Linux-Advocacy Digest #686, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft (Andy Newman)
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Java remains the best choice (was: Re: Oh Oh! 2) (Matt Kennel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:33:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Stump in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Logical arguments cannot reasonably rest purely on dictionary
>>definitions. Surely you people are smart enough to realize that.
>
>I don't see why. I am first a CS type person. I sure you can see a
>but of this in my answer. I like things like logic and philosophy. A
>current unabridged dictionary is a fascinating tool. All the online
>dictionaries I've read are sad, very sad shadows of what a dictionary
>should be.
None of these things are dependant or related to being so foolish as to
think that a logical argument can reasonably rest purely on dictionary
definitions.
>They are what we can reasonably agree on about what our language is.
And the rest is called "reasoned discussion", which uses that very same
language. The point to speaking is not to match a dictionary
definition. The word exists first; the dictionary is a one-dimensional,
marginally dynamic thing.
>Menaing, if it isn't in there, we haven't achieved consensus, or maybe
>it just isn't current.
The dictionary is not written by concensus. It is a studied work, which
attempts to broadly survey usage, but it attempts to capture, not
standardize, what is current, and it is the work of single publisher.
Note how different dictionaries have different definitions. Do you
think the dictionary people are concerned by that? What does that say
about your Platonic confusion? Do you know what Platonic confusion is?
Your only hint is its probably something to do with Plato, because other
than that, its an original concept I'm trying to convey. Something
about conceptual glitches....
[...]
Oh lord, please, somebody, shoot me.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:34:41 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:19 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
> [...]
>>And that's the problem with CMT. What if you put a rendering job in
>>the bg? It dies, basically. It's a PITA on a modern computer - you
>>can run one thing, and everything else is suspended. Oh, it isn't
>>nearly that bad, and modern CPUs have smoothed over some of the
>>problems, but still, it's a horrid method of MT'ing.
>
>But my question then becomes "why does the rendering job die?" The PITA
>for all modern technology, I have found, usually rests on
>connection-oriented demands that were formerly necessary due to
>technical restraints and lack of ingenuity. All the really cool
>technology is the stuff that abandons those assumptions, and points out
>that sometimes building the system to tolerate unreliability is WAY more
>powerful, and even easier at the same time, then continuing to build
>systems that mandate reliability, but are just as ineffective,
>ultimately, at providing it as the connectionless alternative.
That's touching. Please try to address what I said and stay on topic.
>The Internet wouldn't work if it were just one big real-time phone
>system, you know. It would seize and die, almost instantaneously, if it
>somehow could become one. Too much complexity. And it may be possible,
>particularly given just how much Moores Law has proven valid, that a
>single desktop computer may be able to cross that threshold of
>complexity, as well. At that point, its a smarter move to let the
>system be able to fail, because then it will fail less often and cause
>fewer problems when it does, then to insist that it cannot ever fail.
Again, would you PLEASE stay on topic and address what I wrote?
>>>>In a CMT system, any app (including the foreground app) can become
>>>>unresponsive if any other app hogs the CPU.
>>>
>>>Thus providing the need for cooperation. Yes, any system that is based
>>>on cooperation can screw up the system for everyone. Are you saying
>>>Token Ring is better than Ethernet? TCP/IP sucks compared to X.25?
>>>Microchannel was more successful than the original PC? All of these
>>>very important technologies are all based on one thing: you cannot
>>>mandate technical value in market-driven development. So stop trying.
>>>Because there is always technical value in cooperation, and the market
>>>LOVES cooperation. Its what its built for. System which mandate
>>>cooperation end up being far superior than systems which attempt to
>>>impose even egalitarian rules.
>>
>>Software isn't a standard. Yours is a pie in the sky fantasy.
>
>According to the engineers, PMT is absolutely "the standard". You
There's a vast difference between PMT and the generic "software".
>overestimate the difference between interoperability standards and
>computer software.
Kind of like comparing swimming pools and cows - what point does this
have?
>Particularly in a system which we want to be
>modular, expandable, and multi-vendor.
Yeah - PMT does best there. The only good scenario I can see for CMT
is a closed-system where all variables and programs are already known
ahead of time. Maybe.
>>>>Worse, if, for example,
>>>>you're doing a 3D render that's hogging the CPU, everything else in
>>>>_that app_ becomes unresponsive.
>>>
>>>Sounds like renderer should be a separate process.
>>>Is that too tough? You realize it would provide value all by itself, right? At
>least I
>>>assume so, since multi-threaded programs seem to be very popular in the
>>>market.
>>
>>I think that was a poor example. A better one is simply putting the
>>rendering app in the bg, and watching as it dies while your
>>newsreader, which requires perhaps .2% CPU time, gets almost 100% CPU
>>time. CMT is a very poor method for multitasking; everyone else has
>>dropped it (even, finally, Apple). Why do you champion it? You've
>>yet to list a technical benefit that can't also be offered by PMT.
>
>Because all you have been able to illustrate is a very poor newsreader.
...because it uses 100% of the CPU time. Yes, but then how does it
know how much to use? Unless the OS tells it, it's got to guess every
time. And let's make this more complicated - add a rendering program.
How does the rendering program not know you want to also run a
newsreader and also render something -else-?
>The foreground app doesn't *have* to take any time it doesn't need in
>CMT.
How do you suggest it take CPU time?
>And your renderer shouldn't have any trouble staying alive,
>either.
By "alive" I mean running with the efficiency I've become used to in a
PMT system.
>Timeouts on software networking protocols are in the range of
>*seconds*, not CPU cycles.
So ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:35:30 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:27:58 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:53:34 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:38:10 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
>> >> >> >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
>> >> >> >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
>> >> >> bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
>> >> >
>> >> >But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
>> >>
>> >> That just shows that Apple likes to skimp on hardware while
>> >> overcharging their customers...
>> >
>> >Hardly. The Mac came about as a direct result of the Lisa; a more
>> >expensive system that nobody bought. Incidentally, the Lisa supported
>> >PMT. This was one of the corners Apple had to cut when trying to build a
>> >lower cost system.
>>
>> ...which in no way contradicts Jedi's poing, that Apple likes to skimp
>> on hardware while overcharging customers. After all, if the C= Amiga
>> could do it then, why not a much larger Apple Computers, Inc.?
>
>Amiga was a separate corporation purchased by Commodore just before
>it's release.
>At the time, Commodore was HUGE.... the C-64 sales were absolutely
>trouncing Apple //c and Apple //e sales.
True.
>A few years later, Atari, failing to spot the new direction of the
>market (the Atari 520ST and 1040ST never gained more than a niche
>market).... Commodore tried...they even had a SysVR3 unix port in
>1992...alas, they never captured even a narrow slice of the business
>market...and thus, they soon filed for bankruptcy as well.
Unfortunate, but by 1990 I think just about everyone saw it coming.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 14 Jul 2000 23:23:29 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:46:45 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 13 Jul 2000 03:13:04 GMT
>>
>>You haven't been overstating the case so much as you've been just plain
>>wrong.
>
>Thank you. Please to explain this to me; I am not a eingeneer.
>(Sorry, just having a bit of fun; this ain't a troll.)
That's a project for more than one afternoon. If you're serious, I'll
start by giving you a reading list. Let me know.
By the way, I am not an "engineer", though I have had that word appear
in my job title now and again. I'm a college dropout, and I am not a
programmer. I just read a lot.
>Seriously, I want to hear what your thoughts are on how I am wrong. I
>know I am; I just don't know how. But if you can explain it to me in a
>way that doesn't mandate or entirely stem from an engineer's view of
>optimization and functionality, but takes into account the operational
>level of the humans interaction and supports people *learning* how to
>control what needs to be controlled, instead of building software that
>requires that it be taken out of their hands, then I will learn from it,
>I promise you. And I will then go so far as to explain to you how I am
>right, as well, but simply to salve my own ego, for having to admit that
>I am wrong..
The short version is that your conception of scheduling is limited
because you're still thinking of time in terms of perceptible
quantities.
Although a user can and arguably should be able to affect the decisions
made by a scheduler, the scheduler should be a program, not a person,
because it's dealing with slices of time too small for people to handle.
To really make this point, I'd want to use the concepts of "process",
"context switch", "time quantum", and "blocking I/O". That's why I want
to give you a reading list.
Let me see how far I can get without literature. There are going to be
some oversimplifications in here, and perhaps some slight inaccuracies,
but I hope to get the point across adequately. A process is the
abstraction used by an operating system to represent a schedulable
entity, work-to-be-done. A process is a running instance of a program,
so it has a copy in memory or the program itself; it has a program
counter, which points to the memory address of the next instruction to
be executed; it may have references to open files, etc. (There's a lot
more, but I'll skip it for now.)
A context switch is when one process stops being the "current process"
(or curproc) and another process begins being it. A context switch
requires saving the state of the processor registers and loading the
previously-saved state of the new curproc.
A time quantum is the amount of time a process gets before it is
forcibly switched out. A context switch can also happen when a process
"sleeps on a resource", meaning it gives the kernel the name of a
communications channel (say, a descriptor representing a file or a
network socket) and says, "wake me up when there's data to be read".
That's called "blocking I/O".
Ugg ... I'd like to tie this all in with the BSD scheduler algorithm,
but a) my copy of McKusick is out on loan and b) I'm hungry and out of
time. Is all this clear so far?
>My computer is incredibly stupid about what should and should not be
>given priority. I am constantly waiting for things to happen, and it
>has no way of knowing what they are, other than the possible (and
>flawed, you're entirely correct) method of which one I've got on top of
>my desk. You say that isn't a good system, because it requires all the
>applications to cooperate.
It does? How's that? I've been saying (again and again and again) that
cooperative multitasking is a bad idea. Anything else you've been reading
in my posts is your own invention.
>I say, at least it allows *some* operator
>control, without going so far as to require explicit and
>engineering-level configuration in advance of a static algorithm
>scheduler. What do you say in response?
I say mull over what I've posted and ask me again later.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:42:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Hyman Rosen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> >Except that the law seems to state otherwise. You are allowed to
>> >manufacture a video game which runs on a console game system
>> >without permission, license, or payment to the maker of the
>> >console, even when this game can run only on this system.
>>
>> That's because they published their API. You're not using their
>> intellectual property. You're benefiting from it, certainly. But
>> you're not using it. Besides, your example isn't even very valid; yes,
>> game console companies can and do have licenses agreed to by developers.
>>
>> It is simply an inappropriate comparison, Hyman, that doesn't have any
>> relevance to libraries on a general purpose system.
>
>I don't think you understand. Game console companies most certainly have
>license agreements; those agreements require royalties for every copy of
>a game that is sold. Very often the APIs are released only under NDAs.
>What some companies (Galoob, maybe?) do is to hack a console apart and
>reverse engineer the APIs, then write games to what they have discovered
>about the machine, precisely to avoid entering into agreements with the
>manufacturer, so as not to have to pay royalties. And *that* is what the
>courts have ruled is legal.
Yes, of course. Reverse engineering trade secrets (which is what you
would have an NDA cover, in this case, effectively a component of the
license, just like software EULAs) *is* allowed, and always has been.
The only case where you couldn't legitimately do it is if you had
licensed the trade secrets, because then they make you agree you won't
reverse engineer any of it. This is apparently done, I think, in game
consoles and such because you can't copyright an API. It is licensing,
not copyright, which protects APIs. Very similarly to both EULA and
developer licenses for commercial PC software.
>Along the same lines, PC makers used to implant copyright strings into
>their ROMS, then have the startup code of the OS look for the string and
>fail to work if it couldn't find it. That stratagem failed; the courts
>did not prevent clone makers from embedding the same string, because
>that was the only way to get the clone to work.
I hadn't heard about that. Was it actually tested in courts? Would
anyone have a reference? Of course, all that was before MS figured out
the trick. You bind the OS to the PC with legal language, not technical
tricks. At first. Then the rest is easy; you can bind it to anything.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:51:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>This is where you are simply, completely, and unalterably *wrong*.
That's what you said last time, too.
>Software will no more be Lego block building than building skyscrapers
>will be.
Did you hear about the McDonald's that come on the back of a flat-bed?
Prefab, tab-A, slot-B. Three days and its operational (takes a couple
weeks to prepare the sight of course, but....) They're cool. My
current home of Lebanon, PA was the first place to get one. And the
53rd, a month or two later.
>There are sets of techniques used, and there are general rules
>when putting together the problem domain and the solution for it, but
>the solution is always specific to the problem domain.
So you're saying you have to be an astronomer to write astronomy
software? I thought you had to be a programmer? Or maybe you
oversimplify the science of programming, confusing it with the skill of
being a code jockey in a cubicle at Microshaft.
>I'm not pretending that it's difficult -- much of software development
>isn't difficult, and any fool (including you) could learn how to do
>it.
Software development is a *monstrously* difficult task. I never said it
wasn't.
Its programming that I said was putting Lego blocks together. Not all
software needs to be 'developed'. A lot of it just needs to be
re-written. And the majority of that is easier to re-write than it
would be to maintain. And end users should be capable of doing all of
this to reasonable levels of efficiency for many common tasks, including
typical desktop functionality as well as a moderate amount of much of
the functionality of an engineering workstation. Its not like they'll
write all the software on the box from the ground up.
>The problem comes in where twits like you don't *want* to learn
Did you know that a "twit" is defined as a pregnant female goldfish?
>anything about software development and turn around and project their
>idiotic notions of software development on everyone else. It's about as
>arrogant as telling an author that you could write better than they can
>-- when you haven't bothered writing anything but pencil-pushing memos
>of no value.
>
>Or maybe you think that you can turn around and tell a surgeon how to
>make an incision. Many idiotic business managers have believed they
>could do that -- Dilbert *is* a documentary.
I'm not a programmer, but I'm closer to an engineer than a business
manager, that's for sure. Dilbert is my life. Pathetic, I know, but
true. But you should see what goes on off-panel.
>>> Business managers have been wanting that since
>>> computers first arrived -- and every time they have been given the
>>> ability to do so, the products have flopped or not been used by the
>>> original targets.
>> That's because business managers aren't the ones who are going to put
>> the Lego blocks together. Users are. Eventually.
>
>Business managers *are* the users, nitwit. Then again, as you've so
>amply demonstrated, business managers don't tend to have the first clue
>about logical *or* creative thinking, so it's rather clear that they'll
>*never* have the ability to program even a VCR or a toaster.
Hey, Jackass. Blow me.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 09:33:11 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
>MICROSOFT spared no effort
>in diverting attention from it's own trial to a scandal that would
>eventually lead to the impeachment of the President of the
>United States of America. Effectively, Microsoft conspired to
>overthrow the government of the United States. Now THAT's abuse
>of monopoly power.
Wow Rex. This has got to be about the best one yet! Keep going.
>He even used a cigar rather than risk direct physical contact.
There has to be an X input handler for one of them things.
>The fact is that Ed Gosling probably did more to alter the course
^^ Ed?
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:02:33 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now let me contribute a couple of more items to your list of Windows
> weirdnesses.
I will mention the general problem that I call "winsanity". That is, any time
you boot you don't know what kind of surprise reconfiguration you are going to
get.
I used to see *lots* of annoying manifestations of this such as lost settings
for this or that or detections of "new" hardware that I had had since the
system was brand new, but the one that took the cake was when my W'95 started
"seeing" my ZIP drive twice, and telling me I had *two* of them. This happened
on two different occasions, and it was a royal pain (plus a bevy of reboots) to
make it quit seeing double, and then a bit more work to get my original drive
letters back.
Winsanity did as much as anything to get Windows off my drive. I dual booted
for almost two years, but for the second of those years I only ever booted to
Windows to play games. It got to the point that I was reluctant to boot to
Windows on game night, because more often than not I spent the evening playing
shrink vs. winsanity rather than actually playing any games. So I learned to
enjoy Freeciv, and scratched my Windows partition the first time I needed more
disk space for my Linux software.
And a good riddance it was.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 18:06:08 -0500
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> However, why hog bandwidth
> with the same non-sense day in and day out?
Ask Steve, he surely has a reason.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 20:04:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Stump in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In case you aren't aware, a dollar is a promise of a future dollar's
>>worth of stuff, in just the same way as a credit card in your context.
>
>Yes, but the difference is who is doing the promising... That subtle
>difference is enough for me to switch from virtual to real. Remember,
>like free, virtual is also kinda an opinion.
Not in my book. Virtual = not. That's why I go with credit cards;
because of who's doing the promising. If I use cash, its either me or
the government, depending on your opinion. If I use a credit card, the
government and I agree; the credit card company is doing *all* the
promising. If anyone gets caught without a dollar, its going to be
them, by law. Another right we gotta watch before it goes away.
Because you *pay* a credit card company to make that promise for you,
not by the promise of your dollar, but by the 8 cents they make on the
deal. The profit is theirs, the risk is theirs.
>>The word "virtual" translates, in modern parlance, and particularly
>>technical jargon, directly, entirely, and without exception, the word
>>"not".
>
>Wrong.
>
>Virual memory you claim is not memory, but not memory is more
>unqualified. A catfish is not memory, yet saying a catfish is virtual
>memory doesn't seem quite right to me.
No, virtual memory *isn't* memory, because memory functionally means
"non-persistant fast RAM", and VM is actually disk storage. You would
*like* it to be memory, is the only thing that distinguishes it from the
catfish, to be honest. At least in whether or not it is memory. In
fact, the only reason you are mentioning it isn't memory, is the fact
that you'd like it to be. Otherwise, swap would be called virtual
catfish, or something, right?
:-)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java remains the best choice (was: Re: Oh Oh! 2)
Date: 15 Jul 2000 00:07:21 GMT
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 06:54:52 GMT, fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:
:JennyMe wrote:
:>
:> Which is precisely why Javapologists and Sun should be worried about
:> .NET. M$ is (finally) architecting with the ultimate demise of
:> Windows in mind.
:
:Yep. They'll escape the DOJ by making Windows obsolete all by
:themselves. Windows' last act will be leverage in the .NET
:platform, then it'll be split off by the DOJ and killed by
:Microsoft. The monopoly will continue.
I am expecting them to have one company sell nothing but a kernel
for x86 computers and barely nothing else, i.e. you boot up and get a
DOSterm.
Then the less regulated 'apps company' sells everything else that does
anything.
So all PC makers would basically have to license the kernel from
company 1 and the whole bunch of other stuff, conveniently bundled 'as
a single package' from the other and life continues as is.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
