Linux-Advocacy Digest #418, Volume #28 Tue, 15 Aug 00 10:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (mlw)
Re: Gutenberg (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE) ("Rob Hughes")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:07:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> I think, along those lines, the consideration of modern commercial
> >> software as protected by both copyright and trade secret licensing
> >> makes
> >> the barrier more than 'high'; it literally makes it insurmountable,
> >> and
> >> to an effect which makes a mockery of both copyright and trade secret
> >> law and substantially inhibits innovation, competition, *and*
> >> cooperation, and materially implements restraint of trade in doing so.
> >
> >Not necessarily.
> >
> >One could just as easily argue that good copyright and trade secret
> >protection is necessary for companies to put the money into good
> >commercial software.
>
> I disagree. Are *you* arguing this? Because "one" might be able to
> argue it, and consider it 'easy', but "one" is unlikely to make much
> headway against more rational and reasoned arguments.
Sure. I'll make that argument.
There have been several inventions that my company has made that we were
only willing to work on because of the potential for intellectual
property protection.
It costs money to develop new products. In order to invest that money,
one needs some confidence that you'll recover a profit from it.
Intellectual property laws are sometimes necessary.
>
> Are you saying MS has to have billions upon billions in *profit* in
> order to spend millions writing software? What happened to economies of
> scale, and why does it mean that exorbitant profits on shoddy goods is
> now a good thing?
It's not about Microsoft. It's about intellectual property from every
company in the world.
It's about the Stac electronics. It's about Mattel. It's about General
Motors. It's about duPont.
>
> >Neither position could be very easily proven, but consider how many open
> >source packages are the equivalent of Photoshop or Quark or even
> >Microsoft Office.
>
> So long as it is not considered wrong to profiteer, it might certainly
> be easy to point out the "value proposition" in profiteering. To me,
> all three are generally equivalent; I use any of them only if I have to,
> and find them all relatively abominable.
Perhaps they are. But there are no freeware or shareware equivalents.
That ought to tell you something.
What it says is that it costs a lot of money to produce a large product.
Companies only invest that money if they have an expectation of return.
>
> All three are greatly inferior to what the market should produce, open
> source or not, if simply 'making money writing software', rather than
> profiteering driving by lock-in and feature glomming and pre-loads
> weren't the order of the day.
I suppose you have some evidence to support this?
For example, you can prove that automobiles produced by the former
Soviet Union were higher quality than BMWs or Mercedes (or even Buicks)?
You're taking a position that runs contrary to every bit of business
experience I've ever had and which also runs contrary to everything
taught in every business course in this country.
You probably should try to come up with some evidence to back your
position. Handwaving won't cut it.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 13:12:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:31:23 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>>> Would Intuit provide support to a customer running Quicken in
> >>>> VMWare?
> >>>
> >>> Would Intuit provide meaningful support otherwise?
> >>>
> >>>[deletia]
> >>>
> >>> 'support' is really an absurd feature when it comes to
> >>> consumer computing.
> >>
> >>An interesting point I'd like to explore. In my mind, 'support' is
> >>really the only value or service when it comes to consumer computing,
> >>if
> >>not simply the most important feature. In the "GPL utopia", I would
> >>think that developers give their software away, simply to provide an
> >>opportunity for them to sell support to those consumers who wish to use
> >>their code.
> >
> >I don't see how this model can be sucessful for most software
> >if the intent is to make money.[...]
>
> Well, in short, its not. The intent is to develop software. While
Then develop software as a hobby.
Most software in the world is developed by corporations. Corporations
are in business to make money -- not to provide a community service.
You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is. If you wish, you
can go buy a desert island somewhere and create your own country.
> there are other ways to do things which allow for more profit, it is my
> opinion that they are essentially profiteering. Most software that
> people use has already been written, and, indeed, many people may feel
> that they already own what they need. If "version churn" is only
> beneficial to the developer and continues to provide increasingly less
> value and increasingly more burden on the consumer, then it shouldn't be
> considered a viable way to make money, IMHO.
If the vendor provides a product that the consumer is willing to buy,
it's a viable way to make money.
Now, if the vendor is guilty of planned obsolescence, that's a different
story, but that doesn't seem to be what you're charging.
>
> >If the software is done
> >correctly it will just work and the users will have no reason
> >to purchase support. If it isn't, then they won't run it
> >in the first place.
>
> The first may be true, but I think the second requires idealistic
> conditions. Then again, the first does, as well. There seems to be
> some perceptual dissonance concerning just what the "reason" for
> technical support is, as well, so if its cogent to your argument, I
> think you should clarify what you mean when you use the term. AFAIK,
> increased information and cognizance would *increase* the demand for
> support, but I don't think bug reports are really the primary purpose of
> technical support.
>
> >It might work for unusual software
> >being written to meet changing needs, or perhaps the support
> >service could include training for the more complicated programs,
> >but if the software needs paid support just for normal operation
> >you have done something wrong.
>
> I can't see why you would think that you have any reason, need, or
> ability to dictate what somebody else's business model must or must not
> be. Though I must agree that in *all* cases, (which makes it rather
> independent of and irrelevant to this discussion) if the software
> *needs* paid support for normal operation, there is something amiss.
No one's dictating a business model except you.
Most people are content with the concept that companies make software in
order to make money and that the company has an obligation to maximize
its profit.
You're the one saying that there's something wrong with this and that
companies should have an altruistic bent.
If you want to make software using that business model, feel free. No
one's stopping you. But likewise, other companies should be free to use
the business model they choose -- including charging whatever the market
will bear for their products.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 09:14:51 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snippage]
>
> SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
> Now that you have waded through all of that garbage, are we ready to install a
> scanner?
>
> Have you seen inSANE yet?
>
> Goooooooddddddd Lucccccckkkkkk...you will need it....
>
> Linux once again proves how much it sucks....
>
> Linux is still the SOS, an antiquated OS that requires hours upon hours of work
> just to get a simple piece of hardware to work. That is of course assuming the
> hardware is even supported by Linux which in most cases it is not....
>
> Happy computing....
>
> Oh yea....Installing the exact same video card under Windows requires one
> command:
>
> c:\setup.exe
>
> And it works....
>
> SWANGO
Yes, take XFree86-4, the next version of XFree which is still not prime
time yet, add to it a driver which is barely supported. You will have
problems.
OK, on Windows 98SE. You have a ATI Mach64 PCI card. You install a TV
card, then a dvd player. It works but the video is slow and choppy when
playing a DVD. So you run down to the local computer shop, buy a Voodoo3
AGP card, install it, install the drivers. All of the sudden, both TV
card and DVD player no longer work.
So you go to the Voodoo3 3dfx web site, download the latest drivers,
install, still nothing.
What do you do? You check the direct draw diagnostic, it works.
Well, one has to download the latest version of direct draw and install
it. The hard part was figuring out this is what one needs to do, because
everything looked like it was working, and everything installed
perfectly.
The point?
So what, every OS has problems at some level with installation, this is
because an operating system's job is to abstract the hardware. During
installation, this abstraction is not present. It is a chicken vs egg
issue.
It has been my experience that Windows typically takes longer to install
than Linux. It is harder to maintain as well. Just try to upgrade the
network card. In linux, it is a one line edit, in RedHat, kudzoo will do
it for you. In Windows, one must remove the previous card which erases
all your settings, and install a new card at which point you must
reenter the settings, then one must reboot. This assumes it works. If it
doesn't work, have fun troubleshooting.
MS Windows has a big advantage being a monopoly. Linux is amazing
considering what few OEM resources are dedicated to its support.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gutenberg
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:12:03 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard wrote:
> > > > My goodness, there sure are a lot of twits in this newsgroup. By "Book"
> > > > I do not mean "literary work", I mean "literary work put in the modern
> > > > format of a book!" invented by Aldus Minutius (phonetic) 50 years after
> > > > Gutenberg was wasting his invention on useless bibles and indulgences!
> > > > Gutenberg made a lot of money doing a lot of useless stuff and making
> > >
> > > Useless to *YOU*, maybe, but quite obviously, the purchasers of these
> > > things thought it was worthwhile, and, unless you can come up with
> > > evidence to the contrary, they were willing to pay more for these
> > > "worthless" items than everyone else was willing to pay for other
> > > things.
> > >
> >
> > Much as I hate to step into the quagmired mess:
> > Did you think about what you were saying during this posting? I'm just
> > wondering because it sounds like you are doing a complete 180 on some of
> > the things you've said in the past.
> >
> > If: "...obviously, the purchasers of these things thought it was
> > worthwile..."
> > then are you saying that the purchasers of Windows think it is worthwile
> > (instead of being 'forced' to purchase it as you (and I'll admit I) have
> > said in the past.
>
> Being Aristocracy, Gutenberg's patrons had a choice.
>
> >
> > If: "...they were willing to pay more for these 'worthless' items than
> > everyone else was willing to pay for other things" does that then mean
> > that Windows is better than Linux because people are willing to pay more
> > for Windows than for Linux?
>
> Being Aristocracy, Gutenberg's patrons had a choice.
>
> >
> > Now, to borrow heavily from your 'logic' (which you have used
> > extensively elsewhere in this thread), either the entire paragraph of
> > yours I quoted is wrong, or you have just decided that Windows is better
> > than Linux. It has to be one or the other. <insert cuss word
> > description here>.
> >
> > So wha's it gonna be?
>
> See above.
>
I'm going to say being aristocracy they had a choice. They could either
be religious outcasts (which was quite a major deal at that time,
especially among the aristocracy), or they could buy these bibles. I
don't know if that was much of a choice. Unless you were the TOP DOG
and managed to somehow subdue the church, I don't think the church was
going to let you just pass by the 'opportunity' to purchase a bible.
Anyway, I started this as an attempt at humor (which obviously failed).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:13:28 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >Real wrestling has its place, just realize that TV wrestling (WWF, WCW,
> >ECW, etc) has nothing to do with real wrestling. It makes the watching
> >much more enjoyable. And I should know. My wife started me watching
> >wrestling when we started dating. Once you get past the lack of 'sport'
> >in wrestling, it really is quite entertaining.
>
> Well, not to me. I suppose I just don't get it.
You'd be suprised what can seem 'entertaining' when your wife tells you
it is.
:-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:15:30 -0500
Courageous wrote:
>
> > >"Professional" wrestling on TV is not 'real' wrestling. You have to
> > >remember that they are there to entertain. As such, they are actors.
> >
> > Yes, I know it's not real. I just can't believe that some
> > people find such a thing "entertaining".
>
> Contemplate for a moment the fact that half of everyone
> in the world has an IQ < 100, and it will be easier to
> understand.
>
> C//
Don't tell me, let me guess. You're also the type of people that think
any 'adult' that watches cartoons is automatically a complete idiot.
You'd be suprised how many people watch 'stupid' shows that have quite a
bit of intelligence. Dan Simmons (one of my favorite authors, and
extremely intelligent) watches Mystery Science Theater 3000, and I don't
think anyone would claim that is hi-brow entertainment :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:25:31 -0500
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> =
> Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi=F3:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >
> > > Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi=F3:
> > > >
> > > > "Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > John Mogensen wrote:
> > > > > > [snip nice points]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think the only thing you forgot is that Linux is slowly ali=
enating
> > > > > > some of the very people that were initially attracted to it b=
ecause it
> > > > > > is *computer literate* friendly. And as it tries harder and =
harder to
> > > > > > emulate Windows, it will alienate more and more of its develo=
pers and
> > > > > > users.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure Linux itself is really changing in that direction.=
After all,
> > > > > the GUI is still optional. And if you do want a GUI, you don't=
have to
> > > > > pick one that reminds you of Windows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bobby Bryant
> > > > > Austin, Texas
> > > >
> > > > I'm speaking of far more than just the GUI. I know that's the nu=
mber
> > > > one focus of a lot of people here, but that's not what I'm talkin=
g
> > > > about. I'm talking about the systems that implement PNP in ways =
that
> > > > create a nightmare every time you boot your machine, let alone ch=
ange
> > > > any hardware, and similar 'Windowsisms' that have crept into some=
> > > > people's minds as good ideas. Look to Corel to see what I mean. =
And
> > > > many people are saying these are good ideas. I don't think so.
> > >
> > > Ok, unless you are talking about Corel again, rm /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/S*=
kudzu
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > So, if you don't like distributions that mess with that, don't use
> > > distributions
> > > that mess with that. I know it's trivial, but it really IS a trivia=
l
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > Could you give an example of something that "alienates CLI fans" ye=
t is
> > > hard
> > > to disable for them?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
> >
> > Obviously my message is going about three feet over everyone's head.
> >
> > I am talking about making sure that we don't let this kind of garbage=
> > get into the base system so that it *can't* be removed, so that it
> > *isn't* something that can be disabled.
> =
> And how, pray tell, could that happen? What's the point of trying to
> prevent something that seems impossible?
> =
> And yes, I said impossible. No matter what anyone does, you will still
> be able to get Red Hat 6.2 or whatever, and hack from it.
> =
> > There are those in the
> > *popular* computer press that think Corel has a great distro (because=
it
> > works 'so much like Windows'). And as I said in my previous post, I =
was
> > talking about Corel. I know that it's ridiculous sounding, but if
> > enough people 'want' something to happen, in Linux it's just a matter=
of
> > time before it *does* happen.
> =
> Yes, it does sound ridiculous.
> =
> > It's a trivial problem today, but there are a huge number of people
> > bitching that that *trivial* problem should be the standard, and that=
> > there should be no way around that *trivial* problem.
> =
> People can bitch all they want, and the rivers will keep flowing
> downhill :-)
> =
> > They want a
> > Windows clone. And I (and I hope I'm not the only one) don't want Li=
nux
> > to just become a Windows clone. Why is that so difficult a concept?
> > I'm just saying I don't want it to happen.
> =
> Cool. Relax, it won't.
> =
> > As for your alienates CLI fans comment, I was speaking on the premise=
> > that there are a huge number of computer illiterate people that have =
an
> > *interest* in Linux at the moment.
> =
> Ok.
> =
> > These people are saying that the GUI should be integrated in the kern=
el,
> =
> I have NEVER seen this. Where did you see it?
> =
> > that Corel has the best distro ever,
> > and that everything should be *just like Windows*. These are the peo=
ple
> > I am speaking against.
> =
> Why? ignore them. They did nothing to you. If they want that, then
> someone
> will provide it to them. You want something else, and probably someone
> will provide that something else to you.
> =
> Now, preventing them from getting their clone does nothing to advance
> the
> state of the system YOU want. It's just pointless elitism.
> =
> In what way has the existence of Corel made Slackware less slackware?
> In no way! Of course it has not!
> =
> And finally: if you feel you are not being provided what you want,
> get your hands dirty and create it. Free software is not a spectators
> sport.
> =
> > There are some concepts that can be 'borrowed'
> > from Windows. I'm not so against Windows that I fail to see the few
> > good ideas that are present. I just don't want Linux to turn into a
> > Windows clone. Am I really such an idiot for saying that?
> =
> A bit paranoid, IMVHO :-)
> =
> --
> Roberto Alsina
I'm really glad you still don't understand. Does the idea of code fork
mean nothing? I'm hoping that is another thing that doesn't happen.
I'm thinking this is a dead-end conversation. I don't want to see Linux
forked, I don't want to see it become a Windows clone. You say it won't
be, or if it is I can just fork it. What if neither of those options
sounds good to me (either use the clone, or fork the code)? That's my
problem. And it's not paranoia, it's a legitimate question. ANd you
sticking your head in the sand and saying, "I've never heard that."
doesn't change the fact that it is being said.
-- =
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:30:50 -0500
Chris Lee wrote:
> Your problem is that you think the industry rags matter. They don't.
> Ziff-Davis/ZDNET attempts to derail Linux have been an utter failure for
> instance.
>
> These publications,along with their "editors" and "journalists" have found
> out to their regreat that Linux users are nothing like the Amiga and OS/2
> users were. Fuck with us and we'll hand you your head back on a pike and
> take pride in doing so.
>
> Just ask Bob Metcafe and quite a few other Mircosoft shills who made the
> mistake of trying to pick a fight with the Slashdot Crowd.
>
>
See, the problem with that argument is that there is much current
confusion in the Linux community itself right now over the entire issue
(as there is a huge new interest in Linux and a lot of that new interest
has absolutely no idea what Linux really is). Some of the Linux
magazines are even focusing on how to make Linux 'more like Windows'
because that is what the popular moron wants. Yeah, it's easy to just
say it doesn't matter, but the fact is it does. The people are there,
screaming for a Windows clone. And we are just trying to say, "Don't
let it happen."
I guess I'm having a problem understanding why we are being painted as
complete alarmist idiots for saying that. Do we want to see Linux
become a Windows clone? ANd if it happens do we want to see Linux
'fork' so that the 'geeks' have thier version and the 'normal people'
have thier version? I don't think either one of those is a good idea.
But, I suppose I am as wacked out as everybody says. After all, I
actually want to keep the system that works for me. God, what's wrong
with me?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 08:34:00 -0500
Actually, its magma when its underground, and lava when it come out on the
surface (courtesy of the discovery channel)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8n9ngi$oc6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > But of course.. in fact, my parents still have an original.. i.e. they
> > bought it back in the 60s. Damn thing used to take about 1-1/2 hours
> > just to start it's thing when I was a kid.. god knows how long it takes
> > now. It's like the "lava" is going bad or something.
>
> You must be aware that magma when it becomes lava it starts to cool and
> harden eventualy becoming rock solid. ;-)
>
>
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
