Linux-Advocacy Digest #485, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 16:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know ("David Brown")
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Les Mikesell")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("David Brown")
Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here! ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Les
Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux" (Anthony Argyriou)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:15:19 +0200
Very entertaining.
> NT advocates already know all of this but it's nice to have a single
> document that clearly brings all the elements together. Allow me to
> quote the management summary: (if you don't have a newreader that can
> handle HTML, add this to another reason why your OS choice sucks cause
> every windows newsreader handles HTML).
I hardly need to say it (intelligent people, both Windows fans and Linux
fans, know this already), but newsreaders are applications, not part of the
OS. There are text-only newsreaders for Windows (for those who don't like
junk HTML news posts to automatically start IE, or run VBS scripts, or
whatever), and there are HTML-aware newsreaders for virtually every system
in common use.
>
> Management Summary
For PHBs only.
>
> Despite popular belief in the retail and hospitality markets, the Linux
> operating system is not free. The Linux kernel itself may be free, but
> there are many other costs associated with the total cost of ownership
> of a system. There are significant costs associated with
> “retail-hardening” Linux. Even Linux executives admit that Linux isn’t
> free, but that you just pay in different ways. Linux especially has a
> long way to go in retail, and someone is going to bear these costs.
In case you don't know, there are addtional costs to use Windows software as
well - and that is over and above the cost of the OS and basic applications.
>
> When investigating Linux for your retail enterprise, you should
> investigate and calculate these ten factors into your total cost of
> ownership (TCO) model:
And do the same when calculating the TCO for a Windows solution.
>
> 1 Limited Device Driver Support
>
> Very few device drivers are available for Linux today, especially those
> used in retail environments. The JavaPOS standard is still in the early
> stages and has not been proven like the OPOS standard. In fact, most
> JavaPOS installations today run on Windows with OPOS and a Java OPOS
> wrapper. JavaPOS has a long way to go before it can provide the same
> device driver support as OPOS provides. The cost of developing retail
> device drivers is a huge consideration in total cost of ownership.
> Someone is going to have to pay to develop them for retail. The
> Microsoft platform is years ahead of Linux in meeting the retail
> industry’s needs and provides an extensive set of device drivers.
>
I don't know anything about OPOS or JavaPOS, but "very few device drivers
are available for Linux" is outdated drivel. Exactly how many officially
certified screen drivers were available for W2K when it was released? A
small handful, perhaps. Have you ever installed a Windows system without
having to feed in a dozen other CDs with device drivers for the screen card,
the sound card, the monitor, the printer, the network card, etc. ? Bare
Windows (as of Win98SE, the latest I installed) doesn't even have a driver
for an MS Intellimouse that came with the system!! With a good Linux
distribution, on the other hand, there are probably an order of magnitude
more drivers available on the CD.
> 2 Support / Maintenance Costs
>
> Support and maintenance for Linux is not free. Most Linux distributors
Support and maintenance for Windows is not free, either.
> make their money by selling their services. Support options vary by
> vendor and can get quite expensive for the enterprise. You will have to
As for Windows.
> pay for support when you need it. However, before you can even receive
> support, you have to meet certain requirements. Most Linux distributors
As for Windows.
> will only support un-modified versions of their software. Some of them
As for Windows - you can only *run* un-modified versions of their software.
At least with Linux, you have the choice of going it alone if your own staff
are up to the job.
> also require you to meet certain hardware requirements before they will
As for Windows - and how much hardware is on the approved list for W2K,
never mind the future savoir of mankind, XP?
> support you. Microsoft has a much more advanced support system in place
> to aid you when you need help.
>
We've seen this already - a more advanced hierarchy to battle through before
you talk to someone who has actually used a computer, and can give a better
suggestion than "if rebooting doesn't help, try re-installing Windows".
> 3 Numerous Installation Versions
>
> There are over 188 different distributions of Linux available today,
> with the number growing all the time. You have to first decide which
> distribution and graphical user interface to use. Next, you have to deal
Choices, choices. Life would be so much simpler in a dictatorship rather
than having this complicated "democracy" system where you have to make
decisions.
> with the limitations you will be faced with. For example, there is no
> guarantee that any software you develop on one distribution will run
> under another distribution. Nor is it guaranteed, or even likely, that
Actually, there is a pretty strong guarentee, as long as you follow good
design practices.
> an application you develop for one GUI will run under a different GUI,
Again, virtually every GUI app (and although MS does not understand this, a
great many apps do not use a GUI) will run on all X window managers and
desktops.
> even on the same distribution. You do not have this problem with
> Microsoft’s platform, since there are only a few different versions, all
> with a common user interface.
There are about 6 or 7 flavours of Windows around, and have mostly the same
GUI. Most programs can run on most flavours, except when there are obvious
limitations (such as low-level utilities), or marketting considerations
(such as forcing old Windows users to upgrade if they want the latest MS
Office).
>
> 4 Lack Of Available Software
>
> Software for the Linux operating system has a long way to go. There are
> not very many well-known or enterprise-wide software packages available
> for Linux today, especially for POS. There is also a huge void on the
> Linux platform in server side software, like database, message queuing
> services, and transaction servers. The present limitations of software
This is of course a complete joke. What they mean is that MS-SQL Server and
friends are not available on Linux. Unfortuenately for MS, high-end tools
such as Oracle are very much available for Linux, and low-end tools such as
MySQL and Postgress (some of which are actually just as capable as all but
the most expensive commercial systems) are available free, and generally
already installed with most Linux distributions. Instead of buying vastly
expensive MS BackOffice software, with the additional hassle of extra
installs, you just do a quick configure of the software you already have on
your Linux machine.
> for the front end, middle tier, and server on Linux represent additional
> costs you need to factor into your TCO model. You do not face this
> limitation with the Microsoft platform, which has thousands of products
> available to create a complete end-to-end solution.
>
> 5 Untested Waters In Retail
>
> Linux has a long way to go in retail and hospitality. Very few retailers
> run Linux today. POS and other application vendors are going to pass the
> cost along to you for “retail-hardening” Linux.
>
"Be sheep - follow everyone else."
> 6 Lack Of Formal Development Schedule, Research, and Standards
>
> With Linux, no formal development schedule or set of standards exists.
MS follows no standards - they make up their own "standards" as they go
along. The development "schedules" are reknowned - doesn't MS own copyright
of the phrase "Real Soon Now" ? MS release times are based on when the
marketting droids cannot delay the promises any more - Linux kernel and apps
are released when they are ready.
> There are thousands of developers contributing to it from all over the
> world, with no accountability to the retail industry. Linus Torvalds
MS is not accountable to anyone. Have you never read the EULA?
> makes the final decision about what gets included in the latest Linux
> release, and he has no accountability to the retail industry. There is
> no formal research and development process with Linux. Microsoft plans
> to spend over $4 billion in R&D in 2001 and listens to the retail
> industry.
MS listens to no one. I don't know what MS does with all that money, but
they would be producing a lot better systems if it was actually spent
improving their software.
>
> 7 Less Secure
>
> “Open source” means that anyone can get a copy of the source code.
> Developers can find security weaknesses very easily with Linux. The same
> is not true with Microsoft Windows.
This is partly true - real developers cannot find security weaknesses with
Windows, because they have no source code, but virus writers and other
crackers don't seem to find that a problem. With Linux, it *is* the
developers that find the holes - they also fix them and publish the fixes.
It has been well-established outside the realm of PHBs that security by
obscurity is not nearly as safe as an open development model.
>
> 8 Increased Labor Costs
>
> You will have to spend extra money training your staff on a new
> environment. Store clerks will have to be trained on a new user
> interface that they are not likely to be familiar with already, and
If you set up a KDE or Gnome system well (do it once, then copy it freely to
every other machine - without worrying about having to pay for the same
software twice, as with MS's "simplified" licencing schemes), novice users
will hardly notice the difference. For people whose computer use is
restricted to logging in, then running an Office suite (such as StarOffice),
a web browser and mail program, the difference between an MS Windows +
Office setup to a KDE + StarOffice + Konq are similar to moving between
versions of the Windows programs.
> developers will have to be trained in a new development environment. It
> will be less costly to train staff on the Microsoft Windows user
> interface and the development environment because so many people are
> already familiar with them.
Why not just train the developers once on cross-platform tools, and let them
work for any system? Training a developer to use new tools should not be
that hard (assuming they are programmers, not just VB script-kiddies).
>
> 9 Limited Developer Tools
>
> There are limited developer tools available for Linux. Those that are
Lots, actually, and they are mostly free and ready-installed on the system.
> available are much more difficult to use than Microsoft Visual Studio.
Some are, some are not - and there is a steady improving list of both
commercial and non-commercial development tools.
> Thus, the same application can take much longer to develop for Linux.
There is a great deal more to determining the development speed than just
the tools, actually. Re-usable libraries and intelligently designed APIs
make a big difference. If you are developing open source software yourself,
you can make use of lots of ready-written software. And running an OS that
doesn't need re-booted every time a test program goes bananas is a big help
for developers.
>
> 10 Business Agility in the Future
>
> Businesses must have the agility to quickly adapt to changing market
> conditions. There is a lot of uncertainty concerning the future of
> Linux. Microsoft is a stable company offering a reliable long-term
> solution.
MS may be a stable company (actually, it is not - it is clawing desperately
at any source of income it can scrape together in order to hold its business
model alive), but it has a mentally unstable leader. While the Linux
landscape is changing rapidly, there is little to indicate any long-term
problems.
There is the very big issue of long-term availability of software. Big
companies like to plan years in advance - with open source this is possible,
but not with MS software. This is because once an open source program is
released, it is always available. If you have an old Linux system based
around a 2.0 kernel, and you want to make a second, identical system for
backup, you can do so. If you want to update it with the latest security
patches, you can do so. If you have an MS-DOS 5 system and want a second
identical machine (maybe running software that cannot run under anything
else), you are out of luck - MS's only long-term solution is to insist that
you keep buying newer versions of their software.
>
> At the point your organization begins to investigate Linux, conduct your
> own research in the above areas to get a good idea of your total cost of
> ownership. You will then be in a position to make an educated decision
> about the best path for your enterprise. You will see that Linux is far
> from free. You will also see for yourself why the Microsoft platform can
> actually have a lower total cost of ownership in the long run. And you
> won’t make the mistake of thinking that Linux is free.
>
Moving to free (i.e., open source) is only free if your time is worth
nothing (i.e., you enjoy working with it so much that you do it for free),
and you don't need to pay for external support. But MS software requires
exactly the same time of investments, in addition to the cost of the
software itself. Don't make the mistake of assuming that MS software costs
are the numbers on the price label.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:26:43 GMT
"Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:fm2K6.48466$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It only took KDE about 4 years to get where it is now.
>
> If only because all the existing desktop paradigms were already evolved
and
> in use and waiting to be copied by others. Even the KDE writers take time
> to note how much Windows inspired its design.
Too bad Windows doesn't acknowledge how it 'borrowed' its inspiration
from prior work just as honestly.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 21:25:59 +0200
I know this type of benchmarking would be more complex - that is
partly why it would be more useful. Its like comparing cars based on the
fuel economy driving for several hours through town traffic, rather than
just measuring the top speed along a straight racetrack - it is much harder
to do, but far more useful in the end.
If discussion boards are that easy (I haven't written one myself, so I'll
take your word for it), then they would make an excellent example. One of
these benchmark groups should specify the exact capabilities required,
including using a DB backend, and required features such as searching
messages, and exact screen layouts (maybe even specifying the HTML to be
dynamically generated), so that the systems would be functionally identical.
Different vendors could then implement the system with different tools, and
compare results.
Ayende Rahien wrote in message <9dmgt3$n0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dm4d1$6ej$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> And more to the point, are the test setups even vaguely related to
>reality?
>> Does anyone really use a 32 GB Ram machine to serve 25 GB of data?
>> Sometimes these benchmarks reminds me of the nucleur arms race - it is
not
>> enough to have the weaponry to destroy the world - you must be able to
>> destroy it more times over than the enemy. Similarly with these
>> benchmarks - it is not enough to be able to completly saturate any
>> reasonable external bandwidth - you must be able to saturate it many
times
>> over.
>
>That is a good point, however, there are problems with this approach.
>Measuring the throughput is relatively a simple process, what you suggest
>below is much more complex.
>
>> Why don't they run benchmarks that test the use of the system in more
>> demanding situations? Set up a PHP-Nuke discussion board, or a
perl-based
>> web email system, and compare the speeds of the different systems. Even
>> better would be to specify a system such as a discussion board, and
>> implement the same interface with PHP, ASP, JSP, ColdFussion, Perl, or
any
>> other dynamic web system and compare the results. The backend database
>> should also be interchangable. Then we could really see what systems are
>> the most cost-effective for web servers.
>
>Okay, that would be good, there have been a couple of tests like that,
IIRC.
>On one of them, PHP beat ASP, then MS came, re-wrote the ASP code (to do
the
>same thing) and gained 2x speed increase, and beat all the above mentioned
>system by a wide margin.
>Now, that doesn't mean that PHP or ASP or anything else are better than one
>another, it just demonstrate the ability of the coder in that particular
>language.
>
>And what task do you've in mind? Discussion board is *easy*, I've done two
>(as an excercise) in ASP.
>One worked like a Matt's BBS clone, where anything is a static HTML file,
>and you update them manually via a script. Thus the only overhead you've is
>when people post.
>And another where you use DB, where you could do much more complex stuff,
>thus you've the script+db overhead.
>I think that the best solution is a combination of those two method, store
>the stuff in the DB, generate static pages every couple of minutes.
>This way you have both the flexebility of DB and the speed of static pages.
>
>But I digress, widely.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:30:54 +0600
Robert Morelli wrote:
> Anyone else have similar anecdotes? Comments?
A friend who worked for a big IT firm (Tivoli, IIRC) told me that when time
came to test their next big product they had to install it on about 100
each Windows and Unix machines. The Unix installations took 4 hours; the
Windows installations took 4 days.
I pity the organization you mentioned with 500 Windows machines. More so
those big companies that must have tens of thousands.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Find your sole mate here!! Post your FREE personal ADs here!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:34:49 +0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Stop wasting time waiting for love to fall on your lap
I've never heard it described in quite those terms before.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:35:43 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3afec0fd$0$82843$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > >
> > > > Like SSH on Linux...
> > >
> > > or SSH on windows - but, again, why?
> >
> > If you don't have it, how do you execute remote commands in scripts that
> > need to cycle through many hosts? Or are you going to tell us that it
> > is faster to connect to each one with terminal server and use the mouse?
>
> You really have never used windows have you? I mean in a server
environment
> and I don't mean one or two.
If you mean limit myself to a single vendor with a horrible history
of ignoring interoperability standards, of course I would never
do that in a server environment. I have, however watched others
try and fail.
> There are a MYRIAD of remote administratation tools, many designed to role
> out changes to a slew of machines automatically.
Why do you need a myriad of tools insead of one tool that can do any
command you want remotely and a scheduler that lets you perform any
command (including the remote one) when you want?
> Just start with something
> like SMS and go from there.
How long will that take to install? Is it included with the OS?
> Even the remote control software I use can self
> install itself on a machine that has no HTTP, FTP, Telnet, SSH running.
It's
> something called RPC.
That sounds like a vast security hole. How do you control it? How would
you do something simple like gathering the log files from an assortment
of remote machines over an encrypted connection, then erasing them nightly?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Anthony Argyriou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Microsoft "Windows for Linux"
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 12:35:11 -0700
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If they released Office for Linux then there is even LESS reason to keep
>buying Windows upgrages. However I have seen MS Office for the Mac. Go
>figure?
Incompatible hardware - you can't put Windows on a powerPC.
Word and Excel (as gui programs) were on the Mac *first*. Microsoft created
Windows to allow people who'd bought PCs and DOS to get a Mac-like
experience without abandoning cheaper hardware.
Anthony Argyriou
Unix _is_ user-friendly. It's just selective about its friends.
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:50:47 GMT
On Sun 13 May 2001 12:47, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[Snip]
>>
>>Actually, /dev/random really *does* provide true randomness. Computer
>>hardware isn't perfectly deterministic, especially with regard to timing,
>>so drivers can extract small amounts of noise from the environment and
>>feed it to the /dev/random bitpool. It can't provide the quantity that a
>>dedicated source of randomness (like the i810 chipset's RNG) can churn
>>out, but it is cryptographically secure.
>
> Did I say that true randomness was necessary to be 'cryptographically
> secure"? If I did, I should have said "perfectly cryptolographically
> secure". In the real world, security is a matter of increasing levels
> of obfuscation; to be mathematically indecipherable is to be simply
> indecipherable, so codes cannot be perfect and have value.
>
>From a practical standpoint, you are correct, but in cryptology the term
"cryptographically secure" is synonymous with true randomness, and anything
less than true randomness is insecure. You can't have a secure
conversation if an attacker might be able to break your PRNG algorithm. In
fact, since a conversation is only as secure as its weakest link, breaking
the PRNG is often *much* easier than either breaking the cipher or
brute-forcing the key.
> True random numbers are a concept of mathematical theory. In software,
> the difference between the qausi-random (which is what you've got) and
> the previous generation of 'pseudo-random' numbers is the important
> point. Still, it is worth pointing out the difference, because the
> concept of true randomness does still come up in practical ways, even
> though we can't practically achieve them very easily. So far as is
> known, the only true random number 'generator' in the world is, in fact,
> atomic decay and other quantum effects.
>
There is no such thing as "quasi-randomness". There are only two
categories of randomness: pseudo-randomness, which is deterministic and
can be predicted by some (arbitrarily complex, possibly unknown)
algorithm; and true randomness. The only generator of true randomness
probably is, in fact, the quantum world; however, we are immersed in it
constantly, positively bathing in it. To say that we can't achieve true
random numbers easily is to ignore that fact. A cheap radioisotope RNG for
a computer costs only about $200, and a cheap thermal noise RNG can be put
together in $20 of Radio Shack parts, or integrated into your motherboard
like on the i810; both of these rely on quantum effects.
In fact, PC hardware contains enough nondeterminism that you can actually
pull real quantum-generated randomness out of it. Not much, but enough to
either supply /dev/random with true random bits or feed a PRNG so that
/dev/urandom can produce an infinite pseudorandom (but very hard to
predict) sequence.
> Some post-modernists have even
> claimed that true randomness therefore doesn't 'exist', for the same
> reasons; they would claim that quantum randomness is just a more complex
> form of quasi-randomness. They are, however, mistaken.
Quite obviously mistaken to anyone familiar with Heisenberg and Bell's
Inequality, in fact.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:01:44 -0700
Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> Interestingly, the people from Agenda Computing (who produce a cute
> Linux-based PDA) have been working on something they call "Execute
> in place". Essentially, if you have a directly accessible mass storage
> device (Flash), you don't need to load the program into another tier
> of memory (RAM) to execute it. Same OS, same program, but one machine
> makes a statutory copy, and the other doesn't.
I would be interested in any evidence that this is being done with any
legal motivation in mind, as opposed to simply reducing the amount of
RAM needed in the device.
(I agree that the distinction may have significant legal effect, but I
suggest that if that does happen, it will be by accident.)
ROM-based video game consoles worked this way years ago.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 16:08:40 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > > That is what a lot of people are asking.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, in your opinion, it's morally correct to force MS to only
> release
> > > > > products with no networking, no GUI, no memory management, no...
> > > *anything*.
> > > > > Now, just *how* serious are you? Do you really think that it's a
> > > position
> > > > > that you can hold in court?
> > > >
> > > > What the hell are you talking about?
> > >
> > > I gave a list of integrated things in windows, you said that people
> wondered
> > > why they weren't split up because of that.
> > > Hence, me asking you if that was your conclustion.
> >
> > Every time micro$oft "integrates" a "feature" to force competitors form
> > the market, people wonder if its time to break up micro$oft.
> >
> > I think the time is long past.
> >
> > Happy with the explanation?
>
> No, because that isn't what I asked.
> I asked you if you think it's morally, or legally correct to force MS to not
> integrate stuff that the consumer *expects* to find in an OS.
>
People are trained to expect things in an OS. They didnt expect IE to be
integrated before it happened. Most people dont even know the
difference. Suppose you tell us... what "should" be in an "OS".
BTW, hte part that everyone in mad at, is NOT that M$ "improves" its
products, but that it does it at the expence of competitors. m$ will
wait watch somone else develop something, the m$ will "innovate" by
putting that product into its OS, killing off the competition. They are
NEVER ahead of ANY feature curve.
AND.. with the browser... m$ tried to give it away. That didnt stop
netscape. They tried bundling it. That didnt work, so the "innovated" by
"integrating" it into the the OS.
That was immoral, unethical and (hopefully) illegal.
> How about forcing GM to not sell cars with wheels? Or with motors?
You cant drive a car without wheels or a motor. And no car developer had
to stell those ideas.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
