Linux-Advocacy Digest #470, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:38:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "JS/PL" == JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
> >> profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it in
> >> order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the investment.
> >> This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
> >> responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
> >> advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
>
> > Marx would be proud of the above thesis. Here's an idea...move to Cuba, they
> > look like they are thriving on the philosophy above....join the big party in
> > the streets down south Max.
>
> What Max is advocating is not communism.
>
> Companies really do exist to provide a service to the community, but
> they were all started by men and women who wanted to control their
> own destiny and do things according to their own ideas and principals
> - willingly taking a risk in the process.
This is the reason why the rampant fallacy of the interchangeability of
the terms "corporation" and "company" is so aggravating to me.
Partnerships, sole proprietorships, even certain types of corporations,
are not a problem. They are not "free floating greeds", they generally
won't profiteer. Because if you look an *owner* in the eye, and say
"You're ripping me off!", you're going to the get the reaction of a
conscientious businessman, and you're either going to get satisfaction
or take your business elsewhere. If you can corner a *stockholder*,
he'll expect that "I'm just trying to feed my family" is the first thing
out of his mouth, and "businesses have a responsibility to maximize
profits" is going to follow eventually.
> The relationship between the buyer and the seller ought to be one of
> peer to peer, that is what I think Max is talking about. Not the
> relationship of a peon to a modern-day lord. Not a relationship
> between a consumer and an abuser.
Thank you. Christ, thank you. It is *so* nice to hear when somebody
understands what I say. Generally, we only see the comments of those
who misunderstand what we say on Usenet.
> But there is nothing unethical about a company that keeps trade
> secrets. What's unethical is a company that abuses trade secrets such
> as the way undocumented APIs are abused to lever an unfair advantage
> over competitors.
I wonder, would general knowledge of the fact that *any* software
developer is essentially free to decompile any Microsoft software in
order to figure these things out make a difference? Or would the
difficulty still inherent in decompiling to source make this unfeasible?
There seems to be quite a bit of precedent, for instance, that DR-DOS or
Novell (with their ill-fated Win32 client) or Blue Mountain or many
others would have been quite free to decompile the 'offending' code to
figure out why their programs don't work too good. Would that still not
have been enough?
If that is the case, an argument could be made, I think, that anything
but open source is anti-competitive, and it may not only be unethical,
but illegal, to keep trade secrets when its copyrighted software.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:39:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> What Max is advocating is not communism.
>
>He's a communist at heart, always has been. Every now and again he posts
>some drivel about how he's "pro capitalist" followed by some assinine
>statement that profits should be regulated or minimized to be ethical (or
>something similar to this foolish idea).
No, they should be regulated *by* ethics, and minimized by competition.
Anything else truly is a foolish idea.
>To Marx...err...Max any profit that is slightly above breaking even is
>unethical and reprehensible.
Hardly. I've been waiting, in fact, for people to jump all over me on
my use of the word "profiteering". But it appears that most understand
it, and must even recognize its validity to some extent. Are you
contending that Microsoft's profits are "slightly above breaking even"?
[...]
>The relationship is one of supply and demand.
And artificially manipulating the supply by restraining trade and
monopolizing is illegal. Artificially manipulating the demand through
fraud-by-PR is merely unethical.
http://www.brillscontent.com/features/bill_0998.html
>Always has been, always should
>be. MS is one of the most consumer reactive software makers in existence.
MS is the most fraudulently 'successful' companies ever to exist.
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html
http://www4.bluemountain.com/home/respto31299.html
>They listen to and implement consumer input into their products almost to a
>fault. That's not indicative of a "peon/lord" relationship.
That's not a truthful statement, either, though I recognize your right
to be so delusional as to believe it merely because Microsoft told you
it was true.
>The demand by OEM's (and 99% of their custumers) is a no brainer, graphical,
>point & click operating system. Microsoft supplies that demand, consumers
>and OEM's all benefit. What's the problem?
Um...
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:39:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "JS/PL" == JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> What Max is advocating is not communism.
>
> > He's a communist at heart,
>
> *yawn* Gosh that used to work in the 50s, all you had to do was wave
> around a piece of paper with names on it.
>
>
> > always has been. Every now and again he posts
> > some drivel about how he's "pro capitalist" followed by some assinine
> > statement that profits should be regulated or minimized to be ethical (or
> > something similar to this foolish idea).
>
> Such as?
>
>
> > To Marx...err...Max any profit that is slightly above breaking even is
> > unethical and reprehensible.
>
> Of course it is, JS. In order to change the subject with character
> assasination, all you need to do is start making stuff up :-)
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris Wenham
Damn, Chris. After seeing these running comments, after I spewed all
over you on that tech support thing.... I'm a shmuck, OK? I'll admit
it. My apologies for slighting you.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:39:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
>> profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it in
>> order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the investment.
>> This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
>> responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
>> advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
>
>Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you don't have an ounce of
>business experience.
I don't have an MBA, if that's what you mean. But I was part of a three
person partnership with two employees in 1992, when we were acquired by
a 40 person private corporation, which was subsequently purchased by a
larger public corporation, in which I am now (through a series of
dealings originating from the partnership) an extremely minor stock
holder. This is the extent of my business experience to date.
>Sometimes having intellectual property protection is the only way to
>guarantee _any_ profit.
And when that still isn't enough, and you need two different forms of
"intellectual property protection", namely trade secret *and* copyright,
to apply simultaneously in order to restrict access to your product
sufficiently that you can profiteer? What then?
>Furthermore, you're assuming that there are infinite resources
>available. This is clearly false. If I have so many staff members,
>they're going to work on projects that are the most profitable. If I can
>justify adding people, I will do so, but only if the profits are high
>enough to justify it.
And if the profits aren't high enough, and you bet wrong, you lose
money. No company comes with a guarantee that what you spent your hard
time and money developing is going to be valuable enough to the market
that you will earn any profit at all. Pretending you have to guarantee
extraordinary profits in order to take the risk simply proves you don't
have what it takes to compete.
>Do yourself a favor--learn a bit about how business works before
>spouting off.
Do me a favor; stop blowing smoke up my ass. The rest of the business
world generally survives on reasonable profits; why should anything
involving IP be any different? What makes work for hire so special in
comparison to any other cost of goods that it should merit special
ability to extort thousands of times its "real value" because of its
"perceived value" when that "perceived value" is intentionally
manipulated by the producer?
[...]
>> Its about proprietary trade secrets from every company that sells
>> commercial software. It has nothing whatsoever to do with intellectual
>> property. If you can't publish it and still earn a profit on it
>> (relying on copyright law and value-for-cost to prevent piracy), then it
>> isn't worth anything to begin with. Software is text, not machinery.
>
>You don't think that trade secrets are intellectual property?
Apparently, I was contrasting trade secrets to copyright; trade secrets
have a much much lesser requirement for originality. Additionally,
state law, rather than federal law, generally has more of a controlling
authority than with copyright, though I don't really think that's
relevant to this point.
>Again, do yourself a favor and learn a little about business before
>making even more of a fool of yourself.
Again, stop blowing smoke up my ass.
[...]
>> No, it isn't; these companies (except probably Stac, and any software
>> products the others may sell) do not sell trade secret licenses to
>> copyrighted information.
>
>Just about as far off topic as it could be.
>
>Stac's business plan was selling software. If Microsoft had been allowed
>to copy their algorithms freely (or if you got your way and Stac lost
>intellectual property protection), they would never have been in
>business long.
I didn't say Stac would lose intellectual property protection. I said
they have a choice of intellectual property protection. They can
copyright their software (so that anyone can read their algorithms, but
still be unable to copy them) or keep it as a trade secret (so that only
those who agree not to use the knowledge other than to provide the
function can read them), but applying both is, even for Stac, and
certainly for Microsoft, overreaching.
[...]
>> So long as *your* expectations are that a business has no obligation to
>> act ethically , there is no way for ethical companies to compete. That
>> ought to tell you something about why there aren't many ethical
>> companies these days.
>
>Only in the eyes of people like you who have bizarre definitions of
>what's ethical.
Perhaps, but at least I have a definition. And it certainly isn't as
bizarre as you seem to think; *open* competition, unfettered by *anyone*
(including other competitors) is not really all that strange an idea.
That it also means that you cannot fetter your competitors is an aspect
of a free market that some people just can't grasp. But consider the
Sega v. Accolade case, often cited on other grounds. This seems to make
clear the point: if you claim copyright protection *in order to prevent
competition*, it won't work.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:39:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>>>>>> "rj" == rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >> > Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
> >> > being wrong and you being right. Stick your head in the sand
> >> > and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
> >> > to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
> >>
> >>
> >> And why are you so full of coprolalia?
> >>
> >>
> >> Just debate the facts, man. Jeez. If he's wrong then it ought to be
> >> easy.
>
> > If he (or you) ever showed any sign of being able to admit that you've
> > already lost the debate on the facts, by an extremely wide margin,
> > perhaps there wouldn't be the need to constantly point out that you guys
> > are full of shit, hmm?
>
> Why are you using an unrelated context to claim victory over an
> unfinished debate?
Because it isn't unrelated. The context is that debates get finished at
a defined period or when observers (judges in court, lurkers in Usenet)
decide that they have sufficient presentation from both sides to inform
their opinion. They aren't finished by one side accepting the other's
view very often in any context, and the ability of someone on Usenet to
deny that they have been refuted is self-evident. Lacking any objective
standard, eventually one side is simply "full of shit". At this point,
it is those that insist MS didn't do anything wrong.
> Is this because you have no confidence in your own argument anymore,
> so you seek a new audience to crow to?
No, it is because I have absolute and complete confidence in it, and
don't wish to go over the same tired arguments from ignorance yet again.
Do you mind?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:39:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Full of what?
>
>Needless profanity. It seems to be an OS/2 advocate characteristic.
They tend to be rather straight-forward personalities, I would expect.
[...]
>> Sonny boy - for whatever ulterior motives he is coming
>> from/with - can try to say that he doesn't like the law so
>
>No "ulterior motives" whatsoever. Keep on thinking it if you like, however,
>it's keeping me very entertained.
Like he said; "whatever".
[...]
>> IF??? Please tell me that you are not going to pretend that
>> MS WASN'T found guilty.
>
>*sigh*
>You still don't get it.
>
>In any case, I don't ever recall having said they weren't.
Yes, the old "you can't quote me on that even though I've been
presenting that position because I've managed to avoid providing any
real opinion because I'm just trolling" and all that.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:40:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> >
>> >[snip, I'm tired]
>> >> [...]
>> >> >What do we use to choose values, if not preexisting values? The choice
>> >> >of values is then trivially reduced to the pursuit of values.
>> >>
>> >> So either there is an absolute moral canon, or we have no free will. Is
>> >> this what you are saying?
>> >
>> >No, it is not. And I have no clue as to how you jump from what I wrote
>> >to what you wrote. And honestly I'm too tired to care.
>>
>> If we use pre-existing values to choose values, where did the
>> pre-existing values come from?
>
>Education, mostly.
Well, that would be "other people's values", then, eh? And where did
they come from?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:40:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> I had said
>> >> >Well, let's apply the standard you expect of others, for a change.
>> >> >Explain me! Tell me! What? You don't explain the way I like?
>> >> >Fool!
>> >>
>> >> What the hell are you talking about?
>> >
>> >Well, that is the general attitude you have. Remember chmod?
>> >You ask people to explain, and when you fail to understand,
>> >you insult. Well, moron, explain again! better!
>>
>> No, I asked for an explanation of the permissions, not chmod, the
>> command used to modify them.
>
>I only use chmod as a reference to the discussion. It obviously
>worked.
Actually, it didn't 'work' at all in the regard I take it you mean. I
was, as I've mentioned, already quite familiar with the mechanics of the
chmod command in changing permissions. What I didn't have was an
understanding of how the effects of the command were represented. The
entire 'chmod' thing was simply part of the confusion.
[...]
>If you believe "it shows an s here and a t there" are the major results
>of permissions, or even important results, you are beyond help.
If you believe that a visual image of permissions is not necessary to
someone who *doesn't* know what permissions are or how chmod works,
you're beyond helping.
>The main result of applying the sticky bit, as it was told to you
>many times, are that the executable image stays in swap, and the effect
>on file creation and deletion. The ls output is not important at all.
To you, perhaps. In distinguishing the sticky bit from the setuid bit,
and in clarifying that they are not at all related, it seemed rather
definitive. They could, after all, have been in the same position, just
as either shares a place with the executive bit.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:41:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Coming from the man that believes the effect of the sticky bit
>is a "t" that appears on his screen every once in a while.
Indeed, that is the only effect which the sticky bit has ever had for
me, and for many others who have posted on this matter, by their own
declaration. The setuid bit, which is what I had confused it with, due
to being mislead by a software engineer with a Masters in CS who also
found the information entirely academic (though in practice, the setuid
bit is not nearly so esoteric and unused as the sticky bit), does have
more of an impact, I'll admit.
>> and then arguing over whether they are accurate, rather than
>> whether they are cogent?
>
>That word again.
Yes, its quite cogent in itself in many regards, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:42:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Popularity, obviously. Once it *could* have been assumed that you
>> contributed, if you knew anything about it, because only those that
>> contributed did know anything about it.
>
>I suppose it all boils down to a question of respect.
>
>Should not one member of the Linux community still show at least basic
>repect to a a fellow member? Our should one member pre-assume the lack of
>contribution on the part of others, and treating the others second as class
>citizens of the Linux community?--As Roberto as done with Nathaniel and
>myself?
>
>> Now Linux has a wider audience.
>
>> What are you going to do about it? Make it less acceptable to the
>> majority? Or try to figure out how to balance the mass's desires with
>> the expert's requirements.
>
>This is an invalid argument for the discussion at hand, engineered by you as
>a distraction from the central issue.
It seems to be the central issue, I think. If it is simply a matter of
one Usenet poster showing or failing to show respect for another Usenet
poster, I'd suggest it has nothing to do with the Linux community.
Though I must admit that Usenet is a much stronger part of the Linux
community than most other communities.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:44:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> [...]
>> >> >I concur with all of this. If Linux does fragment it will because of
>> >> >outside influences. The problem is that the fragmentation may already be
>> >> >starting. I have already seen some signs of it with Mandrake and Linux PPC.
>> >>
>> >> I think fragmentation is not only inevitable, it is optimal. As much as
>> >
>> >Quite true. That's why, technologically, the Unix-hoard runs FAR
>> >ahead of M$-ware, and the gap is widening all the time.
>>
>> I agree. I wanted to say it at the time, but thought it might be too
>> distracting. The fact that Unix "fragmented" is why it is so widely
>> supported. Had it remained a single unified OS, it would be a
>> pseudo-mainframe curiosity, not the de facto standard. ;-)
>
>But Linux has an additional advantage as long as all the forks
>remain open, which is what is important.
And that is entirely and specifically the point of the GPL. A damn fine
thing, don't you think?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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
******************************
