Linux-Advocacy Digest #509, Volume #28 Sun, 20 Aug 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows blows ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Windows blows (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (David Pace)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Tim Hanson)
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's (Tim
Hanson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows blows
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 22:34:12 -0400
root wrote:
>
> Windows sucks dick.. every single Microsoft operating system is complete
> garbage.. Anybody stupid enough to bet their business on Microshaft
> products deserves what they get.
>
We all know this. What's your point?
Clue for the newbie: Don't use the ROOT account unless absolutley
necessary...otherwise, you're shortcircuiting the file-permission
scheme and going to have a box that's almost as fucked up as your
windows box.
There's a REASON for "un-privileged" user accounts. USE THEM!
> -Barry
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 22:36:50 -0400
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>In article <399f0303$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel along
>> >the
>> >lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use your
>> >meaningless word).
>>
>> The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the
>> people's
>> representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
>Where has the U.S. Congress stated that companies shouldn't be allowed to
>protect their own intellectual property and should face civil injunctions
>for charging too much (both of these are positions you've taken).
Your coming right out of LaLa land even asking the first question, considering
the various laws protecting intellectual property. On the second there is wide
agreement that companies who artificially manipulate a market in order to
charge more, e.g., gouge the buyer, should face sanctions for essential
products. Your position seems to be that anyone should be always be allowed
to do what ever they want. You are wrong and always will be.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Aug 2000 02:49:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Copies created in RAM are not 'copies' in the copyright sense.
Well, you can listen to Mad Max, but if you live in the Western states
you'd better listen to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which appears
to have a different opinion --
We have found no case which specifically holds that the copying of
software into RAM creates a "copy" under the Copyright Act. However, it
is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer
constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act. See e.g.
Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 260 [7 USPQ2d 1281]
(5th Cir. 1988) ("the act of loading a program from a medium of storage
into a computer's memory creates a copy of the program"); 2 Nimmer on
Copyright, Section 8.08 at 8-105 (1983)("Inputting a computer program
entails the preparation of a copy."); Final Report of the National
Commission on the New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, at 13
(1978) ("the placement of a work into a computer is the preparation of a
copy"). We recognize that these authorities are somewhat troubling
since they do not specify that a copy is created regardless of whether
the software is loaded into the RAM, the hard disk or the read only
memory ("ROM"). However, since we find that the copy created in the RAM
can be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated," we hold that
the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright
Act. 17 U.S.C. Section 101.
_MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1458 (1993)
Again --
TMax: "Copies created in RAM are not 'copies' in the copyright sense."
Ninth Circuit: "[T]he loading of software into the RAM creates a copy
under the Copyright Act."
You can decide who to believe.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Aug 2000 02:56:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>If you accept the theory that statute models the reality of intellectual
>property ...
I guess that's my problem. I don't accept that theory. I think that
the copyright statute is the result of a series of compromises between
various interests. (That's one of the reasons why it took twenty years
to draft the Copyright Act of 1976.)
But, assume the theory is correct -- that the statute models the reality
of intellectual property. Then how do you explain the substantial
differences in the copyright statute before the 1976 Act and after its
adoption? Was there some change in reality that took place about that
time?
Or did Congress just decide to try a different approach?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Windows blows
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 02:58:57 GMT
http://www.binary.net/thomcat/Sign.html you've earned it.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 13:13:17 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nmrti$o04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8nmmh1$r4f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Hindsight is always 20/20.
> > It could have, which was the point - it is not Microsoft's
responsibility
> to
> > test or fix other people's software. Plus, given those problems it
> already
> > did have and Windows' intimate manipulations of DOS a _warning_ about
> non-MS
> > DOSes was hardly surprising.
>
> The fact is that DR-Dos did run Windows better and more reliabily than
> MS-Dos, which is why that message was created.
I know, I used it.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:26:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <399f0303$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel along
>> >the
>> >lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use your
>> >meaningless word).
>>
>> The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the
>> people's
>> representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
>
>Where has the U.S. Congress stated that companies shouldn't be allowed
>to protect their own intellectual property and should face civil
>injunctions for charging too much (both of these are positions you've
>taken).
No, they're straw men created by you because you can't seem to deal with
the issues.
Every time somebody sues for infringement and loses, the law more
clearly defines how you *aren't* allowed to "protect your intellectual
property", or what you claim is your intellectual property. As for
profiteering, I think its more a matter of the restraint of trade
necessary to artificially restrict the supply, and monopolization of the
demand, which are illegal, rather than any quantitative assessment of
what "charging too much" means.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:27:58 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >You, appear to be arguing from a position of ingorance, since your
> >statements here make it appear that you have not read the threads that
form
> >the source data of this discussion.
>
> That's not an "argument from ignorance", BTW. And I observed the
> portion of the thread being discussed contemporaneously.
>
> >Unless you have, your arguments here
> >are threories with no basis in fact. Far as I am concerned, without an
> >consulting the source data, this discussion is pointless and I consider
this
> >thread fragment as terminated.
>
> Does that mean you'll shut up now? ;-)
What that means, is that trying to discuss anything with you seems to be a
fruitless task, considering that you seem to be more concerned with form
over substance.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:39:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [...]
>> >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel along
>> >the lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use
>> >your meaningless word).
>>
>> Its not meaningless, and civil injunction against profiteering is a
>> necessary part of a free market system. Whether or not you can say a
>
>Bullshit.
>
>You just said that in a free market system, the market decides when a
>company is charging too much. Now you're saying civil injunctions are
>needed.
Yes, this can be confusing. Both "the market" and "civil injunction"
are abstractions, so it seems appropriate to equate them in this way.
But it isn't; 'the market' is an affect, without any motivation or
intent. "Civil injunction" supplies the necessary cognizance of the
environment in which the market works; free enterprise requires
knowledgable consumers, or it simply isn't free. It is a civic
requirement to ensure that the market remains free. This conscientious,
if not conscious, embodiment of "the public good" over-rides the desires
of any one vendor or consumer in the market.
>In a free market system, there's no such thing as profiteering. The
>concept doesn't even exist.
Funny, it turns out it does. What you seem to be getting confused on is
that when profiteering occurs, its no longer a free market system. You
see?
>If the customer is willing to pay the
>vendor's price, a transaction occurs and the price was not excessive. If
>the price is excessive, the customer doesn't pay and no transaction
>occurs.
The fact that you can reason through the amoral nature of a single
transaction does not necessarily equip you to grasp the abstractions
necessary to understand free enterprise.
>A civil injunction, by definition, is the complete opposite of a free
>market system.
A free market system is not anarchy; it is a system. Social
responsibility is the legal framework in which that system exists, and
civil injunction is the ethical substance of that system. Without a
gathering place relatively free from thugs and thieves disguised as
vendors, there is no free market.
>> company which only protects property with copyright in order to extract
>> exorbitant profits on treating it like a trade secret is 'profiteering',
>> I will admit that is debatable. Are you unable, or simply unwilling, to
>> debate it?
>
>I've already debated it -- over and over.
No, I mean specifically. You haven't debated it at all; I haven't read
the phrase 'trade secret' used by you in any cogent fashion. You've
managed to insist profiteering 'doesn't exist', but you haven't debated
anything at all, really.
>You have this bizarre idea that you're defending a free market economy
>when you dream up all these things that should be used to _interfere_
>with buyers and vendors reaching an agreement on price.
No, they should be used to prevent anything but market supply and market
demand, in order to allow the most efficient method of both acquiring
goods and ethically profiting on capital investment for the good of the
community and the *people* in it, who are both buyers and sellers, all.
It might sound like a social form of capitalism, but it is certainly not
a socialist idea. In order to protect free markets, it is necessary to
defend them against the unethical behavior of one vendor preventing the
open commerce of another. If every consumer were *perfectly*
knowledgable, we wouldn't need such civil injunction; people wouldn't
get trapped into being at the mercy of a profiteer. But that would
require, at minimum, every vendor to be ethical. The inherent conflict
should be self-evident. Quit with your idealistic rhetoric; it doesn't
do anyone any good, you least of all.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:44:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
> You had a knee jerk reaction to my suggestion that your company should
>> avoid taking advantage of your customers by artificially restricting
>> access to the benefits of your product. I never said anything at all
>> about your company "shouldn't be allowed to exist" or "the bare minimum
>> to survive". You're acting hysterical.
>
>No, I'm not.
>
>You keep coming up with artificial things that would interfere with my
>ability to charge what I want. That's the exact opposite of a free
>market economy.
I hate to break the news to you, buddy, but the rules aren't 'if its not
the way I like it, its not a free market'. Those "artificial things"
are called "market forces", and you're *supposed* to be at the mercy of
them, just like every other buyer or seller.
>THEN, you started blathering about how trade secrets shouldn't be
>allowed (of course, the fact that you didn't even realize that a trade
>secret was a form of intellectual property makes your opinion somewhat
>less than worthless, but that's a separate issue).
No, I said trade secret law shouldn't be allowed to be used as a
smoke-screen to prevent the full benefit of copyrighted works from being
enjoyed by those who have spent money to acquire a copy of the work.
But I'm beginning to doubt you can even parse that sentence.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:47:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>It's hard to believe that anyone with so little clue as to how business
>works would keep posting this drivel.
Hmmm...
>First of all, the "market" is nothing more than the sum of individual
>transactions. My comment is completely accurate.
>
>Second, if my product isn't easily replaceable, that's too bad for the
>market. I can charge what I want. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
>Your position is that if there are no competitors, the government, or
>Linux advocates, or someone should step in and tell me how much to
>charge. That's absurd.
>
>Third, limiting companies who invent new products to "rock-bottom
>prices" would be the end of innovation as we know it. Why should I risk
>my money to develop something entirely new when fools like you would
>prevent me from profiting from it (or would limit how much I should
>charge)?
I don't know. Far as I've seen, "rock-bottom prices" for innovation are
pretty profitable, if you can get them. How does your publishing your
work make *me* responsible for preventing you from profiting from it?
Why have you convinced yourself that I have said somewhere that you
should be limited by anything but market forces in how much you can
charge?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: David Pace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 03:49:06 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Understanding Race conditions is one of SEVERAL reasons why any
> > > application
> > > programmer (at least those who want to achieve excellance) should
> > learn
> > > about the process scheduler for the platform on which they program.
> >
> > Depends on your definition of application doesn't it?
> >
> > If you're talking a single threaded, single process application, how
> > do race conditions even apply?
> >
> > If you're talking multiprocess or multithreaded processing then I can
> > see why race conditions are important, but I still don't see why anyone
> > would need to know how the scheduler works.
> >
> > > > I'm waiting for his response. I'm still waiting. I'm still waiting
> > for his
> > > > response to the question "Why do I, an application developer, need
> > to
> > > > understand how the scheduler works?". He never did respond.
> > >
> > > I already told you: Race Conditions.
> >
> > Previously you said I would need to know about the scheduler. Now you
> > seem to think I need to know about race conditions.
> >
> > Please expand on what you mean. I can't see that every application
> > needing to consider race conditions - which is what you appear to be
> > saying.
>
> I never implied that *EVERY* application has race conditions.
> However, any programmer who keeps himself IGNORANT of process
> scheduling and race conditions is going to step on a land mine,
> and NEVER figure it out.
>
> Multi-process simulations.
>
> Let's suppose I'm simulating a battlefield, and, to make the task of
> modelling each entity, I have decided to model each unit, weapon,
> building, even the terrain, as a seperate processes.
>
> Now...all you have to do is to have each process write to an "input"
> pipe or socket of another process which it is interacting with.
>
> Let's say that all messages to the map consist of 3 parts
>
> A) Header (which Process is sending this message?)
> B) Map Coordinate
> C) Information request (elevation, terrain type, etc.)
> or Action (small-arms fire, tank running through building, etc.)
>
> Let's say we have 3 processes:
>
> Process A which is a "target" for the actions of two different
> processes.
>
> Process 100 is the map, and listens to pipe /tmp/pipe_100
> Process 105 is a unit which is moving, and needs to ask the map
> what kind of terrain it is traversing.
> Process 123 is another unit which is firing a cannon at some
> some point on the map.
>
> Process 123 writes the "preamble" of it's message to /tmp/pipe_100.
> Before it gets to the main body of it's message, Process 123 loses
> the CPU. In the intervening time, Process 105 writes to /tmp/pipe_100
> with a simple request for terrain information at it's location.
> Sometime later, Process 123 finishes writing it's message to
> /tmp/pipe_100
>
> so, the data in the pipe looks like this:
>
> Data Map process's Interpretation
>
> [Proc 123 process ID header] [Proc 123 header]
> [Proc 105 process ID header] [Proc 123 map co-ordinates]
> [Proc 105 map co-ordinates] [Proc 123 ?????]
> [Proc 105 terrain info request] [Proc ??? header]
> [Proc 123 map co-ordinates] [Proc ??? map co-ordinates]
> [Proc 123's Cannon-fire event] [Proc ??? Cannon-fire event]
>
> Now...what's going to happen?
>
> Proc 123 is listening to /tmp/pipe_123, expecting the map to start
> up a dialogue to resolve the outcome of the cannon fire...but
> instead, gets the results of a terrain-info request which it did
> not make.
>
> Proc 105 is listening to /tmp/pipe_105....and is stuck, because the
> information it is waiting for is NEVER going to show up in the pipe.
>
> Meanwhile, some other process, listening on /tmp/pipe_??? is going
> to issue some request to the map (eventually), and the pipe is already
> filled with the Cannon-fire event from proc 123's garbled communication.
>
> Someone who doesn't understand the task scheduler is likely to
> allow this sort of situation.
>
> Conversely, someone who DOES understand process scheduling will
> realize that
>
> a) write(2) is guaranteed to NOT be interrrupted by a context switch.
> that is...the context switch will be ignored until the write(2)
> requests transfers the data into the filesystem I/O buffers.
>
> b) printf(3) is NOT guaranteed to transfer the output into the
> buffers completely uninterrupted by context switches.
>
> c) the use of printf(3) allows the race condition above to occur.
>
> d) the use of 3 seperate writes (proc ID, co-ordinate n-tuple,
> and request/event) ALSO allows the race condition above
> to occur
>
> therefore
>
> e) EACH PROCESS ***MUST*** scribble it's own output into it's
> own internal buffer, and then ***MUST*** use write(2)
> to transfer the entire message in ONE PIECE to the
> filesystem pipe.
>
> The programmer who is ignorant of the operation of the scheduler
> is going to have unexplained errors which he will NEVER NEVER
> NEVER understand until he learns about process scheduling.
>
> ANOTHER reason to learn the process scheduler's algorithm is to
> prevent processes from suffering from CPU starvation.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
what if "cat" really spelled dog?
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 03:50:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> >> Freedom of choice is what GNU/Linux/OSS is all about.
> >
> > Yup, and competition _always_ drives innovation. That's it, bottom
> > line.
>
> Thanks, I was waiting for somebody to make that point.
>
> To the extent that there is a 'war' between gnome and kde,
> there will be no real losers. The freedom of the software
> ensures that the best ideas (and likely at least some code)
> from one product will migrate to the other. Vigorous
> competition and free information flow virtually guarantee
> that the winner will be the finest software component platform
> ever seen.
What it does is put the pressure on the KDE team to do what they have
refused to do in the past; get along better with GNOME developers in
terms of interoperability, and dump that hokey lecensing / kickback
scheme of theirs, or risk marginalization. This is the perfect example
of competition in the public interest.
--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good
with ketchup."
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 03:55:38 GMT
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
> In article <8nk4id$s5e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8nk3t3$e03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> The point is that Funkenbusch has devoted a lot of energy
> >> in the last six months to justifying and excusing Microsoft's
> >> DR-DOS-killer message, and some of its other deceptive and
> >> coercive acts.
>
> >There wasn't a "killer message". There was a *non-fatal error message* in
> >the _beta_ displayed when non-MS versions of DOS were being run.
>
> That error message is colloquially known as the
> "DR-DOS Killer" because it was designed to kill
> *sales* of DR-DOS.
Actually it was beta, but that's the copy that went out to OEMs, on
which they made their decisions about retaining or replacing DR-DOS.
After that beta went out to the OEMs, DR-DOS saw its sales shrink.
--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good
with ketchup."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:05:06 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel along the
>>>lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use your
>>>meaningless word).
>>
>>The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the people's
>>representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
>Where was that. I doubt it was in the current context, but I'd be interested
>in hearing about it anyway.
No it isn't in the current context, never the less the issue comes up from
time to time, and has since 1776. Usually the talking heads on the network
news don't mention the issue, or they don't use the word profiteering -- but
its there in the story. In the recent times (last 10 years) it comes up most
often on health care, and the pharmaceutical industry, but we saw it on the
price of gasoline earlier this year too.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
