Linux-Advocacy Digest #571, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: License? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right? (Cihl)
Re: License? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Why use Linux? (Phill)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: License? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Hyman Rosen)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:06:43 -0500
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan
>Rebbechi) wrote:
> >On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:40:17 GMT, Paul E. Larson wrote:
> >
> >>To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are virtually
> >>meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
> >>of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything. What does
> >>that fact tell you?
> >
> >One of the following:
> >(a) The admins enjoy rebooting for the hell of it
> >(b) The machine requires regular reboots
> >
>
> Neither.
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
> "Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
I remember the last company I worked for was told by IBM that the AS/400
we were running had such hacked up programs on it that we really should
IPL every weekend and let the file-system be re-initialized (I don't
know why, I wasn't the AS/400 expert, I just know that was the advice
IBM gave us). I don't know if your place was told the same sort of
thing or not, but I know what a pain that was if anyone wanted to work
on the weekend. Of course, that machine was hacked every which way.
The users wanted something, there was no testing or thought out
response, just implement it and hope it doesn't break something else.
It ran that way for years, just keep fiddling with it. That was a
constant pain in the butt.
It was the only AS/400 I've ever seen that would actually crash every
once in a while. But it had been just completely hosed by the sloppy
programming practices (know this from the guy that came in to try to
"clean up" the code). It just goes to show you that even a fully stable
platform can go to crap if you let some idiot program the hell out of
things he shouldn't be touching.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:02:00 GMT
In article <5Bma5.9335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making
ones?
> Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
> uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image
on-line
> matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using
Linux!
(flashback to the eighties)
The companies that resist change, those old top-heavy dinosaurs, status
quo protecting ones? Companies that are convinced of the superiority of
token ring versus ethernet, appreciate the simplicity of centralized
data processing, the brand name recognition of IBM in the data center,
that's because corporate inertia is all that matters - they are NOT
using personal computers and MOST DEFINITELY not using Microsoft!
(Same shit, different day.)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:11:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I was forced to be Windows centric to get to the position I am in now.
>I hated every minute of it. Windows just does not make sense to me. I
>know how to make it work, and I know how to get it usuable for others
>(apparently I knew better than my last boss, Network Admin that didn't
>even understand how to set up an NT server), but I was never comfortable
>with it. It was knowledge I was forced to use to better my carreer.
>Now, I can finally use the knowledge that I actually enjoy using. I've
>always leaned towards Unix, ever since my discovery of it. It seems
>cleaner to me, and "feels" better. It's like the difference between
>being in a stuffy room on a hot day (Windows) and being out on a small
>hill in a cool evening breeze (Unix). See, I know that this is going to
>be taken wrong by somebody. I know that it looks like I'm attacking
>Windows, but honestly, don't we all know someone that would rather be in
>that hot and stuffy room? I do. So, once again it is simply an
>opinion. My opinion is Unix is better for me. I don't know what's
>better for another person until I know that person well enough to sort
>of map his/her habits to the computer.
Interesting... I never really liked UNIX. I think the shell commands put me
off. I never did like 'ls', 'cat' or 'grep'. I guess working for twelve
years for Digital Equipment Corporation and learning to use DCL, LSE and
the other tools there has that effect on you.
Whilst Windows doesn't offer me everything I want (hey, I want scrollbars
that look like stone with springs in!) it's the closest I've got so far.
It's interesting how you compare Windows (hot stuffy room) with UNIX (cool
evening breeze). I can't think how I would describe them in those terms.
Perhaps UNIX it would be like being stuck in a muddy bog, and Windows it
would be like a sweaty fog. Sounds like I don't like either of them!
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:16:49 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>yeah... you just managed, through totally random purchase, to
>assemble a machine where EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT lies within the
>few percent of things with no Linux drivers.
>
>Probability of one unsupported component: 1 to 5%
>
>Probability of two unsupported components:
> (1% to 5%) ^2 = 0.01% to 0.25%
>
>Probability of six unsupported components:
> (1% to 5%) ^6 = 0.000000000001% to 0.000000015625%
>
>Forgive me if I'm less than sympathetic with your claims.
Are you saying that I bought all these components deliberately to show
Linux in a bad light? Is that it?
Forgive me, but you don't know my motivation. You can't. You're guessing.
You're making the assumption that because I favour Windows over Linux I'm
going to do everything in my power to show Linux in a bad light.
You realise what this is called don't you?
It's called "prejudice". You've prejudged me.
No matter what I say, you're never going to believe me. You're going to
remain convinced that this was all a setup, exactly like what you've seen
other "trolls" (your word, not mine) have done before.
If it sounds like a troll, it must be a troll? Is that it?
Pete
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: License?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:14:08 -0500
darkstar51 wrote:
>
> I have a Red Hat CD. Can I install it on company computers. Is there
> any License Agreement that I might violate? The Network Manager keeps
> swearing you have to have a license.
>
> Thanks,
> darkstar51
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
As long as you don't load any commercial software you should be fine.
If you have one of the single CD distros of Red Hat you don't have
anything to worry about at all. You don't need a license for Linux, the
GPL covers that. If your Network Manager insists on seeing the license,
tell him to read the file COPYING (should be somewhere on the CD). This
file is the GPL (GNU Public License) which is the license that covers
Linux software (for the most part).
It sounds like your Network Manager is a Microsoft person. They all
seem to think there is no such thing as "free" software. That is the
beauty of Linux (one of the beautiful points anyway), it is free. You
can install it on as many systems as you want. I am running an office
with 24 machines off of one copy of SuSE Linux. There is no reason to
need a seperate license for each machine like in the Windows world. You
just need the software, and install away.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:18:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Hallock) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Well, that is your basic problem. Your premise is that "Linux lags
>behind Windows". So you admit that you started out biased. Just to
>refresh your memory, a premise is:
>
>A statement assumed to be true and used to draw a conclusion.
I admit nothing of the sort. Premise was the wrong word.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 15:18:10 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 7 Jul 2000 00:09:32
> [...]
>>>The reason for the GPL restriction is simply to avoid the
>>>plagerism of calling the GPL code your own.
>>
>>No it isn't.
>
>Could you inform us as to your reasoning?
The LGPL is sufficient for that, as is just about any of
the licenses that require attribution to remain. The
fact that the GPL contains the additional clauses about the
whole of a derived work points out that it goes beyond
controlling just the original work.
>>How about linking to shared libraries, or any form of
>>separate distributions where the user does the link
>>and maintains a clear separation of ownership? This meets
>>the requirements you mention, but not the political
>>ends of the FSF.
>
>Perhaps I've made a mistake, or don't understand precisely what you mean
>by "the user does the link". If you write code which calls shared GPL
>libraries that you are not distributing, then your code is not limited
>by the GPL; is this correct? From Jedi's specific implication that you
>can even distribute the libraries, and don't even need to open your
>code. Does this mean you can't combine them in the same package, Jedi?
In the RIPEM case, RMS asserted that:
/* calculates 1+1*/
#include "gmp.h"
main()
{
MP_INT a;
mpz_init_ui(&a,1);
mpz_add_ui(&a,&a,1);
}
constituted a derived work of the gmp library, even though it
only uses the library interface.
This view has not been upheld in court, but who can afford
even the threat of a lawsuit? The result was that someone
had to go to the trouble of duplicating the library in
'really free' as opposed to 'FSF-free' code. A copy of
the fgmp man page with some comments by the author can
be found here:
http://www.ptf.com/ptf/products/UNIX/current/0264.0.html
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy Newsgroup, Right?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:29:11 GMT
Jacques Guy wrote:
> =
> Cihl wrote:
> =
> > Did you try installing BeOS?
> =
> No, because the BeOS distribution I have installs from Win95 only,
> and there is no way I will install Win95 unless under the
> threat of a cocked gun.
Anyway, you read my point.
> > I wouldn't set Windows as a goal for installation
> > ease. That's too easily achieved.
> =
> That's not the opinion of the Chinese fellow who runs
> the computer shop in Glen Waverley (Melbourne, Australia).
> He bitches about hardware incompatibilities when trying
> to install Win98.
I don't think i quite understand your response. (?)
Looks to me that this guy would agree with me.
=
> > Yes, Linux is very user-friendly once the installation is complete an=
d
> > all the hardware works. It could, however, still be much easier. And
> > that's what we have to work towards. I think it's coming along quite
> > nicely, don't you think?
> =
> I remember the Linux of only a few years ago, without a GUI.
> And that was only a very few years ago. I remember, when was it,
> three years ago? Trying to install Red Hat 5 (or was it 4?) on
> my PC at work. I had to ask help from a Unix man. Another
> colleague, who had never seen Linux, was watching, commenting
> "Hey, that's a *REAL* operating system!"
Yeah, i know what you mean. I did run a GUI on top of Linux 2 years
ago too though. I think it was called CDE or something.
=
> > I think it's
> > really cool that the newer installations come up in full high-color
> > SVGA. It gives newbies a good first impression.
> =
> I was a bit miffed at not being given a choice of resolutions.
Well, you can't have everything. :-)
=
> > All this install needs now is better installation of scanners
> =
> Ah... if I could find, and install, a driver for my HP ScanJet 5p,
> I could *almost* kiss Windows good-bye for good. "Almost" because
> my laser printer is a Panasonic KX-P6100... ho gia lasciato ogni
> speranza.
Ke?
-- =
=A8I live!=A8
=A8I hunger!=A8
=A8Run, coward!=A8
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: License?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:16:33 GMT
No, no license is needed for the basic install. Some of the apps that
come with RH may need a license but they are on another disk! Hey, if
you wan't you can insall linux without a CD. Since the new version of
Mandrake is available off the net before the box set, I make a network
install boot floppy and install right of the net from one of Mandrakes
mirror site (again NO LICENSE). At work, I make a NFS mountable
partition download the software then do a NFS install or upgrade to any
server or workstation.
You can install that redhat on as many PC's as you want!
In article <8kd99o$5dc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
darkstar51 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a Red Hat CD. Can I install it on company computers. Is there
> any License Agreement that I might violate? The Network Manager keeps
> swearing you have to have a license.
>
> Thanks,
> darkstar51
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:17:55 GMT
Under Linux clustering, you can now add Red Hat's Piranha...
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2234963.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni
TurboLinux and Mission Critical Linux are also working on clustered
solutions. Steeleye's LifeKeeper (mentioned in the article) is
available for NT, UNIX, and Linux.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 20:30:06 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:30:52 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>You cannot guarantee freedom by removing it.
>The GPL provides a nice counter example.
You've assumed your conclusion. How does the GPV guarantee freedom by
removing it? If you remove freedom, you remove freedom. You don't guarantee
or increase freedom. You remove freedom. If you remove freedom, there's less
freedom. This would seem to be obvious, and I am totally at a loss as to why
people don't see it.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 21:45:29 +0100
It is also rare to have so few crashes on any windblows machine in that
length of time.
I work for a small software company and the windoze development machines
crash several times per day.
The only time I have managed to get anything resembling a crash on linux in
the 5 years I have been using it regularly at home is about 4 years ago when
I thought it would be fun to see how many copies of X-Doom I could run at
the same time and after I had 5 copies running at the same time on a 486
PC it got so slow I was unable to do anything except CTRL-ALT-Backspace to
kill the GUI. After running StartX it came up again with no problems (It was
difficult to run even 1 copy of Doom on the same PC under windoze).
------------------------------
From: Phill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:08:42 +0100
"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
> [snip]We have at work a Windows95 PC that has been running
> without reboot since the sub-department was formed 5-6 months ago. It is a
> meaningless statistic, since all the 486 does is act as a Netware print
> server.
5-6 months? Are you sure? I thought that v1+2 (95) had the dreaded clock
roll-over bug that would bring the box down every few weeks?
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:38:42 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> The big problem with the two hour free parking analogy is that "two hour
> free parking" is generally understood to refer to freedom of cost, not to
> being libre. I think even the most vocal GPL detractors would agree that GPL
> software can usually be obtained free of cost.
Free parking is not an analogy for free software. Free parking is an
example of a phrase where the word free is used despite the fact that
the resource is offered under heavy restrictions. It illustrates that
the presence of such restrictions does not disqualify free from common
usage.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:28:12 GMT
In article <B7ma5.10915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >This is why:
> >
> >=== script output ===
> >
> >Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
> > 1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14,
0.29
> >USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
> >nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
> >nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
> >
>
> To bad you and many others filto realize that uptime counts are
virtually
> meaningless! The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM
up time
> of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything.
What does
> that fact tell you?
that the your IBM is SH*T.
>
> Paul
>
> --
>
> "Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:26:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:15:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >This coming from a guy that piped in supporting peter, shees,
>
> The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't imply that I agree with
> him.
>
> --
> Donovan
>
But the first message that you posted in this particular tread was in
DIRECT suport of peter.
the basic way the posts went (paraphased to make it a bit easier)
someone posted:
A Kde bug is not a Linux bug
Peter posted:
now you are just splitting hairs.
I posted:
No he is not, KDE and Linux are independant of each other.
you posted:
Yes he is....
this is in complete agreement with peter!
Look back over the threads if you don't beleive me. I really hope you're
not one of those trolls who will say anything that is supports the
moment even when it conflicts with what you have said in the past.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 20:34:26 GMT
In article <5Bma5.9335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains
and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com"
vs
> W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this
Apache
> dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
>
> The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making
ones?
> Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
> uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image
on-line
> matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using
Linux!
>
> +===+===+===
>
>
http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?searchresult=1&ID=6150095626AM
>
> "The dominant position of Microsoft's proprietary IIS in the Fortune
500
> makes Windows NT a lock for the most used operating system
undergirding the
> Web servers -- 43 percent. "
>
> == and ==
>
> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2817
>
> "According to ENT's survey of Fortune 500 companies and their Web
sites, IIS
> is the most commonly used Web server, with 41% of the market. In
second
> place is Netscape/iPlanet with 35%. And the supposedly dominant Apache
> brings up the rear with only 15% of Fortune 500 deployments. Thanks to
the
> success of IIS, Windows NT/2000 is also the most commonly used
operating
> system on Fortune 500 Web sites: NT is used on 43% of such sites. Sun
> Microsystems Solaris comes in second with 36%. But the real surprise
for
> those people that religiously follow the Netcraft surveys is that
Linux
> "falls into the noise level," according to ENT, with only 10 companies
in
> the Fortune 500 using the upstart open source OS to deploy their
production
> sites. Even IBM AIX and HP/UX have 15 deployments each, and BSD/OS
tops
> Linux with 14. "
>
WOW! 2 biased magazine articles! typical Drestin. Never an impatial
source!
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:45:33 -0500
Nik Simpson wrote:
> I would suspect it was done by querying the web servers at tithe Fortune 500
> companies concerned, it's not hard to do. If you question the results it
> would be easy to try and disprove them.
Interested parties may want to visit www.slashdot.org, where various parties
have posted the results of queries to the top 10, 15, 100, etc. busiest Web
sites.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: License?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:43:02 -0500
darkstar51 wrote:
> I have a Red Hat CD. Can I install it on company computers. Is there
> any License Agreement that I might violate? The Network Manager keeps
> swearing you have to have a license.
In the top level directory of the CD there is a file named 'COPYING',
which explains the GNU Public License (GPL), the license for *any* copy
of Linux.
A few specific packages on the CD, such as Netscape, will have other
licenses.
Yes, you can install it on your company computers. You can loan the CD
to your friends afterward. You can burn copies of the CD and give them
away. You can burn copies and sell them.
Good luck,
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
p.s. -- Is your NM by chance an MCSE?
------------------------------
From: Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 10 Jul 2000 16:52:10 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> You can't encourage anything with restrictions. You can only
> restrict it.
So you believe that commercial software companies would happily
go on producing software if there was no copyright law restricting
how their products could be redistributed?
And you don't believe that restricting the consumption of alcohol
on the street at parades (as in New York City) encourages more
people to attend?
And you don't believe that the restrictions on technology use
granted by patents encourage technology to be published openly
instead of being kept secret?
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 15:49:15 -0500
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> It is also rare to have so few crashes on any windblows machine in that
> length of time.
>
> I work for a small software company and the windoze development machines
> crash several times per day.
>
> The only time I have managed to get anything resembling a crash on linux in
> the 5 years I have been using it regularly at home is about 4 years ago when
> I thought it would be fun to see how many copies of X-Doom I could run at
> the same time and after I had 5 copies running at the same time on a 486
> PC it got so slow I was unable to do anything except CTRL-ALT-Backspace to
> kill the GUI. After running StartX it came up again with no problems (It was
> difficult to run even 1 copy of Doom on the same PC under windoze).
I agree that Windows seems to crash a lot more often that what was
originally stated, but in some cases it is possible to set it up to run
without crashing *a lot*. But you have to have an administrator that
knows what he is doing, users that don't fiddle with the control panel,
and a solid network/server setup in a business to really keep them
running smooth. Any one of those factors changes and you are crashing
at least weekly, probably more often. I have yet to see a company where
all three of those things apply. I suppose there is one out there
somewhere, but I haven't been there.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:52:12 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Look at what they have already done. Remember DRI? Remeber the other
> antitrust actions against them in the past that were ended by out of court
> settlements. Settlements that they promptly foud way to circumvent or just
> plain ignore.
But will they be able to ignore future settlements?
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
