Linux-Advocacy Digest #968, Volume #34 Mon, 4 Jun 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (longhaul)
Re: Time to bitc__ again (Charlie Ebert)
Re: UI Importance (GreyCloud)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Chicken and egg problem (spam)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Very interesting cracker article, and XP warning. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:06:31 -0500
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9wSS6.3659$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fg8sn$92b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > Is there some *technical* reason why Unix is more portable than NT?
>
> Sure. But NT can port only to little endian
> architectures, whereas Unix can do both
> big and little endian.
If that were true, then NT couldn't have been ported to PPC which is big
endian. MIPS can be either big or little endian, and Alpha was little
endian.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (longhaul)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:07:42 GMT
Not to try and belabor the point but why do all you techies gang up on
Gates' company and yell for government intervention. Are your anti
thoughts based upon pride of Unix? Do you not believe that the
fundamentals of MSFT offer a good investment? This seems to be a very
emotional stock. Kind of like the environmentalists vs. big oil.
It's the Unix guru's vs. MSFT. Me? I'm just looking for a good
investment and thought I had one (finally, way of the fact) in MSFT at
about $60 this year.
On Tue, 29 May 2001 13:35:37 -0400, unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The following are the editorial opinions of the author- no more
>no less...
>
>While the bloated giant Microsoft is buying favorable publicity
>in News-fluff magazines with promises of big chunks of
>advertising for the X-flop video game, smart firms are realizing
>the truth - Microsoft is in serious trouble.
>
>Not that they don't have loads of cash on hand, they can create
>imaginary cashflow any time they want just by moving their own
>money from one pocket to the other...
>
>But they are not capturing the hearts and minds of the techno-
>savvy, and their standards are going over like the proverbial turd
>in a punchbowl. Active directory, the MS proprietary version of XML,
>and the .net initiative, all are seeing adoption rates down around 1/5th
>
>of the overall market.
>
>But worse, major manufacturers are beginnning to break ranks. IBM will
>spend a billion dollars beefing up Linux this year, and HP is not far
>behind.
>
>Sun, which has done the best of any of the UNIX vendors mostly because
>of their
>steadfast refusal to corrupt their product line with MS pollution, has
>now bought
>a manufacturer of Linux servers to augment its low-end systems.(Sun, by
>the way,
>is roughly the same size as MS, why everyone gets so excited about a
>pipsqueak company like MS is beyond me).
>
>But one development that should have rocked the newsworld is that
>struggling
>UNIX maker SGI is dropping all support for MS Windows based platforms.
>
>This is so illustrative of the real nature of the computer marketplace
>that it bears
>more examination. Two years ago, a troubled SGI fell under the influence
>of MS, and
>was seduced into adding a WNT workstation to its product line. But
>instead of a windfall
>the new systems caused a near collapse of the company. Customers lost
>confidence in
>SGI's core UNIX systems, fearing that they would eventually be phased
>out, sales
>plumetted, and the stock fell from $24 to $2. Finally coming to their
>senses, SGI has excorsized
>the MS demon, refocused on UNIX (and Linux) and is now on the road to
>recovery.
>BTW - their stock is an incredibly undervalued bargain, you could buy
>the whole company for
>less than the value of their assets.
>
>SGI is hardly a market leader, but their realization of the detrimetnal
>effect of supporting
>windows simply reinforces the mass move away from Microsoft being
>carried out more
>surreptitiously by the larger manufacturers.
>
>Microsoft isn't laying still, they are hedging their bets by
>diversifying into hardware. They
>have announced the X-box (how you make money by selling a box that you
>have to subsidize
>by 1/3 of its sales price remains a mystery, but it might explain rumors
>that production levels
>are being held back significantly - bad news for games authors, but hey,
>dance with the devil,
>and you deserve what you get). And of course there is the new Microsoft
>PC, which will attempt
>to do away with all legacy standards(ISA, PCI, parallel ports, serial
>ports, etc.) so that everyone
>is forced to upgrade to it in order to run the new version of Windows
>Xtremely Proprietary.
>
>Or... the hardware makers that MS is betraying MIGHT, just might, decide
>to fight back by investing
>in Linux as an alternative OS..... wait a minute, they're already DOING
>THAT. Maybe PC makers
>aren't as dumb as they look.
>
>Any way, enough MS bashing for now. We'll just close by saying that the
>author will bet anyone reading
>an imaginary nickel that MS stock is down to $10/share by 2003....
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:08:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, daniel wrote:
>You guys, I'm surprised. That people are taking shots at me regarding
>my knowledge of and experience with Linux and also that this thread
>turned into another lame Windows vs. Linux thing. Honestly, I think
>the point I was trying to make had nothing to to with any particular
>company but was basically an idea that I think is an important one for
>any software, particularly one that is relied on by a wide base of
>users some of whom may have extensive experience and many of whom do
>not. I don't think the debate should be about having experience or
>not, but in fact that it turned in this direction in this thread might
>be somewhat indicative of a certain arrogance that once finds with
>some devlopers in the Linux community. Listen, just because you may
>have wanted to devote hours of your time to figure out why some
>subsystem component wasn't functioning doesn't make you any better or
>more knowledgeable - in fact, in many instances I consider spending
>hours delving into this sort of thing to be a waste of time and also a
>bad alloction of my priorities. I'm sure my employer wouldn't be
>happy either that I spent several hours of my precious time dealing
>with something as inane as getting Gnome to run with the proper window
>manager under Debian (or setting up a system which has no window
>manager at all - something that admittedly might not be needed but is
>certainly nice to have).
>
>I have the experience of configuring Linux desktops for over 200
>people for a large company. I also come from an accounting background
>and still consider, in the desktop realm, the spreadsheet and basic
>word-processor to be the most killer apps ever developed which will
>likely never be surpassed by any others. I operate from a point of
>view of functionality. Many systems administrators do not think of
>efficiency for the enduser and their comments in this area often show
>a lack of understanding in this respect. I can guarantee you that the
>greatest leap forward that computers have provided for society is
>probably the spreadsheet. Many people cannot imagine how vastly the
>spreadsheet revolutionized the business practices of companies around
>the world and forever changed the face of accounting (I suppose the
>database deserves a lot of credit here as well...).
>
>When things are developed to a stable point and then become unstable
>again this is a serious concern. When basic functionality of
>interfaces seems to have not been subjected to what would be
>considered in the QA world a mild degree of analysis then there is
>cause for concern. I will bear the responsibility for getting things
>like kernels to work because someone that does this should know what
>they are doing (yes I can just get the source from kernel.org and not
>rely on a "mandrake" kernel (which is probably a silly idea anyway but
>would be neat if it actually worked, but why put my faith in someone
>else to patch and build a kernel for me?)
>
>I have ideas as to why there were some problems with Mandrake: I have
>noticed that installing with security setting "high" seems to cause
>strange things to happen and my systems seem to generally run better
>without this setting. Again, I don't want to spend hours
>investigating why this is but would rather just install with security
>setting "low" and spend my time setting up tcpwrappers, inetd, pam,
>and the like with my own settings.
>
>On Fri, 25 May 2001 01:20:40 GMT, daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Its time to do this again. Im not receiving enough spam, havent
>>alienated enough people who know me, and, well, need to get this off
>>my chest.
>>
>>Im really disappointed with the current sorry state of three of the
>>major distributions of Linux.
>>
>>Redhat 7.1 and Mandrake 8.0 are laughable in terms of how buggy they
>>are. Under both of them Gnome and KDE work like crap. Mandrake 8 had
>>a serious install problem with mice which was know several
>>pre-releases before the final release but wasnt fixed (their
>>developers never saw the gazillion threads about this?)
>>The latest Gnome and KDE both are funky. Gnome has a serious problem
>>with window focus. KDE likes to freeze and is basically unusable.
>>
Um humm.
>>I also havent been able to sucessfully compile a kernel on either of
>>these. Everytime I read the threads I see that there are broken libcs
>>because they are rushing to get 2.4 releases out the door and using
>>unstable libraries.
>>
Um humm.
>>Lets see Ive installed Debian 3 or 4 times in the past week and on
>>every single installation it was like extracting teeth to get X to
>>run. Once I did get X to run and Gnome was running on top of blackbox
>>and twm. Okay. I finally managed to get sawmill or sawfish to run
>>but then Gnome didnt launch.
Humm.
>>I went and tried to install task-ximian-<whateveritwas> instead of
>>task-gnome-desktop and things only got even more mucked up. Plus the
>>instructions on Ximians site for installing to gnome included a
>>package which didnt exist.
>>
Ah hug.
>>Basically this is so upsetting because late last year people were
>>talking about Linux on the desktop and at that point things were
>>beginning to work great. Mandrake 7.1 in my opinion was a work of
>>near-perfection and worked almost flawlessly. Why do these distros
>>insist on pushing forward and putting out cutting-edge recent, yet
>>highly buggy releases? Why not just keep improving and existing one
>>if it works? Wouldnt they make more money off working products than
>>cutting-edge broken ones?
>>
>>Okay, I just checked and Mandrake seems to still be release updates
>>for the 7.1 tree. This is excellent, since I intend to go back to it.
>>
>>I am surprised that none of these distros seem to be doing enough even
>>basic level QA to realize that things are broken. Whats up with this?
>>How can anyone advocate Linux on the desktop to a potentially critical
>>public if these sorts of patterns continue?
>
Well.
I've been running Debian for.... whooooo....
5 years now? getting close to 6.
I'm using 2.2 with Gnome 1.4 at the moment. Have the 2.4.4 kernel
installed and running.
I suppose you had Suse bomb on you also.
Well, I had my 13 year old daughter, then 11, install Debian for
me so it can't be too difficult sir.
I mean you have to know what drivers to load for what cards but,
as for the rest, frankly sir, a one fingered monkey can install
Debian.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:09:23 -0700
drsquare wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 11:39:59 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >drsquare wrote:
>
> >> Vim is just vi but with queer annoying features added. I can't seem to
> >> find a copy of the classic vi anywhere.
> >
> >Vim is just vi with a /lot/ of features added. And gvim is
> >the GUI version which supports mouse stuff. And both also
> >have been ported to Windows. Yay, no more paying for a decent
> >Windows vi editor (bye-bye CodeWright).
> >
> >Vim has a "classic" mode, by the way. You can also compile it
> >to remove some of the features you might not like.
>
> But it won't be the same!
Well, you could go get solaris 8 x86 and install it ($75) and it has the
true vi.
Also has the real sh shell. I prefer bash and vim. vi won't give you
what is known as "ruler" mode... row and column numbers.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:12:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pip wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > 2) No family if you want to be in the "in crowd". Family takes away from
>> > productive hours. Family is bad. Life outside M$ is bad. Work ( observe
>> > the picture in your head of Gates with a whip and a few horns)
>>
>> This is also untrue. Many microsofties seem to be involved in lots of
>> non-worktime events. Mike Blaczak raced motorcycles, David Kruglinski was
>> involved in chamionship skydiving (and died in the process), etc..
>
>Untrue? Well that is the perception of some ex-m$ employees.
>
>
>> > 3) Work anytime you want. Work a "normal" week and you won't get
>> > anywhere. Meet dealings or you're canned or ignored.
>>
>> This is common in successful programming environments.
>
>Being common does not mean that it is any good or productive.
>
>
>> > 4) You have to do what marketing tells you. (Have a look at his article
>> > about .net and the confusion INSIDE microsoft as to what it is and what
>> > the strategy means. I am glad that I am not being stupid when I say that
>> > I really don't "get it" )
>>
>> Yet you get Sun's effort?
>
>Yes I do. Sun's efforts seem mostly very clear. They also have not
>changed much give or take a few wrong turns. Also their stategy is
>actually available to implement.
>
>
>
>> > 5) You work to produce the best revenue rather than the best product.
>> > For example the case you site about backwards compatibility. That really
>> > did harm for their credibility and system stability. These kinds of
>> > foolish actions: like the hardly believable SimCity hook, just make me
>> > wonder what a pile of crap windows can be. It removes a large amount of
>> > respect. Have a look at the other of his articles about how one
>> > programmer simple inserted a bug to save "time" so that he could say a
>> > feature was complete to meet deadlines.
>>
>> This is why Windows is successful though. Clearly backwards compatibility
>> is more important to customers, and customers are what make you successful.
>
>Then the customers remembers that they would like system stability as
>well.
Okay, well...
The title of this thread says, What should Microsoft's CEO do.
And here we are talking about OTHER Microsoft Employee's.
And once again, I think Erik Fuckenbuch is to blame for changing
the subject on the thread.
Well let's see. What should the Microsoft CEO do....
Ah....
How about spread a bunch of shit about the GPL being a cancer upon
the world and then BUNDLE something with XP so he lands back in court
again....
Now, am I going to get a cookie for this?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 18:25:22 -0700
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:28:08 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:<9ffak1$64t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> > http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$117
>> >
>> > Read it, very good article about how to get people to use new platforms.
>>
>> According to this guy's logic, everyone should have moved to OS/2 by mid
>'93.
>> After all, it ran most of the existing software, hell, it even could run
>C/PM
>> programs **unchanged** and it preceeded Win95 by three years. So, why did
>that
>> not happen? IBM's botched marketing or an evil plot by Microsoft?
>Whatever it
>> was the fact it did not happen trashes the whole point of the argument.
>
>Not really. OS/2 had many problems that Microsoft successfully solved. The
>biggest one was the developer issue. MS successfully got developers on
>board to Win32 fairly shortly after the release of Win95, IBM was still
>pulling teeth to get people to develop native 32 bit apps.
OS/2 ran 16 bit window apps to well and that in the long run did it
in.
>
>IBM saw no need to court developers, and in fact treated it as some kind of
>priviledge to develop for OS/2. The OS/2 SDK was prohibitively expensive
>and You had to buy IBM's monstrous documentation set which, when stacked up
>was about 5 feet high in boxes with 5-10 books each. IBM eventually got
>stuff put on CD-ROM, but it took forever.
>
No doubt IBM is to blame for alot of problems with OS/2 but the OS/2
SDK was unbelievably expensive when it was a MS product. IBM did drop
the SDK price long before Win95 was released.
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:54:47 +0200
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "daniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > It seems clear to me that this is going on at Microsoft to a major
> > > degree with respect to 1) interoperability with other platforms, and
> > > 2) with respect to the open protocols and standards which enable
> > > technology to progress and develop around the world.
> >
> > .Net
>
> .Net depends on C#, a windows only product, exploits VB,
No, it doesn't.
> and requires
> the use of DLLs and API exclusively Microsoft.
Or anyone else who makes the infrastructure.
> Furthermore, Microsoft is not providing source to the core
> infrastructure.
No, just the spec, over at EMCA.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:58:36 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 20:54:46 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In a CLI environment, I'd have to search through the documentation,
> >reading the descriptions of all the different commands until I found the
> >one I want. Unless the docs are really well organized, that can take a
> >long time. Once I've found the command, I have to read up on it and
> >learn all the options. (Mostly this consists of reading the options and
> >ignoring the ones I don't need.)
>
> Compare that to a GUI, where you don't even get any options, you just
> get what you're given, unless of course you want to go editing
> shorcuts to put some arguments in, or using some shoddy built in
> configuration tool. Personally, I like complete control over what I'm
> doing with my command.
What options do you get on the CLI that aren't given you?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:01:55 +0200
"Fred K Ollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fh4ou$mdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : No, such as *memorizing* commands.
> : This is *bad*, the GUI allow you to *recall*.
>
> So if you forget what the mouse is or what a menu is or which button to
> click, how does gui help?
>
> What if you forget where your files are or what computer they are on?
How will the CLI help me if I forgot to use the keyboard?
All of the above are things which are basic, like learning to type and what
is the command seperator in the shell you are using.
If I forgot what a button to click, I'll read what that button say, or go to
the help.
The point is that once I know this, whenever I see this button, I would
simply *recall* it, I wouldn't have to search for the knowledge.
> : There is a difference in the amount of effort involved.
>
> So laziness is better?
Yes. Your application shouldn't force the user to be aware of the
application, it should be as trasperent as possible.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:02:20 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fh607$lm0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>You still have to select the individual pictures though, which is a long
> >>and tedious process. Basically, selecting some pictures based on content
> >>out of 100s is a long tedious process.
> >>
> >
> > CTR-F type in the parameters (*.jpg,*.gif) hit enter. I fail to see what
> > the problem is.
>
> That doesn't sort them by content.
You can tell it to do so.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:05:01 +0200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:23:47 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9fgf7a$89g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> You still have to select the individual pictures though, which is a
long
> >> and tedious process. Basically, selecting some pictures based on
content
> >> out of 100s is a long tedious process.
> >
> >Selecting some pictures based on names out of 100s is much more tedious.
> >Especially when the names:
> >A> has no pattern.
> >B> doesn't have a clear name.
>
> If you were dealing with pictures you'd be in a GUI anyway. Anyway,
> supposing the thumnail doesn't give a clear indication of what it's
> about? And why don't you name your files clearly?
Then text, no naming scheme that has pattern.
You can pick the files in the GUI, you'll have to type them, on by one, on
the CLI.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:06:00 +0200
"Fred K Ollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fh3th$mdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien (don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Unlikely, I don't like 9x very much.
> : On my system, it takes 4 keystrokes to reach my pictures folder, frex.
>
> How is this a gui if you are only using keystrokes? Or are you using
> keystrokes+mouse? If so, then this is the slowest way b/c switching takes
> time.
I use key strokes to control the GUI.
GUI doesn't mean "no keyboard".
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Very interesting cracker article, and XP warning.
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:13:02 +0200
"Form@C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> <snip>
> > Yeah, but come on, all those scabs living in 3rd world places are
> > hardly going to be able to afford to get on the internet are they?
>
> Why worry about internet demand in the 3rd world? Just the US could easily
> swamp the existing address space - when every computer, phone, tv, radio,
> fridge, freezer, toaster, coke machine, stove, alarm system, cctv system
> and table lamp has its own IP address! And that's only for starters...
No way in hell.
We are talking *128 bits* number.
That is 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38
Let's assume that the US has 300 Millions citizens, and each have 200
appliances.
That is 60000000000
This is how many adresses are left:
3.402823669209384634633746073717e+38
Notice that the numbers are identical, that is because that number doesn't
even bite into the amount of adresses that IPv6 will have.
What if each citizen has million appliances?
That is 300000000000000
3.402823669209384634633743073717e+38
That doesn't makes an impressions *either*.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:14:45 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fh6fq$lm0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> > Actually, you could probably GPL a protocl, as well as all the
> >> >> > implementation.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't think you could. I thought that restriction a protocal as
> >> >> against everything the FSF stands for.
> >> >
> >> > I don't see how they can do something about it.
> >> >
> >> > "This protocol is GPL.
> >> > For the purpose of the license, the spec for this protocol is
> >> > considered the source, and compiled code is the implementation, both
> >> > in source and binary form" Should be enough to do it.
> >>
> >> I don't see it really. That just makes the spec (or if you like
> >> `documentation') open source. That doesn't stop anyone creating a new
> >> version as long as no code was taken verbatim from the original.
> >
> > Okay, this gets complicated here. If it's compatible with the protocol,
> > doesn't this mean that they copied from the spec? If I read GPL code,
> > and then go and create code that result in 100% identical binary code,
> > then the codes are going to be *very* similar. Enough for the GPL to
> > kick in, I say.
>
> You can copy the functionality of the spec without copying the code. If
> the binary code was 100% the smae, it would look a bit odd, but it is
> perfectly possible to create a compatible implementation that produces
> rather different binary code. You could even do it in another language.
But the end result (the protocol, aka binary) would still be the same.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:19:09 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9wSS6.3659$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fg8sn$92b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > Is there some *technical* reason why Unix is more portable than NT?
>
> Sure. But NT can port only to little endian
> architectures, whereas Unix can do both
> big and little endian.
>
> This is because NT likes storing things in
> binary form (not text), and endianness is
> significant if you do that.
I don't think so.
For a start, NT ran on PPC & MIPS & Alpha, the last two can run in either
mode, but I believe that PPC is big endian.
I've also heard about a port ot Solaris, which is big endian.
Any info about this, btw?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
