Jeep thing or sheep thing?

On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:49:48 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>But just consider that if you had a UNIX shop and needed some cheap X
>workstations
>where all you want to do is buy the machine and turn it on and
>you don't want to have to **** with it, and you want a single-source support
>house to
>complain to in case something goes wrong?
>
>You could go out and buy the latest Sun-created hardware/software for lots
>of money.
>
>You could go out and buy some Macs with OS X for a bit less money.
>
>I don't argue that you can't get some PC's with nice video cards and run
>Xfree86 on some
>UNIX variant on them for less money, but these aren't going to meet the
>single-source vendor support
>demand. That is where I feel the Mac running OS X is superior - for those
>people that have
>such needs.

You are thinking this through logically. I have no issue with what
you believe, whether you are correct or not, because you are making
the decision based on facts you have determined to be important to
you.

Very different from the typical mac idiocy where all you hear is "so
superior to bill gates" as they snivel and whine.

>> The key issue is cost per instruction processed,
>
>This depends on your definition of cost. Many people include the support
>costs in the total cost
>of ownership, just like vehicle sales. And the ownership costs also

I agree, but was keeping as simple as possible. Now that you have
added more complexity, and done so correctly, I of course agree with
your statement. Mostly.

>includes what your support
>employees are familiar with as well. If your in charge of a Mac shop and
>you have a bunch of
>users running some canned app, and you have 2 or 3 guys that know the things
>back and forth,
>then your going to spend a lot more money attempting to replace them with
>PC's, despite the
>fact that the cost-per-box on just the raw hardware is cheaper for the PC.

Depends on the time frame. Over a time period of say 5 years, sure.
Over a time frame of 10 years, especially if Apple goes under,
probably not. The added cost of the hardware plus the cost of
replacing EVERYTHING with PCs and having to train people at a time
that is inconvenient, might be much worse. Nobody can accurately
predict what the costs will be, they can only assume certain things
and hope their assumptions play out.

This is why we have items at the beginning of a document like
"assumptions made" or "assumed facts". If everyone accepts the facts,
then the conclusions can be dealt with, but if the assumptions are not
agreed on, the conclusions are worthless.

>> and nothing beats the
>> PC for that for consumers and the overwhelming majority of businesses.
>
>Ah, I see your backpedaling now. Since when did it go from macs aren't
>superior to "anything"
>to only that they aren't superior for the "overwhelming majority"

Grin! My issue is with those who think macs are superior. Not with
those who feel they are superior in given situations.

On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Here is where I take issue. I used to support MS no matter what. No
>>longer. However, the companies that claim MS is unfair are
>>complaining because MS is better at producing competitive products.
>>There is no monopoly, certainly no illegal one, unless you use your
>>clout in the market to reduce competition AND THEN use the reduced
>>competition to increase profits. >MS has never done this.
>
>I'm not talking about those complaints. MS ordered hardware vendors
>to sell their OS, and only their OS, on their systems. If you want(ed)
>to sell Windows on a PC you had to agree to install only windows.
>That was clearly illegal under US law. Also, although not quite as

Not quite. Microsoft had agreements that required the vendor to pay
for Windows whether they installed it or not. Yes it was found to be
illegal. No, it was not clearly so.

Let's assume a fair price for Windows to a vendor is $50, and the
vendor sells 100 copies a year. They also sell 10 systems with Linux.
That comes out to $45.45 per system, or $50 per Windows system. If
Microsoft sells it to that vendor under the agreement that it is based
on systems sold (regardless of OS) for $40, the vendor wins. That is
not unfair or illegal, no matter what the sleeping judge found.

>crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
>OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
>advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
>list goes on, those are two major issues.

This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things secret"
in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should
know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to
look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly
DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from anyone.

It is conceivable that there are certain functions inside Windows that
only MS can use, but those could only be used by Windows - not by
things like Office - or anyone else could use them.

>>However, there incessant desire to have my system under their control
>>is an issue of contention.
>
>I agree. I still us 98 and win2k instead of XP because of this.
>Frankly, with rare exception, I don't see any "improvements"
>in XP other than those that are there for MS.

Improvements? It sucks. Ever try to network XP with 98 where one
system has NetBeui installed? Can't do it! MS likes to say NetBeui
is not supported. So? It didn't magically stop working - until MS
MADE XP networking NOT WORK when one system has NetBeui and another
does not.

Some MS programmers are very good, people like Don Box who used to
work there. Others are just plain ignorant of how to develop and test
software.

>>Netscape continues to whine about how
>>they lost market share for the product they gave away freely from the
>>day it was introduced, to a product that MS gives away freely - and
>>how that is unfair that MS does what they do!
>
>Wrong issue. The issue again owning the OS and the application, then
>installing your own application. MS has an unfair advantage when it
>comes to grabbing the browser. The browser itself is not really an
>issue for me. However, MS is trying to force it's proprietary features
>and "MS standards" on the Internet via its browser. Active-X, MS
>HTML and CSS interpretations, XML, the list goes on. Their move to
>grab the browser market has nothing to do with the free browser,
>it's about the tie in to other products, standards, and the desktop
>products.

Interesting point, but Netscape was trying to force their standards on
the Internet the same way. Java Script was not invented by Sun, but
by Netscape. Ever heard of JSS? Netscape doesn't follow W3C
standards any better than MS.

Every company tries to get an advantage. There is nothing illegal
there. It becomes illegal when you try to prevent your competition
from succeeding by designing your product to prevent theirs from
working. To my knowledge, that has never been proved.

However, I do agree with your point. That is why I am ****ed at them
with XP - trying to force their views on me.

>>the product themselves, but because Symantec sells it at a reasonable
>>rate that allows MS to concentrate on producing other quality
>>(depending on your view...) products and not on creating a new mouse
>>trap that does exactly what the old one does.
>
>Right idea, wrong company. This is the business of MS.
>XP does exactly what Win2K does. There are some minor enhancements
>that could have been called a service pack or a .1 release. Win2003
>server is even worse in comparison to Win2000 - it's a service pack
>for Active Server and a rebuild of a lame web server. It cost you
>$1200 or so for this "service pack".
>
>WHen it comes to applications,
>I've yet to see any real "improvements" in MS Office, Front Page,
>etc, in the last several releases. The only real changes were in
>the way the products integrate with each other and the Internet.
>That's all part of the MS OD-Application-Internet power grab.

Because other companies stopped innovating also, so they have less
reason to do so. Also, possibly because there is nothing more Office
can do, but ...

I don't want to sound like I disagree because I am upset at this too.
I just don't know if it proves MS did something wrong.

>>Sun, netscape, AOL and a multitude of other companies have chosen to
>>compete in the courts, and the result is that consumers lose. That is
>>not the fault of MS.
>
>Consumers would win with some competition and with MS conforming to
>laws that were passed to avoid one company being able to dictate
>what the marketplace would do.

Agreed.

>Take a look at the Java issue with Sun: MS licenses it and makes
>proprietary extensions to it. Sun sues since this violates both the
>liscense and main purpose of Java - programs that operate across
>platforms. MS says "we won't play anymore"and removes Java support.

Wait. Microsoft had a contract that allowed them to add extensions.
Many documents from Sun's president proved this - he was upset that
Sun agreed to let them.

The COURT ruled that MS had to remove Java support. It did not say
they had to replace it with Sun's version until it realized the error
it made.

>Why does it matter if MS has Java support ? Because at the same
>time they are dictating what browser 80% of users will use simply
>by making it the one that shows up on the desktop when you boot
>up the first time - the OS uncompetitive advantage. Why does MS
>care about (not) including Java ? because if they can't make it
>proprietary, they can't draw developers and users into their
>proprietary fold. Proprietary is their direction, every day, every
>way.

Which may or may not be wrong. Every company makes things
proprietary. Ford, Sony, Bausch and Lomb and Kodac. The issue is if
this breaks the law. A little too complex to figure out here. I do
agree that it is an issue, I just don't agree that MS is any worse
than Sun, Netscape or AOL. AOL was ordered to open up their instant
messaging software, they say they can't, yet they have to keep
modifying it to prevent companies from doing what they say can't be
done.

>You need to look at the global issues and goals of MS to understand
>how these "little" issues add up to the big picture of squashing
>the competition through any means, legal or illegal.

Agreed, and if it is illegal it must be stopped and punished, WIHTOUT
punishing the consumer.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ones that are in the dictionary. Ones that are not created by a
manufacturer

hey ass-clown, "jeep" was not created by the manufacturer! willys may have
got the first trademark on it, but that has nothing to do with its original
creation.

......you know less about jeeping than even i thought.

stool.


--
Nathan W. Collier
'03 Jeep Rubicon
Jeep and let Jeep

http://7SlotGrille.com

Earle Horton wrote:
> "Exit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:0IIMa.55728$%[email protected]...
>> Earle Horton wrote:
>>> Since Daimler is a German name, it would seem to me that that is the
>>> "correct" way to pronounce it. How does one pronounce "Jaguar," by
>>> the way? ;o)
>>>
>>> Earle
>>>
>> But Daimlers are British cars - the luxury versions of Jaguars up
>> until very recently and a British marque in their own right up until
>> the '60's.
>>
>> http://www.daimler.co.uk/history/html/simm&daimler.htm
>>
>> If the correct way to pronounce words is the way the country of
>> origin pronounce it, all Americans speak their language incorrectly!
>> ;-)
>>
> All of the right-speaking English left England for America in the
> seventeenth century!
>
> Earle

If so, what the hell happened since?

--
Julian.
----------
General Melchett from Blackadder describing
his regiments coat of arms:
". . . .two dead Frenchmen atop a pile
of dead Frenchmen. . . . ."

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Methinks you protest too much.

oh yes lloyd.......you have figured me out......im hot for you.


--
Nathan W. Collier
'03 Jeep Rubicon
Jeep and let Jeep

http://7SlotGrille.com

"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > And it is a registeted trademark, so you've got to be careful how you
use
> > it. Like not calling every soda a "Coke" or every copier a "Xerox."
>
> Or every college professor an "idiot..."

BUWAHAHA!!!!!

warn me next time!


--
Nathan W. Collier
'03 Jeep Rubicon
Jeep and let Jeep

http://7SlotGrille.com

"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nathan is right here, and you should apologize to him.

thanks earle, but i wouldnt accept it from him anyway. the only thing i
care to see from feltcher lloyd is him falling dead from loss of blood after
some poor gerbil shreds his colon.


--
Nathan W. Collier
'03 Jeep Rubicon
Jeep and let Jeep

http://7SlotGrille.com

DTJ wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2003 19:49:48 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>But just consider that if you had a UNIX shop and needed some cheap X
>>workstations
>>where all you want to do is buy the machine and turn it on and
>>you don't want to have to **** with it, and you want a single-source support
>>house to
>>complain to in case something goes wrong?
>>
>>You could go out and buy the latest Sun-created hardware/software for lots
>>of money.
>>
>>You could go out and buy some Macs with OS X for a bit less money.
>>
>>I don't argue that you can't get some PC's with nice video cards and run
>>Xfree86 on some
>>UNIX variant on them for less money, but these aren't going to meet the
>>single-source vendor support
>>demand. That is where I feel the Mac running OS X is superior - for those
>>people that have
>>such needs.
>
>
> You are thinking this through logically. I have no issue with what
> you believe, whether you are correct or not, because you are making
> the decision based on facts you have determined to be important to
> you.
>
> Very different from the typical mac idiocy where all you hear is "so
> superior to bill gates" as they snivel and whine.

Don't really hear that much more, particularly since the Mac
went 64 bit and the PC is still stuck at 32.
>
>>>The key issue is cost per instruction processed,

This key issue is important only for naive [i.e. most PC types]
users and managers. Meaningless Indicator of Performance has
been a true expansion of MIPS since the days of big iron mainframes
and is still as much bullwash today as it was then.

For performance, the issue is cost per work performed. If
one platform uses 500 instructions and the other uses 50 to
do the same task, you still know absolutely NOTHING about
performance until you measure the time required to do that
task. Then, if you are not doing just one thing at a time
[and NO current operating system does this], you do your
best to figure out what happens as you try to scale up
and do multiple things, handle more users, more apps, etc.

Or you take the easy way out and throw cheap hardware at
the issue and cross your fingers.

Then, unless you just fell off the turnip truck, you include
the cost of training. And the cost of administration. And
the cost of downtime to install all those software updates.
And the cost to add in worm/virus protection...both internal
software and external firewalls. And the cost of spending
IT resources to remove the ones that got in anyway. And the
cost of downtime to reboot the system to get rid of the
memory and system resource leaks.

The hardware and software costs [except for Oracle] are almost
totally lost as meaningless in this accounting.



>>
>>This depends on your definition of cost. Many people include the support
>>costs in the total cost
>>of ownership, just like vehicle sales. And the ownership costs also
>
>
> I agree, but was keeping as simple as possible. Now that you have
> added more complexity, and done so correctly, I of course agree with
> your statement. Mostly.
>
>
>>includes what your support
>>employees are familiar with as well. If your in charge of a Mac shop and
>>you have a bunch of
>>users running some canned app, and you have 2 or 3 guys that know the things
>>back and forth,
>>then your going to spend a lot more money attempting to replace them with
>>PC's, despite the
>>fact that the cost-per-box on just the raw hardware is cheaper for the PC.
>
>
> Depends on the time frame. Over a time period of say 5 years, sure.
> Over a time frame of 10 years, especially if Apple goes under,
> probably not.

5 years is a long time for a workstation/desktop. 10 years is
museum grade. Granted this seems to be flattening out, as
the applications are having more difficulty hogging all the
resources of a 2-3 Ghz processor with half to a gig of memory,
but personally I believe this to be a temporary lull until the
vendors figure out how to actually put more useful things into
the traditional desktop apps that do require more hardware.


> The added cost of the hardware plus the cost of
> replacing EVERYTHING with PCs and having to train people at a time
> that is inconvenient, might be much worse. Nobody can accurately
> predict what the costs will be, they can only assume certain things
> and hope their assumptions play out.

Odd you should mention this as an ADVANTAGE of the PC. I don't
know of a single user spokesperson who has claimed this as an
advantage... as Windows moved from 3.11b to Win95a to Win95b,
Win/ME, Win/XP, Win/2000, Win/2003. The training expenses are
considerable, a goodly number of apps won't survive, and neither
will considerable hardware. And worse, as Win* moves to 64 bit
hardware, unless Intel gets a clue, pretty much zero applications
and operating systems will survive... even though Win/NT has
been running on other 64 bit platforms for over a decade.
[alpha, mips].

On the other hand, big IT shops still run mission critical apps
on Solaris 2.5.1, and other big ones still run those SAME apps
on Solaris 9 and the upcoming Solaris 10. And run on smaller
memory requirements than any still running windows version.

>
> This is why we have items at the beginning of a document like
> "assumptions made" or "assumed facts". If everyone accepts the facts,
> then the conclusions can be dealt with, but if the assumptions are not
> agreed on, the conclusions are worthless.
>
>
>>>and nothing beats the
>>>PC for that for consumers and the overwhelming majority of businesses.
>>
>>Ah, I see your backpedaling now. Since when did it go from macs aren't
>>superior to "anything"
>>to only that they aren't superior for the "overwhelming majority"
>
>
> Grin! My issue is with those who think macs are superior. Not with
> those who feel they are superior in given situations.


They actually are a bit superior... today, even managing to dent
the small unix workstation market a bit. Tomorrow this may not
be true. And have become overkill for the traditional 3-way
office apps, but then so have most PC's. Personally just pick
the software I want to run, then find iron it will run on.

The Mac also has some very big server range systems...and appear
to be their own worst enemy in making this more public. Personal
opinion is that they still don't understand the issues of that
market overly well.

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Lon Stowell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>
>> but it IS worth noting that you still CAN
>> run Solaris on museum grade hardware, something few other
>> operating systems can do.
>
>
> Nope, not anymore. They removed EISA support from Solaris 8 (x86 of course)
> Progress
> does march on.
>

What museum grade Sun system had EISA in the first place?
Solaris 8 still supports SBUS Sparc and UltraSparc systems.

Not at all bull**** - any programmer with a few days experience knows that
he minimises the impact of change by using the *published* API which is
supported.


Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"DTJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 12:52:02 GMT, 'nuther Bob
: <[email protected]> wrote:
:
: >crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
: >OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
: >advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
: >list goes on, those are two major issues.
:
: This is so bull**** though. It is impossible to "keep things secret"
: in Windows. Any programmer with even a few days experience should
: know how to view the exported functions in a DLL. It is simple to
: look at what DLLs are being loaded. Since the Windows OS is mainly
: DLLS, there is no possibility for MS to "hide" functions from anyone.

Since someone that knows enough to build a big SUV has developed mechanical
sympathy ?

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: Why not? Those jacked-up, huge-tired vehicles are the best and funniest
jokes
: on the road!
:
: (And why is it the big, tough SUVs always slow down and creep over
railroad
: crossings and speed bumps that cars take with ease?)

'nuther Bob wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 03:19:07 GMT, DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>Mac people said "must be a hardware issue"... like that excused
>>>the fact that Mac's *do* crash, even though Mac people claim they
>>>don't.
>>
>>More likely a software issue.
>
>
> Probably. Anytime you can crash the OS it's probably a software
> issue. Applications should be isolated such that they can't crash
> the OS. Mac people could never admit to that though.

You must hang out with different Mac people. Granted it is now
more difficult to drop the OS, as unix tends to be more immune
although the ability of a doofus is still to be grudgingly admired.

>
>
>>Here is where I take issue. I used to support MS no matter what. No
>>longer. However, the companies that claim MS is unfair are
>>complaining because MS is better at producing competitive products.
>>There is no monopoly, certainly no illegal one, unless you use your
>>clout in the market to reduce competition AND THEN use the reduced
>>competition to increase profits. >MS has never done this.
>
>
> I'm not talking about those complaints. MS ordered hardware vendors
> to sell their OS, and only their OS, on their systems. If you want(ed)
> to sell Windows on a PC you had to agree to install only windows.

Actually if you wanted to install any other operating system,
you still had to pay for the windows license on that system.

> That was clearly illegal under US law. Also, although not quite as
> crystal clear, is that MS as a vendor of both the application and
> OS was keeping things secret about the OS that they were taking
> advantage of in their applications - that is also illegal. The
> list goes on, those are two major issues.
>
>
>>However, there incessant desire to have my system under their control
>>is an issue of contention.
>
>
> I agree. I still us 98 and win2k instead of XP because of this.
> Frankly, with rare exception, I don't see any "improvements"
> in XP other than those that are there for MS.

Really aren't that many apps that can take advantage of them
yet. Most app vendors have just minimally modified their app
to avoid it not working on XP, not try to add value.

The licensing and spyware isn't winning any friends in IT
shops tho.

>
>>Netscape continues to whine about how
>>they lost market share for the product they gave away freely from the
>>day it was introduced, to a product that MS gives away freely - and
>>how that is unfair that MS does what they do!

And now that Netscape is gone, Microsoft has done exactly as
their critics predicted and stopped all upgrades to their browser
and all non-native and standalone versions. It is no longer
the leading edge browser in features or standards.
>
> Wrong issue. The issue again owning the OS and the application, then
> installing your own application. MS has an unfair advantage when it
> comes to grabbing the browser. The browser itself is not really an
> issue for me. However, MS is trying to force it's proprietary features
> and "MS standards" on the Internet via its browser. Active-X, MS
> HTML and CSS interpretations, XML, the list goes on. Their move to
> grab the browser market has nothing to do with the free browser,
> it's about the tie in to other products, standards, and the desktop
> products.
>
>
>>the product themselves, but because Symantec sells it at a reasonable
>>rate that allows MS to concentrate on producing other quality
>>(depending on your view...) products and not on creating a new mouse
>>trap that does exactly what the old one does.
>
>
> Right idea, wrong company. This is the business of MS.
> XP does exactly what Win2K does. There are some minor enhancements
> that could have been called a service pack or a .1 release. Win2003
> server is even worse in comparison to Win2000 - it's a service pack
> for Active Server and a rebuild of a lame web server. It cost you
> $1200 or so for this "service pack".

Microsoft is currently raising prices simply because their large
users have refused to replace perfectly adequate MS operating
system versions with new ones based on Microsoft's marching
marketing efforts. And as IT shops figure out just what a PITA
some of the new "upgrades" are, they are upgrading less and less, or
trying Linux for those users willing to risk it.

>
> WHen it comes to applications,
> I've yet to see any real "improvements" in MS Office, Front Page,
> etc, in the last several releases. The only real changes were in
> the way the products integrate with each other and the Internet.
> That's all part of the MS OD-Application-Internet power grab.
>

That appears to be the industry concensus. And appears to be
hurting the chip and hardware vendors even more than Microsoft.
None of the apps really run that much faster on a 2 Ghz chip
than they do on a 1 Ghz chip. In fact, if the 1 GHz chip has
twinned fast PCI bus with good chipset and disks, it is possible
it is faster.

Don't honestly know what will drive the next set of hardware
upgrades. It looks like portability is king right now, but
portability will also wear off any old day now.

None of the public internet stuff is fast enough to even moderately
stress a 1 GHz processor and even gigabit ethernet is a light
load to a 2-3 Ghz system. Not that many folks are really into
realtime video editing [a good hardware cruncher] yet, possibly
due to the lethargic public networks and current DVD devices.
Porn hasn't been a technology pusher for over a decade now.

Hopefully some smart young college kids will think of something
that requires more horsepower and does things folks would really
care [and pay] to do one of these days, and off will go the
hardware wars again.

>
>>Sun, netscape, AOL and a multitude of other companies have chosen to
>>compete in the courts, and the result is that consumers lose. That is
>>not the fault of MS.

MS is not a court-shy company, never has been.

>
> Consumers would win with some competition and with MS conforming to
> laws that were passed to avoid one company being able to dictate
> what the marketplace would do.
>
> Take a look at the Java issue with Sun: MS licenses it and makes
> proprietary extensions to it. Sun sues since this violates both the
> liscense and main purpose of Java - programs that operate across
> platforms. MS says "we won't play anymore"and removes Java support.
> Why does it matter if MS has Java support ? Because at the same
> time they are dictating what browser 80% of users will use simply
> by making it the one that shows up on the desktop when you boot
> up the first time - the OS uncompetitive advantage. Why does MS
> care about (not) including Java ? because if they can't make it
> proprietary, they can't draw developers and users into their
> proprietary fold. Proprietary is their direction, every day, every
> way.
>
> You need to look at the global issues and goals of MS to understand
> how these "little" issues add up to the big picture of squashing
> the competition through any means, legal or illegal.

Simply buying them and shelving the product has been their
traditional route. Wordstar, Visicalc, anyone?

>
> Bob

> Why not? Those jacked-up, huge-tired vehicles are the best and funniest
jokes
> on the road!
>
> (And why is it the big, tough SUVs always slow down and creep over
railroad
> crossings and speed bumps that cars take with ease?)


ALWAYS slow down? You obviously haven't got a clue, or you haven't followed
me.

I'll gladly race you for Pink Slips, but I get to pick the course. Bring
that little-tired piece of crap that you call a car, and I'll bring my Jeep.
On second thought, I don't want anything you would drive, especially after
you used it to try and keep up.

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> >
> >>>Jeepers drive a Jeep during activity known as Jeeping. Jeeping can take
a
> >>>Jeeper in a Jeep many places, most of them unacceptable to Lloyd.
> >>
> >>Ever hear of a thing called a dictionary?
> >
> >Yes. They list "jeep" in there (note the lower case "j" and all the
> >implications that go with it).
> >
> >Marc
> >For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> Mine says a noun only.
>
> And it is a registeted trademark, so you've got to be careful how you use
it.
> Like not calling every soda a "Coke" or every copier a "Xerox."


Are your students as stupid as you are? And are they as liberal?

Jeep is a noun, but Jeeping is an activity, and therefore a verb -- it's
what one does. There are not many vehicles that the owners of can use them
in a manner that the vehicles name becomes a verb. Chevrolet, Chevroletting,
Ford, Fording, Volvo, Volvoing. Motorcycle operators ride bikes, they go
biking, and are called bikers. Technically, most bikers ride Harlies, and
bikers that ride other brands are not called bikers, and Harleyers just
doesn't roll off the tongue very well, so we accept them as bikers.

I drive a BMW, but do not relate to the lifestyle that BMW operators might
be involved with. I do not attend BMW rallies, and BMWs are a dime-a-dozen,
so there is no camaraderie.

I also drive a Jeep, and look forward to going on Jeep runs, called Jeeping.
We have a great deal of camaraderie, and we call ourselves Jeepers, and we
wave to each other as we pass on the highway -- except for the Harley
riders, and perhaps owners of obscure British makes of cars, the practice of
waving to each other is unique among Jeep owners. Owning and driving an open
top Jeep is a lifestyle choice. People that make this choice can recognize
other people that have made this choice, frequently when the vehicle is
nowhere to be seen. It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand.

You drive a Volvo, and this is cause for other Volvo owners to sell and get
a BMW.

"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
> > >
> > >>>Jeepers drive a Jeep during activity known as Jeeping. Jeeping can take
> a
> > >>>Jeeper in a Jeep many places, most of them unacceptable to Lloyd.
> > >>
> > >>Ever hear of a thing called a dictionary?
> > >
> > >Yes. They list "jeep" in there (note the lower case "j" and all the
> > >implications that go with it).
> > >
> > >Marc
> > >For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
> > Mine says a noun only.
> >
> > And it is a registeted trademark, so you've got to be careful how you use
> it.
> > Like not calling every soda a "Coke" or every copier a "Xerox."
>
>
> Are your students as stupid as you are? And are they as liberal?

well I wonder if he supports 11% unemployment like the conservs............

In article <[email protected]>,
"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Jeepers drive a Jeep during activity known as Jeeping. Jeeping can take
>> >>>a Jeeper in a Jeep many places, most of them unacceptable to Lloyd.
>> >>
>> >>Ever hear of a thing called a dictionary?
>> >
>> >Yes. They list "jeep" in there (note the lower case "j" and all the
>> >implications that go with it).
>> >
>> >Marc
>> >For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>> Mine says a noun only.
>>
>> And it is a registeted trademark, so you've got to be careful how you use
>> it. Like not calling every soda a "Coke" or every copier a "Xerox."
>
>Or every college professor an "idiot..."
>
>Earle
>
>
Too bad you never got the chance to call a college professor anything, huh?

In article <[email protected]>,
"Earle Horton" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Nathan W. Collier" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> Jeep is not a real word, but a made-up one
>> >
>> >BUWHAHAHA! what word is _not_ "made up"? do tell me what "natural"
>> >words exist.
>>
>> Ones that are in the dictionary. Ones that are not created by a
>> manufacturer as a brand name and legally used only as a trademark.
>>
>> When "jeep" makes it into the dictionary as a verb, let us know.
>>
>Lloyd, if you have ever taken a course in linguistics, or studied a foreign
>language, or even English (which I doubt) you should know that a language is
>a kind of living thing like a society. All words are "made up," just as
>Nathan says. A dictionary is a snapshot of language and not an authority.
>Language comes first, then the dictionary.

Language becomes accepted when it makes it into the dictionary. Otherwise you
don't have language; you have anarchy.


> Remember when "party" became a
>verb? Did we have to wait for the dictionary people to approve it?

To use it that way properly, yes.


> I think
>not. Nathan is right here, and you should apologize to him.
>
>Earle
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Nathan W. Collier" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Ones that are in the dictionary. Ones that are not created by a
>manufacturer
>
>hey ass-clown, "jeep" was not created by the manufacturer! willys may have
>got the first trademark on it, but that has nothing to do with its original
>creation.
>
>......you know less about jeeping than even i thought.
>

Well, its "original creation" is open for discussion. Every source I've read
says there is no one definitive explanation as to how "Jeep" came to be. Yes,
there was a cartoon character, but there is no evidence that's how "Jeep" can
to be the name of a vehicle. Similarly, "GP" for "General Purpose" cannot be
proven as the precursor either.

Regardless, "Jeep" is now a registered trademark like "Coke" and "Xerox."

>stool.
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
"Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Jeepers drive a Jeep during activity known as Jeeping. Jeeping can take
>a
>> >>>Jeeper in a Jeep many places, most of them unacceptable to Lloyd.
>> >>
>> >>Ever hear of a thing called a dictionary?
>> >
>> >Yes. They list "jeep" in there (note the lower case "j" and all the
>> >implications that go with it).
>> >
>> >Marc
>> >For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>> Mine says a noun only.
>>
>> And it is a registeted trademark, so you've got to be careful how you use
>it.
>> Like not calling every soda a "Coke" or every copier a "Xerox."
>
>
>Are your students as stupid as you are? And are they as liberal?
>
>Jeep is a noun, but Jeeping is an activity, and therefore a verb -- it's
>what one does.

Unless you're named Webster, you don't get to deem sounds to be words.


>There are not many vehicles that the owners of can use them
>in a manner that the vehicles name becomes a verb.

I can't think of any that you can, in proper English.


> Chevrolet, Chevroletting,
>Ford, Fording, Volvo, Volvoing. Motorcycle operators ride bikes, they go
>biking, and are called bikers. Technically, most bikers ride Harlies, and
>bikers that ride other brands are not called bikers, and Harleyers just
>doesn't roll off the tongue very well, so we accept them as bikers.
>
>I drive a BMW, but do not relate to the lifestyle that BMW operators might
>be involved with. I do not attend BMW rallies, and BMWs are a dime-a-dozen,
>so there is no camaraderie.

BMWs are a dime-a-dozen? Looked at BMW vs Jeep sales here?


>
>I also drive a Jeep, and look forward to going on Jeep runs, called Jeeping.

You can call them anything you want; just don't tell others that's proper
English.

>We have a great deal of camaraderie, and we call ourselves Jeepers, and we
>wave to each other as we pass on the highway -- except for the Harley
>riders, and perhaps owners of obscure British makes of cars, the practice of
>waving to each other is unique among Jeep owners.

Maybe Wrangler owners, but I've never seen Grand Cherokee drivers do this.


>Owning and driving an open
>top Jeep is a lifestyle choice.

So it is just Wranglers you're talking about. Why didn't you make that clear?


>People that make this choice can recognize
>other people that have made this choice, frequently when the vehicle is
>nowhere to be seen. It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand.
>
>You drive a Volvo, and this is cause for other Volvo owners to sell and get
>a BMW.
>
>


I do not drive a Volvo. I've never owned or driven a Volvo.

IIRC you lease a Merc as you are "fiscally conservative".

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: In article <[email protected]>,
: "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:
: >
: >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: >news:[email protected]...

: I do not drive a Volvo. I've never owned or driven a Volvo.