Linux-Advocacy Digest #225, Volume #28 Fri, 4 Aug 00 13:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux as embedded OS (Perry Pip)
Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Miky Crackhead Byrns....COMNA coward ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Spud")
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix ("Spud")
Re: Be OR Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux (Loren Petrich)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Linux as embedded OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:45:27 GMT
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 14:02:10 +0200,
Tim Magnussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Andres Soolo wrote:
>
>> If you're going to build a system on top of them that uses them, it'll
>> go a little bit hairier--the GPL modification clause applies whenever
>> you do link something to a GPLed library but if you have scripts
>> interacting with the engine, you should be safe. With Apache it's
>> easy--the only exception would be new modules I guess. PostgreSQL
>> seems to be under a very unristrictive license, so the problem won't
>> even arise.
>
><Sigh> - things are getting complicated again. I knew i weren't that simple.
The devil is always in the details. When selling a Linux based
product, you need to look at the specific license of each product you
use. When it doubt, ask the developers. For general question about
GPL, I recommend you post them to gnu.misc.discuss
>We /are/ planning to build a system on top of them that uses them.
>
>Can you say that:
>If you link statically to a GPL'ed product (say a database) with your own module
>(developed in C++) that would be a problem (even though you use the standard
>database C/C++ API for communication). But if you use an already existing module
>that is LGPL'ed it wouldn't. Also if you link dynamically to a GPL'ed package and
>only uses existing means of communicating (built-in scripting
>facility/user-interface etc) it wouldn't either.
I don't believe GPL distinguishes between static and dynamic
linking. Most people are going to dynamically link anyways. Once you
do either, it becomes considered a derived work.
However, I don't believe any of the component you mentioned in a
previous post are under GPL. GTK+ is LGPL see http://www.gtk.org. Also
the kernel is a modified GPL will only affect you if you modify kernel
code itself. Xfree, Apache and Postgres are more
liberal. Nonetheless, I recommend you personally check the license for
each product you intend to use.
>Now if you make your own module for communicating with the database and use this as
>a proxy between your proprietary software and the database will this allow you to
>LGPL only the module (and keep your proprietary software proprietary)?
If your proxy is just communicating with the database via IP it is
then a separate work and you can license it any way you want, unless
the database license is so restrictive it limits client
connections. If it uses (including linking to ) any code from the
database it is considered a derived work, which is what GPL concerns
itself with.
>> Which parts?
>
>Eg. the parts that is used to interpret the sensory input from the measuring
>modules.
I take it your measuring modules will be kernel modules. Those can be
binary no problem. The parts used to interpret those modules should be
fine as well as long as you do not use (or link to) any code from a
GPL'd or other restrictive lisence. You really need to check the
licensing for any product you use on a one by one basis.
Perry
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:10:40 -0500
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>
> Ray Chason wrote:
>
> > Ballmer...
> > Palmer...
> >
> > Coincidence? (ominous music)
>
> Side note: If you haven't seen the Gates interview over at Red Herring, rush
> over and check it out now.
> http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue82/mag-gates-82-home.html
>
Favorite quote:
Gates:
We made very sure that every new version of Windows ran competitive
products better than the previous versions of Windows. We went out of
our way to support the other guys and get them every piece of
information; we featured them in our marketing; we did nothing to hold
them back from installing on every [original equipment manufacturer] OEM
machine in the universe. And they were on tens and tens of millions of
machines. So you have a case with no technical exclusion.
Um, can anyone say 'delusional'?
The guy sersiously seems to believe that MS was never being
anti-competitive. Of course, in Gates' world, I'm sure lying isn't any
more morally contemptable than his business's practices of malicious
attacks, absorbtion, buy-outs, and push-outs.
One amazing guy!
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Steve Ballmer post here?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 08:00:16 -0700
Ray Chason wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12266.html
> Quoth Mr. Ballmer:
> "Linux sort of springs organically from the earth. And it had [sic],
> you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very,
> very much about it. That is, it's free."
> "Communism," the man says. And Timmy-boy calls Linux advocates "Commy."
> Ballmer...
> Palmer...
> Coincidence? (ominous music)
And Palmer is really a guy named Steve ...
Arthur
.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 15:28:16 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> Christopher Browne wrote:
Aaron> You are using the same static economic model that the Democrats
Aaron> used when they laffed at Arthur Laffer's suggestion that lowering
Aaron> the tax rates would increase tax revenue.
What Laffer said was far simpler than that.
Aaron> Turns out that Laffer was correct.
Yes, he statement was tautological.
However if you think that the Reagan era income tax cuts
were an example of that, you should look a lot closer at the
actual data. Real income tax revenue did not recover to 1981
levels until the income tax (via removed deductions) on 1987.
Overall revenue recovered faster, due to other taxes being
sharply hiked.
Overall, as a percentage of GDP, taxes only went down 1%.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 4 Aug 2000 15:53:57 GMT
On Fri, 04 Aug 2000 09:14:05 -0400, Se�n � Donnchadha wrote:
>You're precisely right, and I must thank you for making my point for
>me. Microsoft had bundled IE 2.x and 3.x with various OEM Windows
>versions. Yet IE gained no significant market share until it started
>winning all the reviews with version 4.0. So was it the bundling that
>beat Netscape, or was it the release of a superior product?
To suggest that it was anything other than a mix of the two would be
foolish. MS didn't have to be vastly superior -- they just had to be
"good enough". When I use windows, I just use MSIE, because I can't
be bothered downloading Netscape, and IE is "good enough". So improvements
in their product obviously helped, but I don't believe that a vastly
superior product is essential if you have the kind of bundling advantage
that MS had.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 15:57:26 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 23:05:04 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Netscape didn't go out of business. They lost market share.
>
>They went out of business by losing so much stock value that they got
>bought at fire-sale prices by AOL. A fate worse than death, overall.
Does anybody know why AOL is still using IE? I just got an "exclusive
offer" (for me and a half-million or so close friends I guess) for AOL
5.0, and one selling point in the brochure was "includes Internet
Explorer 5.0".
Seems sorta odd that they would spend so much to buy Netscape and then
not use the software. I know that at some point they signed a contract
to incorporate IE components into their software, is that contract
maybe still in force? Just wondering...
>Actually at the time Microsoft started to shoehorn IE into Windows, IE
>was still known as a lesser browser, and couldn't compete with Netscape
>on merit alone.
Emails in evidence at the trial shows that *MS executives* also belived
this.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:05:36 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) writes:
> Does anybody know why AOL is still using IE? I just got an "exclusive
> offer" (for me and a half-million or so close friends I guess) for AOL
> 5.0, and one selling point in the brochure was "includes Internet
> Explorer 5.0".
It's in exchange for placement on the Windows desktop.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Miky Crackhead Byrns....COMNA coward
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 11:07:06 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> > > 1. I'm a combat veteran.
> > > 2. I'm still a soldier to this day
> > > 3. I'm in the infantry
> > > 4. Fuck with me and I will kill you.
> > > 5. That's a promise.
> >
> > You scare me so much. I think I just wet myself. All hail Rambo Kulkis
:-)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Come to Detroit and try me, coward.
You never quite grew out of that macho junior high school punk bully stage
have you. Maybe that's why you're still single.
> Actually, I have no doubt that you did wet yourself.
> Why else would you have cut comp.os.linux.advocacy out of the headers?
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Explain that for ALL of us...COWARD
I routinely snip the nix groups for a couple reasons:
1) I'm polite and don't like to cross-post.
2) I'm not in the business of educating nixers on the advantages of Windows.
If they want to learn they can come here and read like you do.
> Hoping I wouldn't see your reply?
>
> Did you shit your pants, too, cretin?
Sure I did, Kulkis. You better hope you're half as scary as you think you
are. Detroit is a rough town.
> > > > The only part of this that I agree with is the request for proof of
> > > > assertation. Please play nice Mr. Black. This is really only just
a
> > game.
> > > > Our effect is negligable on the state of computing.
> > >
> > > Mr. Drestin Crack, meet Mr. Crack Burns.
> >
> > Don't you think you are a little old to be acting like a child?
>
> You're the one who's CHILDISHLY running away from the argument,
> and then pretending to be the victor.
Please quote where I claimed victory in *THIS* argument. The way it stands
you're making that case for me :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 4 Aug 2000 16:13:18 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 18:34:16 -0400, Se�n � Donnchadha wrote:
>Netscape didn't go out of business. They lost market share. The
Yes, almost all market share.
>question is, did they lose it because IE was integrated, or did they
>lose it because IE was *BETTER*?
Both.
> Judging by the nearly unanimous
>praise for IE from the press at the time, I'd say the latter.
You don't believe that bundling helped ? The fact that IE was
"critically acclaimed" doesn't mean that much in itself ( I mean
it doesn't gaurantee market share ). A lot of critically acclaimed
products simply bellyflop.
>>Perhaps the fact that the rise in popularity really was "sudden" ? I mean,
>>it's not like everyone just suddenly downloaded IE.
>
>Uh, that's *EXACTLY* what happened. Don't you remember? IE was a joke
>compared to Navigator at Versions 1 and 2, semi-serious competition at
>Version 3, and totally *SUPERIOR* at Version 4. When IE 4.0 came out
>to glowing reviews - that's when its popularity exploded.
No, its market share grew gradually, a few percentage points at a time.
>>Sure you can. Replace bash with any bourne compatible shell.
>
>Excuse me, but the Judge didn't say "replace"; he said "remove".
The web browser can be removed. The APIs cannot be. The web browser
may be a fairly trivial application given the APIs, but it is not
the same thing. Basically, MS have found a stealthy way to leech IE
onto the OS.
>>Why did Ben Johnson run as fast as he could, even though he cheated ?
>
>Was the fact that he finished first sufficient evidence of cheating?
Nope. The fact that he was found guilty after due process is sufficient
evidence of cheating.
>>The judge, unlike you, has viewed and considered all of the facts of the
>>case.
>
>Give me a break. Judge Jackson understands squat about how the current
>design and implementation of IE differs from that before the
>integration.
This case is primarily about the law, not about the fine points of software
design. Of course, no judge can be an expert in the technical details of
a case. That's why you have expert witnesses on both sides.
>>To pretend that you are better informed than the judge is foolish
>>and arrogant.
>
>When it comes to software design and implementation, I am a million
>times better informed.
BUt you are not a lawyer, and you are not that informed in the facts of
the case. I don't care if you can recite the source code to MSIE. That
doesn't make you an expert on the facts of the case.
Sure, it makes you a technical expert on subject matter pertinent to the
case. Sure, you possibly qualify as an "expert witness". But you are not
a lawyer, and you have not reviewed all of the facts of the case
( including emails, discussions, threats regarding restraint of trade,
etc )
> I'm sorry if you find this an arrogant
>attitude. I'll reconsider my position when His Honor has spent 14
>years developing commercial software.
Your programming skills do not qualify you as a lawyer.
>What if he was exposed to all the facts, yet chose to ignore the
>majority of them?
If the judge really did selectively ignore facts pertinent to the
outcome of the case, a mistrial should be called, and he should be
debarred. But I don't think so ...
The only incompetence I've seen in this case has been that of the
Microsoft witnesses, who ironically probably damaged their case more
severely than anyone else in the court room. Not only are they liars,
they're not even good at lying !
Honesty might not be the best policy for everyone, but for people of
their competence, it is. The reason they're getting their butts whipped
in the court room has more to do with incompetence on their part than
it has to do with Judge Jackson being a "big meanie".
> That's what Microsoft is claiming for their appeal.
Their legal strategy can be summed up in one word: "arrogance". And
look where it's got them so far. They would have settled this with a
slap on the wrist and be back to business as usual if they weren't so
incompetent.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,soc.singles,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: LOREN PETRICH...CLOSET-DICTATOR
Date: 4 Aug 2000 16:18:00 GMT
On Thu, 03 Aug 2000 22:38:41 GMT, MK wrote:
>On 3 Aug 2000 00:52:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>
>>>What's the difference between Microsoft's Extortion and Racketeering,
>>>and Government Extortion and Racketeering?
>
>>The government throw you in jail for tax fraud if you don't pay your
>>federal tax, but Microsoft can't do anything if you opt out of the
>>Microsoft tax ? Subtle difference.
[ irrelevance snipped ]
I don't understand why you're arguing with me when your post suggests
agreement with mine. Argue with the other guy instead. My post clearly
indicates that I am not calling the "Microsoft tax" a tax-proper.
( hint: taxes are not voluntary. you don't "opt out" of them. )
Now go away before I set Petrich and Kulkis on you.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:35:58 -0700
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > To Windows advocates, even the most reasonable *nix advocate is a
> > trollish idiot.
>
> Which is why I adopted the policy of being completely "unreasonable"
> in my intolerance for stupidity. I use the full force my Purdue
> education to soundly beat the stuffing out of any MS-Losevocate
> who tries to trout out the standard MS marketing bilge.
>
> Those who carry water for a tyrant deserve to be tortured and
> humiliated.
Fine and reasonable; now, when you discover something for which the
term "Losevocate" - by convention, this would be something presumably
starting with the syllable "Lose", which doesn't seem to apply to
anything under discussion - let us know, so at least perhaps you'll
have something vaguely topical to make noise about. Having done that,
perhaps you can find us this supposed tyrant. Let's see, according to
dictionary.com (not what I'd necessarily call the definitive
reference, but good enough for our purposes here), a tyrant is:
1.. An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions.
2.. A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner.
3.. An oppressive, harsh, arbitrary person.
Since none of those even remotely apply to any of the main players in
the industry, I'm not sure what your point is other than to see your
posting frequency go up - much like hearing yourself talk. Point 1 is
especially amusing; it's the one that seems to best fit your intended
meaning... but it cannot possibly be correct in regards to the person
you want it to apply to, as a recent court case has demonstrated only
too well.
Your "Purdue education" may be a wonderful thing, but you seem to be
allowing your personal antipathy for things you obviously don't
understand to override it, and make you sound foolish.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 09:54:35 -0700
"sideband" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 1. Windows was nothing new when 1.0 came out.... UNIX had been doing
"Windows" with
> X for years before Micro$loth decided to steal something else...
(DOS was simply a
> ported CP/M)
>
> 2. Apple beat Micro$loth to the GUI market as well, in 1984, with
the release of the
> Lisa, and in 1985 with the Macintosh. OOps...
>
> 3. Bill Gates has made money by having his programmers imitate
others' ideas,
> calling them his own, buying out his competition (RE: the Stac
Electronics incident,
> among others), and convincing the public that those ideas were his
own...
>
> 4. Linux may indeed be another UNIX, but what's wrong with that? It
actually takes
> knowledge and intelligence to run UNIX and its variants, unlike
Windows, where the
> user is coddled into a sense of security with its ease of
installation and purported
> compatibility.
All of which tells us that, since Unix was here first, that it lacked
something that made it viable in the home market. Could that be the
comparative ease with which even non-technical users can install it?
Perhaps. Could it be that until the last couple of years, it simply
demanded too much of the hardware? Perhaps. Maybe it was just
pathetic marketing. Whatever the cause, neither Apple nor Unix could
make the grade. MS, for all its faults, _did_ make the grade.
> 5. Hardware compatibility... this point is a real joke... There is
no need to
> recompile a kernel to get a video card to work up to standard
capabilities.
No, but I did end up with one distro - RedHat 5, I think - that
claimed to have IDE/ATAPI support built into the shipping kernel...
but wouldn't talk to my CD until I recompiled the fool thing. Having
succeeded in getting it installed, I configured XFree86, which claimed
to support my video card of the time - a Mach 64 card. In fact, it
didn't; there were something like 3 different models of this card, and
it couldn't support my version. So, after farting around for a couple
hours, and finally discovering that my choices were to replace the
hardware or work in - gag - 256 colour mode, I gave up on X, which was
a sore point.
Fine, no problem... I wanted to run the fool thing as a networking
device anyway, so let's set that up. Yes, I can ping it across the
LAN, good. Add a new user, telnet in and... and it refused to admit
that the user existed. Well, not quite; you could log in as that user
locally, but not across the network. Six hours later, much of it
spent online in various Linux discussion forums, offered no solution.
About this time I scratched my head in puzzlement; wasn't Linux
supposed to be this wonderful networking platform? Oh, well, if even
the Linux guys couldn't figure it out, how wonderful could it be? Zap
goes the Linux install, in goes the Windows install. It not only
detected and installed drivers for the video card, it also allowed me
to actually work over the LAN.
> support, or anthing else of that sort. It's unnecessary. My Mach64
cards, Trident
> 9440, 9480, 3DImage975, and Mach128 cards have all worked right out
of the box, with
> a little tweaking and some shared knowledge.
Why can't they just work out of the box, period?
> Again, it takes a brain that can think
> to get them to do what you want, but let's face it, anything worth
having is worth
> working for.
To a point. An OS is _not_ something I or many want to waste _any_
time farting around with; it's sole purpose is to let us do our _real_
work, which is not, generally speaking, system administration.
> 6. Winmodems... Please.. Glorified sound cards is all they are. Some
actually DO
> work with Linux, if you get off your lazy butt and do a websearch to
find the
> information. Fact of the matter is it's a cheap way to do something
that $5.00 more
> in parts would accomplish, and they're not really worth the time...
Indeed... but the $5 difference was _not_ the case when they first
came out. Not that they were ever good... but they're also not really
a Linux vs Windows issue, either; at most they're an argument for
using real hardware instead of software emulations. :)
> So if you want to be coddled, and want to brainlessly play games,
and surf the net,
> use Windows... If you want to really learn what's going on inside
your computer, use
> a UNIX based OS.
Oh? Funny; I don't see how you conclude that. Yes, Windows makes it
easier to get up and running and doing work, in the majority of cases,
but what's that got to do with whether you can learn about the
machine? Why does simply running Linux magically translate into
having completed a course in digital circuit design, semiconducter
theory, or the design and implementation of bus negotiation
mechanisms? Or is learning Linux equivalent to a course in data
encoding and error recovery techniques used by hard drives, perhaps?
No, don't think so.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Be OR Linux
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:36:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Robertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 04 Aug 2000 10:34:23 GMT
<P_wi5.132061$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I know this is going to sound like a stupid post. Considering I am posting
>to a Linux Newsgroup. However, I have reached my absolute limit with
>windows, It sucks entirely. I have SuSE Linux 6.4. Anyway, the point of
>this message is to ask: BeOS or Linux? I have both ready to install.
>However, I am going to destroy Windows entirely either way this works. Let
>me put it this way: If EVERY Program EVER made was available for EVERY
>Operating system, I'd Think very hard between Linux and BeOS. Anyway, Let
>me know what you people think.
Why limit yourself to one OS? I could see you dualbooting between
the two rather easily, although I don't know the details at this time
as to how to set up LILO or other bootloaders to handle BeOS.
You can even tripleboot if you want to (it appears that you don't want
to and I can't blame you, but others have been able to boot between
three operating systems without too much difficulty).
That said...it's clear that BeOS has the edge on performance with
respect to multimedia -- at least from what I've heard (I don't own a
copy of it at this time). Linux might have an edge on applications
(BeOS comes with a development kit, though, so this won't stop BeOS
for long).
My main problem with BeOS? It's proprietary. While it's not the
monopoly of a certain other operating system whose name I shall
not mention, it's clear that BeOS needs to become open-source; hopefully
it will at some point.
In any event...good luck and choose what you need. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Aaron-Kulkis-Style Conspiracy about Linux
Date: 4 Aug 2000 16:40:06 GMT
Mr. Kulkis's favorite Communist conspiracy theories make me wonder
if Linux is also the result of a Communist conspiracy. Here goes:
* Open source is a Communist approach toward software development, because
it works by treating software as collective rather than private property
with access and use fees. In fact, some elements of the open-source
movement advocate collectivization of *all* software; Richard Stallman
regards "software hoarders" as not much different from Kulaks.
One problem with open-source development is how to finance it, since it
cannot be financed in normal capitalist fashion. However, Communist agents
of influence could be doing the financing. And why that? Remember that
"the capitalists would sell the rope that the Communists would use to hang
them." By underselling private software, the Communists hope to put the
private-software industry out of business, thus reducing resistance to
their next advances.
* Linus Torvalds is a key figure in Linux. And he comes from Finland,
which is right next door to Russia. This means that Communist agents could
have had an easy time recruiting a figurehead for their attempts to
subvert the software industry. And they evidently made a *very* good
choice.
* Sometimes, it must be said, the Communists give themselves away.
Consider Linux distributor Red Hat. Why a _red_ hat? Could they be
inadvertently giving away that they are a Communist front?
* Linux has made impressive advances in the server market. Success in the
server market has shown the depth of the Communists' strategic thinking,
because these are critical parts of computer networks, and controlling
these will only help the Communists make further advances.
This may seem totally absurd, but this can't be much more absurd
than Mr. Kulkis's conspiracy theories.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000 16:50:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 3 Aug 2000 18:00:35 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Windo's has a few legasy DOS programms, but noboddy ever uses them.
>>> Its' not like UNIX whear peopole still half to rite shell script
>>> workarounds and eddit config fials all the time because THEAR IS
>>> NO OTHER WAY.
>>
>>Lier! (just in case you didn't catch this Timmy, I just poked fun
>>at your inability to spell).
>
> ...and spelled inabillitty rong in the process.
That's ONE L, ONE T, and ONE W. :-)
>
>>Linux gives you the choice of a GUI or editing config files.
>
>Lie-nux gives you the choice of a fucked-up GUI with a DOS box
>on top or edditing config file.
And NT gives you the choice of a totally messed-up GUI with
no DOS box on top of manipulating a mysterious binary registry
through an API which works .... most of the time.
(This is an improvement?)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random mspeelinng here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
