Linux-Advocacy Digest #547, Volume #28 Mon, 21 Aug 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Shocktrooper")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Chad Irby)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Chad Irby)
Re: Om (Sphere)
Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to strip you of
your own rights ("Thermodynamic")
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Programs for Linux (Gerrit Knol)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:36:30 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> >But we have what we want, we are happy with it. What we don't want it to
> >have it taken away.
>
> Well, you know what his response is going to be. That nobody's taking
> anything away from you; you'll still be able to use old kernels, or
> write your own. The emptiness of this position is not necessarily
> obvious at first glance, so you can understand why trolls keep bringing
> it up over and over again. Not that everybody who has done so is a
> troll; I've used it myself to refute those same trolls' claims on
> occasion. The key, of course, is being able to tell when it is
> appropriate and when it is not.
>
> Here's my thoughts on that: If it is used as an excuse for ignoring the
> desires of a consumer, it is empty. If it is used as an excuse for
> ignoring the desires of a producer, it is irrefutable. This also
> explains why developers like Roberto (I mean that as a characteristic,
> not an ad hominem attack) tend to have trouble deciding when its
> appropriate; they are all consumers, as well as producers. There is,
> indeed, an elitist movement within open source software (and in the end
> it is a good thing, so long as it does not lead to second-guessing of
> business markets) that says that there should be no consumers who are
> not producers. This is the underlying "communist/socialist" aspect,
> occasionally considered "hippie/flower-children", to OSS. Its true, of
> course, and something that, in fundamental principle, any hard core
> Republican conservative or libertarian objectivist must agree with;
> everyone *should* be a producer, as well as a consumer. But the only
> way that is even remotely possible is with completely free software and
> completely free markets. That doesn't mean "unrestrained by laws", of
> course, but unfettered by restrictions on liberty.
Perhaps it is time for me to restate my position in on this issue. It has
been about a month since that last time.
I am not against providing users who prefer the Microsoft Windows interface
a Linux environment that they are comfortable with. I am in favor of
providing a Windows 9x interface for those the would want it. I am in favor
of providing a Windows 3.x interface for those who would like it. I am in
favor of providing an OS/2 Presentation Manager interface for those who
would like it. I am in favor of providing a Macintosh interface for those
who would like it. I am in favor of a providing any user the working
environment of their choice on Linux. I would want any user comming to
Linux to be able to feel comfortable and right at home with Linux,
reguardless of the OS that they are migrating from, or have used and liked,
this includes all Linux and unix interfaces and anything new that may come
down the turnpike.
In today's windowing systems for unix and Linux, this can be accomplished
through writing a window manager and possibly its support libraries. These
multiple interfaces should not be exclusive, but at the same time they sould
be independent enough so that no one interface imposes any changes, limits,
or conditions to affect other interfaces, programmers, or users that choose
not use it.
One of the hallmarks of Linux as been its stability, flexibility, and
reliability. There is a movement to integrate more and more user space
programs into kernel space. This is bad and I can not support those
efforts, because those actions destroy the stabiliity, flexibility, and
reliability that we have all come to expect from Linux. A serious flaw in
any part of the graphical user interface implemented in kernel space could
take down the entire system. When the worst that can happen today, without
the integration, is that X dies and leave the video in strange condition,
but the system overall continues to function. The claimed reason for
intergrating the GUI into the kernel is for better performance by the
reduction of context switches. However context switches on Linux are much
more efficient and less time consumming than they are on many other OS
including Windows, which is were this idea comes from. This is too much
loss of stability for too little gain. If an intergrated GUI were to touch
or tamper with parts of the system memory that it should not, could alter
the behavior of Linux in a way that could reduce Linux's reliability. RIght
now, Linux had no official GUI. We use the X Windows System with window
managers and support libraries. There is nothing preventing the development
of a brand new windowing system that is not related to the X Windowing
System. If X were in some way integrated into the kernel, it could form an
impediment against developing other GUI's, that would be the loss of
flexibility.
All the foregoing should be user level issues, giving users interfaces that
they are comfortable with are not systems level issues. But there are many
statements, and ideas, being tossed around that we long time users find
troublesome. There are statements like "The Linux community will have to
accept changes" and "Linux needs full GUI integration into the kernel".
There is an example systems level changes that are contrary to the Linux
traditions. That is the Corel Linux distibution. Consider the way that it
rescans your hardware and rewites your system configuration files on every
reboot. If the scan fails for your hardware and you make any configuratoin
changes, next reboot they are lost. Unless you perform major surgery.
We are told that if it is rescan software is broken we should repair it.
This reaction fails to note that the sysadmin should be in charge of the
system and should respected to know the system's hardware requirement. Even
if there is no real sysadmin for a host, then the user in charge of the
system should be so respected. But what about the user that knows nothing
about his hardware? The the installation procedure detect the hardware,
offering it findings to the person doing the installation. That person
should be able to override the hardware detect and that modified information
should be used to configure the system. When new hardware is installed or
hardware is removed or otherwise modified, the person incharge of the
hardware could, if he like, run the hardware detection program and then
either again be given the chance to override what has been autodetected.
This is using the computer as an assistant and not a supervisor. My
suggested behavior of this process provides support for everyone for the
rawest beginner to the most seasoned old timer, it also protect against
misdetection uncommon, or flaky, or cutting edge hardware. Just because
Microsoft has implemented this process to behave this way in Windows and
still have not got it right after all this time, why should Linux copy that
same ill concieved behavior?
So I am not arguing that people should not be given what they need, I am
arguing that Linux retains what makes it Linux, provide support for all
classes of users without impinging on the others.
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:49:32 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Chad Irby in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> If you want to give typical definitions understood by most people for
> >> simplicity, then "having a monopoly is illegal" is certainly the
> >> simplest way of doing it, as well as the most correct.
> >
> >Only in the minds of some radical free-marketers.
>
> Now that's a new one. Radical free-marketers are generally the ones
> that think its OK to monopolize.
...and they're also the ones who scream to the sckes about "restraint of
the free market" when someone like Microsoft gets caught, and come up
with specious arguments about how true "free trade" will correct itself,
eventually.
> >Microsoft has had a monopoly in the operating systems business for a
> >good solid decade (more like 15 years), and has been left relatively
> >unmolested in that time. It took a lot of really obvious, in-your-face
> >anticompetitive practices for them to finally get in trouble ofr the
> >things they did.
>
> They've been under investigation, essentially, since the late 1980s.
> They've had a monopoly based on pre-load per-processor agreements and
> such since the mid-80s, at the latest.
Yup. And they didn't get into any real trouble until the mid 1990s.
What does that tell you?
> >Other companies that have been in trouble for similar tactics:
> >
> >Coca-Cola (which gets nailed from time to time for anticompetitive
> >practices.)
>
> To prevent them from having a monopoly.
Nope. To keep them from using their monopoly position in many areas to
knock other companies out of business.
> Everyone knows you can get Pepsi at almost as many places.
Mostly because, back in the 1970s and 1980s, Coca-Cola got slapped
around by the FTC for abusing their monopoly.
> from the Microsoft case.
>
> I fail to see why a laundry list of companies who've had anti-trust
> trials is supposed to support the idea that "having a monopoly is
> illegal" is a radical statement.
...and you still haven't come up with one single example where a company
with an existing monopoly got nailed by the Feds for just having a
monopoly.
> The point is that once it is shown that a company has a dominant market
> share and *could* act predatorially, the *company*, not the prosecution,
> has the burden of proof of showing they didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't
> use it, if they are accused of doing so.
If that's your point, it's a bad one.
In every case I cited, companies didn't get into trouble for a
*possible* problem - they got into trouble for actually taking part in
anticompetitive acts that were made public.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:54:59 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > The president doesn't create the budget, he only has the power to
> > > > approve it in it's entirety or return it to congress, now who has
> > > > really been creating the budget deficit for the past 20 years? And
> > > > who in the past four has managed to turn it (the deficit) around?
> > >
> > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why are
> > > they
> > > trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> >
> > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to USENET?
>
> Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the Republicans
> have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or significantly
> reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even farther.
And I suppose the Democrats are just going to let that surplus sit there
reducing the debt, rather than spending it on bigger government health
care and *ahem* Gore's own $500 billion in proposed tax cuts?
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 00:54:06 GMT
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 19 Aug 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>
> >> You know better - MS is a monopoly that's been found to abuse it's power.
> >
> >Just because I know it, doesn't mean I have to agree with it.
>
> "Agreeing" and "ignoring" are different things unless you're a meglomaniac.
>
> ..
>
> >> What Chris wants he makes up.. This is make-believe - why not pretend
> >your Bill
> >> Gates or Sha-zam?
> >
> >Of course I make up my own opinions.
>
> Facts are not opinions. You make up your own facts while ignoring those you do
> not like. The distinction is lost on you.
>
> The Judge's Finding of Fact isn't an opinion. It's the factual finding of a
> court which represents the interests of The People.
Would this be the same "The People" whose representatives found OJ not guilty of
murder?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:06:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
>Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > The point I believe I'm trying to make, is that if Microsoft's
>> > behaviour only becomes illegal when they are a monopoly, why should
>> > actions they undertook before they were ruled one, be accountable,
>> > when the line between monopoly and not monopoly is not simply a line
>> > in the sand that everyone knows when it is stepped over ?
>>
>> You're still sticking with that fallacy that they have to be "ruled a
>> monopoly" before they can get in trouble for being one?
>>
>> They don,'t so you can rest your weary mind about it.
>>
>> You can be a monopoly without the government telling you that you're
>> one, and you can get into trouble for the bad things you do as a
>> monopoly without any sort of legal advance notice.
>
>By his argument, I'm free to rob his house. After all, I won't be
>convicted of the crime until long after it happens, so when I do it, I
>won't be guilty.
The problem is the inherent illogic in the claim "it is not illegal to
have a monopoly", even though the law clearly states 'it is illegal to
monopolize or to attempt to monopolize'. He was logically correct in
pointing out (though he did a really bad job of it) that if one has to
be found guilty of monopolizing before one can "use one monopoly to
build another" or whatever the popular wisdom is, then nobody could
possibly ever be convicted of monopolizing, as the conviction would be
predicated on itself and no prior legal decision.
The fact is, the claim that it is possible to have a legal monopoly is
false. So-called "natural monopolies" are simply not monopolies in the
legal sense, just as no particular amount of market share is necessary
to be considered "a monopoly". The basic legal requirements are: 1) you
have enough market share to act predatorially, and 2) you act
predatorially. Which is to say "building, having, maintaining, or
keeping a monopoly is illegal". That's not to say that everyone who
could be accused would be convicted, there are still the big three 'per
se' defenses: lack of intent, lack of ability, or lack of success. But
these merely show that no predatorial activity occurred, at best, not
that monopolization is ever legal.
--
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: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:06:06 GMT
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Plenty of people have suggested that Gates and company
> should be locked up or worse and that they are now
> known criminals. My point was that the law is vague
> and Microsoft had not had proper notice that parts of
> its business are legally a monopoly.
Yeah, I guess the ten to fifteen years that Microsoft has been under
investigation for antitrust violations just isn't enough for them...
"Wait a minute! You mean that Consent Decree we signed in the mid 1990s
actually *meant* something! No!"
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:08:07 GMT
Larry Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You miss the point. Virtually any company that
> has customers can be defined to be a monopoly
> if the market is construed narrowly enough. If
> that determination can only be made arbitrarily,
> we have rule by judge's whim rather than rule by
> law. And please don't tell me that the DOJ's
> reading of the law should be considered adequate
> notice.
No, but the continued investigation of Microsoft for antitrust
violations since the late Reagan years might have been a clue, along
with the precious Consent Decree.
And if you seriously think Microsoft didn't *know* they were a monopoly,
you're out of your mind.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Sphere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Om
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:11:44 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Sphere
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 19 Aug 2000 17:37:31 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> >
> >I know that, but your "art" is
> >somewhat lacking (IMHO).
>
> Not all artists can be Michangeloes. :-)
>
> In any event, this more or less answers your question, at least
> in a trivially stupid way, in *my* opinion. One might consider the
> minimal number of characters needed to solve a problem
> (given a standardized environment of course, else someone can
> get ridiculous and move the code somewhere else where it
> won't be counted but will be included). There are some issues
> here regarding variable and structure field names ('i' as opposed
> to 'record_index', 's' as opposed to 'data_sum', that sort of thing).
>
> Or one could do a computation based on object size (in which
> case all of my examples would compile down to .o files that
> are identical in size, except possibly for trivial issues such as a
> sourcecode pathname or variable name stored in a debug area).
>
> One could also do wholesale algorithm replacements -- e.g.,
> substituting hash sort for bubble, hash or binary lookup for
> straight linear, even SQL queries in lieu of fetching info from
> an ASCII or binary flat file. (In the case of DeCSS, the algorithms
> are most likely going to be implementations of a certain form
> of cryptography, the details of which I forget at this time.)
> These sort of replacements will of course have various effects
> on the space-time characteristics of the solution -- e.g., a
> bubble sort is very slow on large unsorted datasets, but does
> not require more than linear space; a hash or tree sort is
> much faster on large datasets, but requires linear-log space
> (O(N log N)).
>
> Perhaps this is what you meant? It's not quite the same binary,
> but solves the same problem, although not necessarily using
> the same time or space -- and is probably far more interesting.
What I mean is: How do we cause the most
amount of trouble for the people who would
censor DeCSS?
The less they can fall back upon a utilitarian
argument the better.
> >
> >
> >
> >The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Sphere
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Fri, 18 Aug 2000 10:58:18 GMT
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >...
> >> >>
> >> >> If you honestly give a damn about this, quit making sophomoric posts of
> >> >> DeCSS and instead contribute dollars to the various defense funds
> >> >> through the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org). The
> >> >> right to wear the clothing of your choice is the next MPAA target.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Did that already.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I'm just proposing a new art form. How many
> >> >versions of the source can compile to the
> >> >same binary?
> >>
> >> An indefinite number.
> >>
> >> - - -
> >>
> >> #include <stdio.h>
> >> #define PROG_HELLO_MESSAGE_1 "Hello, World!\n"
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> printf(PROG_HELLO_MESSAGE_1);
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - - -
> >>
> >> ("PROG_" was selected so that it doesn't conflict with already-existing
> >> #defined symbols).
> >>
> >> Silly, I know...but one can increment the '1' in HELLO_MESSAGE_1
> >> and generate an indefinite number of source files (limited by
> >> preprocessor macro length, presumably). Or one can use base 63
> >> (10 digits + 26 uppercase + 26 lowercase + underscore) and get
> >> things such as HELLO_MESSAGE_A, HELLO_MESSAGE__, and
> >> HELLO_MESSAGE_fooBar1bhil23ZZQ14_feeb_3bhqocl.
> >>
> >> Any non-preprocessor identifier can take the same treatment,
> >> if this isn't big enough...
> >>
> >> - - -
> >>
> >> #include <stdio.h>
> >> #define PROG_INT_1 int
> >> #define PROG_MAIN_1 main
> >> #define PROG_PRINTF_1 printf
> >> #define PROG_HELLO_MESSAGE_1 "Hello, World!\n"
> >> #define PROG_RETURN_1 return
> >>
> >> PROG_INT_1 PROG_MAIN_1 ()
> >> {
> >> PROG_PRINTF_1 (PROG_HELLO_MESSAGE_1);
> >> PROG_RETURN 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - - -
> >>
> >> and now one has 5 "incrementors" instead of just 1. One can play
> >> even sillier games if one takes advantage of ANSI string concatenation
> >> (e.g., #define PROG_H1_1 "H", and use
> >> PROG_PRINTF_1 (PROG_H1_1 PROG_E1_1 PROG_L1_1 PROG_L2_1 PROG_O1_1 ...)
> >> in the argument list -- I think this will work).
> >>
> >> Obviously, this strategem is a rather silly dodge, but it does show
> >> that source code has problems similar to the now-modified California
> >> law that banned specific automatic weapons models -- just make a
> >> minor change and call it a different model, or tack on a letter
> >> for "New", "Revised", or "Changed", or "Deluxe", or ... well, you
> >> get the idea. :-)
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Sphere.
> >> >
> >> >No permanence. No self. No perfection.
> >>
> >> No contest here. :-)
> >>
> >> --
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> >
> >--
> >Sphere.
> >
> >No permanence. No self. No perfection.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
--
Sphere.
Is DeCSS.c obscene? Why can't I read it?
Can knowledge be forbidden?
------------------------------
From: "Thermodynamic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Open source won't protect you - how licensing is being perverted to strip you
of your own rights
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:14:47 GMT
Did you know that Microsoft, Corel, and others are trying to make it so that
any document or spreadsheet or whatever that you make on their production
software automatically becomes THEIR copyright? We buy the LICENSE to use
THEIR software and the legal issues which are thrown into the faces of
anybody installing the software make that clear. We use their tools. Oh, I
write a paragraph commentary and send to ZD NET or BIRD TALK MAGAZINE for
their magazine or online commentary - it automatically becomes their
property according to their legal notice -- this news is no surprise to me
and if I cared about making or losing money from my viewpoint I'd never post
anywhere. Sad, but true and it's an outrage against consumers. Yes, that's
Corel which also visibly supports Linux and you can now understand why.
Applications will end up being infinitely more lucrative than just the
operating system and Corel is making sure you pay for it.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Aug 2000 19:12:58 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
> > Clue for the really fucking clueless:
> >
> > We don't care. Your sig is a aggravation for a lot of people who are
> > *not* in your sig. Your making more enemies using it than you would
> > have to worry about without it. Do the right thing: Kill the .sig.
>
> Wrong. The individuals named (other than Petrich) all engage in
> hit-and-run campaigns consisting of meaningless red-herrings and
> out and out lies against me. I decided that rather than answer the
> charges from these assholes individually, a blanket pre-dismissal of
> their lies would be a better strategy.
>
> My .sig has SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the volume of such activity against
> me, which is exactly what I designed it to do.
Really? I thought your sig was there to annoy the hell out of
everyone on USENET, because that's what it's doing. I've never met
seen a supposed UNIX system "engineer" that was so clueless. People
have asked (including myself) numerous times politely, ranked on it
for quite a while and now it's just disgusting.
I've never killfiled *anyone*, but you're the first:
Congratulations.
*PLONK*
(feel free to uuencode a 1024x768 picture of me, rot13 it and sign it
with a 37268-byte key and append it (public key and all) to your
signature)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Gerrit Knol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 01:33:35 GMT
Or Suse
Starbuck Zero wrote:
> I say get Mandrake then. =)
>
> Nick wrote:
>
> > Hello all, to start off, I'd like to tell you what this is about. I am a
> > certified Linux Admin, and I have several
> > issues about programs for Linux that I would like to talk about. Just to
> > clarify to all of the dull-brained argumentative people (you know who you
> > are): I am using Windows to write this.
> >
> > I like Linux, I think it's the coolest OS in the world, however any OS needs
> > programs to make it popular. If I was just going to be an Internet Junkie,
> > Linux is fine. I can listen to my multimedia files, I can chat on ICQ, and I
> > can surf the web. However, I can not do the productive things I want to do.
> >
> > First off, I want to be able to do lots of CAD, and I want to use my CAD
> > work to design electronic devices. Print blueprints... et cetera.
> >
> > Another thing I would like to is Advanced 3D modeling and other 3D imaging.
> > Perhaps I want to make a model of something I want to build, or make a 3D
> > computer-animated cartoon.
> >
> > I want to compose MIDI files. Nuff said.
> >
> > I want to use IEEE 1394 to edit videos.
> >
> > I want to make Employee Identification Cards with a plastic card printer.
> > Just like the one they have at the local YMCA to make member cards.
> >
> > If you know of some post-development applications that can do these things,
> > tell us all!!!
> > You can email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > If not, guys and gals, we need to get busy programming!
> >
> > --NSC--
> > _The Liquid Linux Project_
> >
> > Posted on: alt.linux, alt.os.linux, alt.os.linux.caldera,
> > alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > comp.os.linux.questions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:11:22 +0100
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000 13:19:46 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Yes, I had seen another description of this activity following my post.
>But where is this information coming from? As far as I've seen so far,
>it might well just be a scandalous rumor.
I got it from the 10th August edition of _Computer Weekly_.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
** The RIAA want to ban Napster -- so boycott the music industry! **
** Don't buy CDs during August; see http://boycott-riaa.com/ **
** Spread the word: Put this message in your sig. **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
