to finish,
> without using  some of the more critical parts of windows. Not
> possible.
>
> I think you need to re-examine your assumptions.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 03/14/07
>
>
> on MS vs Unix, and MS marketing tactics:
>
> Scalability is the key
> Much of this analysis consists of splitting hairs over the finer
> details of decisions that were made at the very dawn of the computer
> IT industry.
>
> So Microsoft leveraged their success with DOS off of mainframe systems
> such as the CP/M ? Clunky old machines with green screens and
> keyboards so big and  heavy that they are physically impossible to
> type on. I remember them well.
>
> That was then - lets fast forward now to 2007. Computers are so much
> faster, graphics cards are 3D capable, the keyboards are easier to
> use, and the mouse  makes life a breeze.
>
> And we have the internet - 99% of which runs on Internet Explorer.
>
> How can you be so blind as to say that Microsoft has not given us any
> innovation ? I find that comment simply astounding !! You cant
> honestly suggest that we  would be better off using the CPM machines
> on a mainframe ?
>
> On the surface there are many obvious innovations .. such as a
> graphical system with a mouse, the Office, not to mention the internet
> that is basically a  totally Microsoft platform these days .. (need I
> go on ?)
>
> But if you care to look below the obvious surface, you will find the
> true innovation that Microsoft has bought us. Let me spell it out for
> you :
>
> SCALABILITY
>
> The ability to extend performance above and beyond the ordinary. Thats
> the true innovation that Microsoft has bought to the world, and they
> have done it by  redefining software engineering, and backing it with
> billions of dollars.
>
> Who else has been able to do this ? Nobody that I can see.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 03/22/07
>
>
> on security in OSX:
>
> The extra chip in the Mac OSX
> Very interesting. You mention that the Mac OSX machine includes an
> extra chip that handles the security ?
>
> Well Ill have you know that Microsoft Vista includes a BitLocker in
> the system which takes this a step further. The BitLocker is software
> based, and so protects the data flow within the computer above and
> beyond what happens over the serial line.
>
> In addition to this fact, the Microsoft SQLServer wraps the data in a
> form that can be made accessible on a user by user basis. The Mac OSX
> chip is hardware, and so cannot distinguish activities at the user
> level.
>
> This dual existence of both BitLocker and SQLServer is what is termed
> 'Double Data Protection', which I am sure you will admit is a more
> secure methodology than the single chip that the Mac OSX appears to be
> using.
>
> This gets very exciting when one imagines what might happen when the
> operating system and the SQLServer are integrated as one unit.
> Microsoft will be leading the way in computer security when this very
> vision is realized with the release of the Win FS as part of Vista II.
> You mark my words, it will make the Mac OSX obsolete.
>
> But there is more ....
>
> I happen to have extensive experience at the very heights of the
> corporate enterprise IT, and this includes exclusive contacts deep
> within the heirachy of a certain company in Redmond.
>
> I can assure you that there are moves afoot to include a very similar
> chip that is in the Mac OSX in the next version of Vista.
>
> Whilst not being privy to exact details of discussions at the highest
> level of the corporate IT, I can extrapolate my experience to present
> a scenario which is entirely realistic :
>
> 1 - Microsoft worked alongside the Apple to develop the next
> generation of security measures, using a 'Triple Data Protection'
> scheme involving BitLocker, SQLServer, and an as yet untested security
> chip.
>
> 2 - After providing Apple with its best virus protection algorithms
> (an algorithm is an advanced computer code), Microsoft discovers that
> Apple has no equivalent offering to add to the partnership.
>
> 3 - The partnership dissolves, but Apple pirates the Microsoft
> algorithm, which is designed around the Pentium super chip, and then
> proceeds to convert their machines across to the Intel.
>
> 4 - Apple adds this 'security chip' that you mention, (which more than
> likely contains the Microsoft anti virus algorithm), giving it a
> highly secure offering to bring to the market. An unfair advantage in
> anyone's eyes you would have to admit.
>
> Well, the simple fact that the Mac OSX already has over 700 malwares,
> despite the existence of the security chip AND Microsoft's dearly
> guarded anti-virus algorithm, indicates that Apple does not have the
> expertise to engineer an IT miracle on this scale.
>
> That will all change soon when Microsoft completes the engineering on
> their next generation of Vista.
>
> Hold onto your seats gentlemen, its going to be a blast !!
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 03/22/07
>
>
> on why someone on ZDnet is having problems running Linux:
>
> The linux cannot reliably be employed on modern hardware
> Yes, well, I did receive quite a few pointed 'pointers' about linux
> not requiring windows, but I am yet to be convinced on that score.
>
> I did witness first hand just the other day, a demonstration of a
> machine loading up the linux, and several points piqued my interest
> for sure.
>
> Firstly, the machine loaded into the Microsoft boot sequence prior to
> loading the linux. This is the segment of the operating system which
> counts down the memory, and configures the A:, C: and D: drives prior
> to loading the Microsoft windows. Although the machine did not display
> the familiar windows animation, it was obvious that the linux was
> freeloading off the back of this prior installation/boot sequence. The
> aforementioned demonstrator, upon further questioning, even admitted
> that 'Oh, That part is not the linux', and then went on to confuse the
> issue with technical jargon. However, one cannot mask a simple act of
> piracy with excessive verbosity. A fool and his lamb are worth 2 in
> the bush.
>
> Now - I will admit after some further research, that the linux is not
> in fact a complete copy of Microsoft Windows. My research indicates
> that it is in fact a copy of Unix. I bet you didnt know that young man
> ? Yes, its a straight copy of Unix, even down to copying verbatim
> codefiles straight from the source of Unix. I believe there is a court
> case in progress regarding this latest discovery. The magnitude of the
> theft is now becoming apparent.
>
> However, this remarkable fact may well uncover the answer to Ed Bott's
> mystery linux installation failure. You see, the Unix was designed to
> run within the VHF to UHF spectra (much like a radio), which is all
> well and good until you consider that modern computers run in the
> microwave range, at which regular radio reception starts to have
> serious issues. If one were to use a UHF receiver to tune in to a
> quad-phased broadcast in the Microwave spectra, one would fail
> miserably.
>
> I would wager a bet that Ed Bott's computing apparatus was a more
> contemporary design utilizing a 3GHz central processor unit (or CPU).
> Under such frequencies, the linux would literally tear itself apart,
> its code lacking the internal cohesion to sustain this extreme
> environment. The Microsoft by comparison, is streamlined and
> engineered to withstand this Microwave environment, thanks no doubt to
> the forethought of its designers.
>
> And of this there is ample evidence, which one can easily do an
> msn-search for and witness first hand. All of this evidence is on the
> public record, and cannot be denied.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 03/29/07
>
>
> on Blue-Ray:
>
> blue ray is impractical for the linux
> It comes as no surprise that the linux does not yet find itself
> deployed on the blue ray HD DVD, for a number of reasons.
>
> I think you will find after some investigation that the blue ray HD
> DVD is a patented invention that requires special decryption codes to
> be utilised.
>
> Therefore it would not only be illegal for linux to use the blue ray
> (not that minor questions of legality have ever stopped the Linux in
> the past), but more  so that linux does not yet contain the decrypter
> codes required for this operation.
>
> And so for now, the linux finds itself constrained to the somewhat
> prehistoric CD-ROM format.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 05/27/07
>
>
> on Novell dumping a load of documents to public access:
>
> Leaderships wins the day
> Lets us not waste our energies on pointless arguments over exactly how
> many ways the linux has infringed on other people's intellectual
> property.
>
> The facts have already been proven, and numerous people have made
> declarations in public about the level of corruption that is systemic
> and prevalent in that  particular 'development community'.
>
> Prominent and respected businessmen, such as Steve Ballmer CEO. of
> Microsoft, have already been generous enough to state that the
> evidence exists, and even  enumerate the magnitude of this vile
> misdeed.
>
> But nobody is threatening to sue anyone .. or argue over the who is to
> blame, there is no childish 'Witch Hunt' in progress here.
>
> When one stands on the edge of a smoking crater, the scene of a
> horrific passenger aeroplane accident, a Leader will not run about
> cursing all and sundry for  their part in this tragedy - NAY - A
> Leader stands up and admits that a dark day has fallen upon us, but is
> discrete about the details. The bodies of the  fallen are covered, and
> discussions with next of Kin are kept private. It is enough to know
> that '235 brave souls have lost their lives on this day', and  that is
> enough for us to know.
>
> And so it is that Steve Ballmer has shown both Leadership and
> Discretion of the highest order in this situation. The proven
> magintude of the crime has been  made public, however the details are
> kept respectfully at arms length. In so doing, Microsoft is performing
> a huge service for the linux developers, in not  shining the lamp of
> the accuser too brightly upon their guilty brows ... in effect, giving
> them a second chance to direct some of their energies towards a  more
> productive future path.
>
> It is an act of the highest nobility that is rarely seen in this day and
> age.
>
> No, the real issue at hand here is - NOW that it is well known that
> things have gone wrong, HOW can we restructure relationships in this
> industry such that  their is a way forward to a productive future ? We
> can also look to Novell it seems as bastion of noble intention and
> Leadership in this industry.
>
> The Novell-Microsoft pact is a template for all future relationships
> in the IT industry, with all players in the industry purchasing
> prepaid IP royalty  credits from Microsoft. This makes the entire
> question of IP manageable at last, and streamlines all future IT
> business in a way that truly benefits  everyone.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 05/28/07
>
>
> on buildng a FREE resource for Dell owners using Ubuntu:
>
> A foolhardy investment
> An interesting concept perhaps, but one ultimately doomed to failure.
>
> I would hazard to suggest that such a venture would be like fissling
> good seed onto barren ground, when one considers the target market for
> this ambitious  venture.
>
> Firstly, let us consider the target market. Those who would purchase a
> Dell computer with the linux installed, typically do so with one
> factor predominant in  their mind's eye. That is - they choose the
> linux in order to save money. Any venture that invested resources in
> providing training services to this market  is at a disadvantage from
> the first day, since that market has already classified itself as a
> penny pinching mob, collectively bereft of financial resources.
>
> Secondly, one must consider the technical depth of this target market.
> The linux lacks the shine and technical sophistication of modern
> operating systems,  such as Vista. There is only so much that can be
> taught to customers about the linux before one has exhausted it's
> technical abilities, let alone the shallow  pockets of it's users.
> Selling training for advanced topics such as - Virus Protection, Disk
> Defragmentation Utilities, Job Scheduling, Windows Scripting,  and
> Windows Clustering, Sequel Server .. all great topics that make a firm
> foundation for a lucrative training program .. but these opportnities
> are solely  lacking in the linux world.
>
> And Thirdly, let us consider the professional development of this
> target market. When one enters an University level course in advanced
> computing with a view  to a productive future in the IT industry, what
> exactly do you think they teach students there ? They would hardly be
> teaching the linux, the unix, or the  mainframe in this day and age.
> Nay - Its primarily Windows and Vista that form the foundation of a
> professional career these days. One would only be doing a  half
> hearted disservice to users if you limited the training program to the
> linux.
>
> So whilst I find the idea of offering training to Dell's linux
> customers gregarious and even charitable, I think it is a venture
> doomed to failure, and  surely one which most investors would be
> loathe to back with the resources required.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 05/28/07
>
>
> on building a decent computer for under $500:
>
> No need for Piracy or IP Theft here !
> It is saddening to see articles like this that talk about building
> computing systems, and leave out the necessary costs involved with
> properly licensing the  operating software. There is an unwritten
> suggestion within the article that the user could somehow bypass these
> costs ? or worse - choose a system (Ubuntu),  which will lead the user
> into the dark and uncharted world of freeware - a world where the true
> costs are frighteningly hidden in the details.
>
> I would suggest that in building any computing aparatus, one first
> selects the software required, and then builds the rest of system
> around that.
>
> At the center of this choice would be the Windows Vista of course -
> preferably in the Business edition, at a low price of $299.
>
> That leaves $200 left, and for that money one could purchase a quality
> case for about $50, a Microsoft keyboard and Mouse combo .. another
> $50, and a  Motherboard for $100.
>
> Now - anyone with experience in the computing IT industry would know
> that prices for CPU's, RAM memory, and Hard Disk memory always drop
> significantly over  time.
>
> A top of the line processor, RAM memory and Hard Disk memory may cost
> $1000 at today's prices - however, in a short time frame, these will
> cost only $200.  And so, the wise buyer, by strategically delaying
> their purchase order, will save $800.
>
> A good quality 19" monitor - another $200.
>
> Microsoft Office - add $400
>
> Now lets do the figures :
> $499 for the purchase of the initial equipment.
> + $200 for the upgrades later on.
> - $800 savings by delaying the CPU / RAM / Disk purchase
> + $200 for a monitor
> + $400 for Microsoft Officce
> =
> $499 total
>
> There you have it - a perfectly 'decent' computing machine with a
> legal and licenced copy of operating software (and $1 in change) vs
> $500 for a somewhat  hobbled Ubuntu machine that leaves its user with
> undeclared balance sheet liablity for patent infringements.
>
> Like so many other independent studies have found before .. A properly
> licensed Microsoft solution is not only the safer option, but also the
> lower cost  option as well.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 05/30/07
>
>
> on his lack of mathematical ability:
>
> Yes ME again
> I see that the freeware evangelists are running scared now that their
> days are numbered. In an unbiased comparison, I have independently
> concluded that a legally licensed Windows machine, with a faster CPU
> processor and RAM memory, a bigger screen and a bigger Hard Disk
> memory is cheaper than the ubuntu machine, because of a sound
> investment strategy based on felicitous risk management and foresight.
>
> You said : "You better go back to school because your math is
> definitely not sound. You failed to factor in your $299 (your quote)
> for Vista"
>
> Not so - lets add it up again.
> $299 for the Vista
> $50 for the case
> $50 for the genuine Microsoft keyboard and mouse
> $100 for the motherboard
> Total = $499
>
> What is there not to understand ? The deductivistic summation of such
> figures adds up to $499.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 05/30/07
>
>
> on Google's announcment that a lot of IIS servers are serving malware:
>
> Interesting
> Its a very interesting statistic indeed, and one that bears repeating
> in many an IT department.
>
> Google is a company with extensive internet experience - probably
> second only to Microsoft itself, and one can bet that Google looks at
> all platform options  very closely.
>
> I wonder what exactly can be concluded from this statistic though ?
> Given that Google runs it's internets using Microsoft IIS at the very
> core, they dont  sound too worried about this situation.
>
> Read between the lines of the article though, and the truth is
> revealed in the final paragraph - That these compromised servers are
> running PIRATED versions  of Microsoft IIS, many of which are probably
> also running Linux, another malware of dubious legality.
>
> It would be informative to learn how many of these pirated domains are
> running Microsoft IIS under Vista vs how many are running Microsoft
> IIS under linux ?  As always, the truth is in the details.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 06/06/07
>
>
> on MS using FUD to force FOSS groups to partner with them:
>
> Does the linux have a choice ?
> If one makes the presumption that the modern IT is all about the
> internets, then you have to ask yourself 'Does the Linux even have a
> choice in this matter  ?'
>
> A modern computing system is not one that is run from the DOS command
> line - it is a system that is tied in with the internet instead. Just
> have a look at  Vista with Aero for an example of this done right.
>
> You need the outlook to connect in with the mass of email flowing
> around us every day. And then there is document collaboration - the
> sharing of Wordfiles  and Excels between users across state boundries
> ! Voice over IP, internet enabled 'surface' computing, and voice
> command interfaces - all tied together with  .NET and the Aero
> interface.
>
> The driving force behind this internet is the Microsoft Sharepoint
> Server - a central peice of systems software which connects all these
> end points together,  in a synergistic kaleidoscope that achieves both
> balance and symmetry.
>
> The smart Vendors know that in order to get ahead in the future IT,
> that means integrating with the internet.
>
> And so, we will see more and vendors of the Linux remit their legal
> obligations to Microsoft, and then benefit by getting onboard the .NET
> revolution.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 06/06/07
>
>
> on random rewrites as a secure method of wiping hard drives:
>
> Secure erase not so secure
> When writing finite bits to the disk sector, there is a finite
> probability that the resultant string of randomised bits MAY in fact
> generate something  incriminating.
>
> For example: (regardless of how unlikely this may seem), any string of
> random characters may well create a brand new wordfile on the computer
> by pure chance  .. which contains legible words, which string together
> to form sentences which may in turn connect the previous owner of the
> hard disk with Al-Qaida, the  Mafia, insider trading, un-patriotic
> activites, Linux 'development', or any manner of unsavory activities.
>
> The larger the hard disk being randomly 'wiped' in this fashion, the
> greater the probability that some new and undesirable content would be
> created by  chance.
>
> I for one would NOT place my trust in such a tool, risking a lifetime
> of torment in Guantanimo Bay in exchange for the 'security' of having
> my hard disk  cleaned prior to resale.
>
> The solution ? One should purchase a new copy of the Vista for the
> said hard disk, and install this on the disk. This would effectively
> wipe clean the disk  of any previous content. The disk could then be
> disposed of cleanly, with a note that the new owner must purchase
> another legal copy of the Vista before  installing the disk.
>
> In this situation - everyone wins.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 06/17/07
>
>
> on MS partnering with Linux vendors:
>
> Why is Microsoft doing this ?
> The one crucial question that must be framed is : Why is Microsoft
> paying hard currency for these deals ?
>
> Why would they do that unless there was some other agenda ? I think
> the answer is clear.
>
> Figures from the BSA and RIAA prove beyond all doubt that piracy and
> intellectual property theft is growing at an alarming rate. A recent
> article published  by the US internet crime complaint center
> demonstrates how receipt of its 1 Millionth complaint shows that
> internet based fraud is both rampant and expanding  beyond all reason.
>
> In this environment of lawless anarchy, it is no surprise to find that
> the Linux is right at home, and growing - in the same way that a wurm
> grows fat and  gluttonous when placed in a dark and damp environment
> full of refuse and the despondent cast off's of a wealthy society.
>
> I am not alone in my beliefs that even in this dreadful situation, the
> Linux represents a growing market for the softwares. Microsoft has
> tried for years to  offer their superior office suites and internet
> products to markets outside of the Vista, with little success.
>
> And yet, this is a difficult exersize. Linux represents the old
> school, with its mainframe like interface, and arcane secret
> programming languages. Porting  the softwares to this platform
> involves hiring the hippies who understand this obtuse environment.
> These people are typically unreliable, and have difficulty  living wth
> the regular 9-5 work ethic. They believe in intellectual property
> theft, free love, substance abuse, and marxism.
>
> Microsoft has solved these issues in one brilliant sweep by paying
> cash for access to these Linux secrets, by making these cross patent
> deals with the linux  'Vendors'. This will allow for the
> interoperability that the corporations so dearly wish for - the
> ability to run the Microsoft Office, and the IE7, as well  as the
> Vista on top of this growing but amorphous mass known as 'The Linux'.
>
> In a short time we will all soon see the benefits of these cross
> licencing deals, and the softwares will expand out their user bases
> and be seen everywhere.  Even the most die hard linux afficionado with
> matted hair and a red armband will salivate at the prospect of being
> able to run the IE7 on his precious linux.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 06/18/07
>
>
> on some $150 laptop project possibly being a scam:
>
> MK Electronics
> I have spoken to MK Electronics - a real and established electronics
> firm in Sweden - and also the Medison 'partner' who is handling
> distribution for this  laptop, and according to them, its all real.
>
> This is just bizarre.
>
> Im sure if it was possible to sell a $150 laptop in quantity, then
> Microsoft would already be offering such a product.
> Posted by: jerryleecooper Posted on: 08/08/07
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20070914/6a8e9f74/attachment.htm