Linux-Advocacy Digest #575, Volume #28 Tue, 22 Aug 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Karel Jansens)
Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic
Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Gary Hallock)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest (Richard)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic
Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:06:27 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:44:03 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>>
>> I still don't understand why you think this would even support my
>> position. It is my contention that there are no "natural monopolies" in
>> the way that the word "monopoly" is used in anti-trust law. It is true
>> you need to act predatorially before your market position could be
>> considered "a monopoly", but unless you can provide some example of a
>> company which has a dominant market position and does not use it
>> predatorially, I'm afraid you've got things backwards. I'm saying that
>> you cannot acquire a monopoly through 'fair means', that's why "attempts
>> to monopolize" are just as illegal has monopolizing is.
>>
>>
>
>IBM clearly has a monopoly in the mainframe market. Hitachi, IBM's main
>competitor for mainframes, lost most of it's market share to IBM with the
>introduction of the S/390 G5 and with the introduction of the G6, IBM had
>grabbed 95% of the mainframe market. Hitachi has now dropped out of this
>market. Is IBM in violation of the law because of this? The answer is no.
Considering that IBM has been slapped down for this sort of thing
in the past, this is probably a bad example...
Although I do agree with you that you can gain a monopoly through
legal means. That is especially true for computing. Infact, the
great dependence on IP makes the development of monopolies almost
trivial with little or no effort required by the company in question.
IOW-I think that network effects are responsible for Microsoft's current
position and that their really reprehensible acts were unecessary. Infact
that behavior merely made Microsoft more enemies and gave those enemies
a gift wrapped excuse for governments to intervene.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linus says Mindcraft was accurate
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:08:50 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Isn't it time to talk about black helicopters now?
>
> What part of CONSTRAINT OF TRADE do you not understand?
>
Isn't that restraint of trade?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:45:34 +0200
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>
>> Whether or not the competition would have or could have trounced them
>> is a different discussion. Anticompetitive behavior is illegal,
>> particularly for a company in Microsoft's position.
>
>*sigh*. You're missing the point.
>
>No one has come up with a compelling alternative. The closest were MacOS,
>accessibility to which was historically quite expensive, and OS/2 which was
>in a similar situation wrt to cost and also "anti-marketed" by IBM before
>about 1994.
>
Do you actually have any notion whatsoever about OS/2's market share prior to
the "launch" of Windows 95?
>Neither of these results were Microsoft's fault,
they were, respectively, >Apple's and IBM's.
>
It seems to me that quite a few people who are "in the know" disagree to a
large extent with your opinion.
>I am an ex-OS/2 user btw, and a somewhat bitter one (against IBM) at that.
>I migrated to NT4 during Feb 96 (beta 2) because it was clearly the better
>solution - faster, stabler, better hardware support and more software.
>
Actually, of the four arguments you mention, only the last one is valid, and
then only if we explicitly _not_ mention the adjective "quality".
--
Karel Jansens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
========================================================
"I laugh in the face of danger.
I drop icecubes down the vest of fear."
(Edmund Blackadder III)
========================================================
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and
Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:59:19 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 13:56:07 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 12:04:35 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> Your deliberate attempts to misrepresent Roberto, who's a fairly
well
> >> >known
> >> >> member of the community do very little for your credibility.
> >> >
> >> >Emperor's new clothes.
> >>
> >> Note: no rebuttal presented.
> >
> >Are you certain? Consider that story in the lite of your statement.
>
> I don't see any relevance. If you're saying that Roberto's contributions
> to the community somehow "lack substance", you are dead wrong. Besides
it's
> somewhat perihperal to the fact that deliberate attempts to misrepresent
> anyone in a debate are not a credibility booster.
I would have assume that my point here would have been clear enough without
further explaination, since that is not case:
My point is that is a movement a foot in the popular press, in the
newsgroups, of how Linux should evolve to support the hoped for influx of
potiential Linux users comming to join the Linux community from the Windows
warrens. I am in favor of welcoming in more users, and I am in favor of
them having an interface that makes them feel comfortable. So where is the
disagreement?
The words evolve and change and modified etc to support "them". It comes in
many flavors but that argument is the "emperor's new clothes". There is no
reason for any changes to what makes the OS what it is. There is no reason
to destroy all that we have created for acceptance by those who have not
chosen to use it before.
------------------------------
From: <[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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 15:17:12 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>
> > > And if you are so offended because I apparently (yes, I can't remember
> > > it)
> > > sent you an email telling you to go fuck yourself, well, tough
cookies.
> > > Want an apology? I usually don't tell people to go fuck themselves
> > > unless
> > > I feel it's needed. If you would be so kind as to quote the email,
> > > I will know if I should apologize or not.
> >
> > Here is that email I sent you.
>
> [snip the email]
>
> Doesn't ring a bell. I must have read it very quickly.
> Anyway, if I told you to fuck yourself over this email, indeed
> it was unwarranted. I don't know what got into me.
Alright I will accept that as a apology ;-)
It was that reaction the lead me to take a part in that thread. I had
championed my position in reguards to that issue in a few thread going back
a few months before that one. I know that there are many others that feel
the same way. This time I was taking a break by only reading that thread.
When I was you begin to go out on the limb with your assumptions, I thought
to thought send you that email as a little heads up. When reading you
reply, well I desided to get active in the thread. And we know where that
lead us.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:30:20 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[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?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Considering that IBM has been slapped down for this sort of thing
> in the past, this is probably a bad example...
>
Actually, I think the fact that IBM has been slapped down for this sort of thing
makes it a good example. Past IBM practices are an example of an illegal
monopoly. The current situation is an example of a legal monopoly.
>
> Although I do agree with you that you can gain a monopoly through
> legal means. That is especially true for computing. Infact, the
> great dependence on IP makes the development of monopolies almost
> trivial with little or no effort required by the company in question.
>
> IOW-I think that network effects are responsible for Microsoft's current
> position and that their really reprehensible acts were unecessary. Infact
> that behavior merely made Microsoft more enemies and gave those enemies
> a gift wrapped excuse for governments to intervene.
>
It is rather ironic that Microsoft could probably have done quite well without
engaging in illegal practices.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:31:05 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:51:28 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> [...]
>> >> Screw KDE. Its a commercial development project. They're trying to
>> >> leverage free software for their own private gain; GNOME rules. Any
>> >> ideas KDE can come up with, GNOME can replicate. That's not FUD, that's
>> >> the god's honest truth.
>> >
>> >I don't get it. Do you know the address of KDE corp. by chance? ;-)
>>
>> <G> No, I couldn't find it. ;-)
>
>Ok, so, I assukme now you know that what you said was not "the god's
>honest truth." but just more uninformed ranting? Apologize, please.
>
>> I was mislead by the rhetoric, as I've said. I'm still not a fan of
>> KDE, but don't see anything wrong with an alternative to GNOME, either.
>> I'd just wish you understood the literary aspects of software enough to
>> know that requiring QT is counter-productive, possibly in the extreme.
>
>You lack the software designing and development expertise to judge
>the merits of technical decisions regarding software design and
>development, IMO.
There are broader issues involved that require no particular
technical competency actually.
[deletia]
Your arrogance won't make those go away.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: being a nice guy is not self-interest
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:36:31 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
[snip -- my only reaction is <rolleyes>]
> >Of course, just like it's not up to doctors to do the same ...
>
> As far as I can tell, I haven't had any Doctors tell me how to live my
> life. Thay have only made suggestions, and even that for a fee.
Which is exactly why doctors and biologists don't sit in on hearings
to ban dangerous chemicals from consumer products, right? After all,
elitist scientists shouldn't have any say in social decisions! Who am I
kidding? You're absolutely right that psychologists telling people that
being enslaved is psychologically harmful is NOT AT ALL like a doctor
saying that working in a coal mine is harmful to their health. More coal
mines and fewer doctors! We wouldn't want the elitists to think they
had control over us, right?
> There are photographs of the sand proving the color. There should be a
> study or something affirming what you claim. Otherwise, it is no more
> scientific than religion.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiighhht. Just like there are scientific studies that people
can
point to that PROVE that sand is yellow, right? It seems you still haven't
grasped the difference between "ask a scientist" and "open your eyes".
> >You presume yourself some kind of authority!
>
> Hell no! I'm just wondering why you act as if you are.
This is one of those "If you have to ask ..." type questions.
> So then you do believe being and asshole is in your true self
> interest, and this is why you act like one.
If I were acting in my own self-interest, I wouldn't be posting to
USENET. I'd be using my knowledge of where the power is in
society in order to make connections that allowed me to screw
people for millions of dollars instead of being indebted past my
ears and devoting my time to developing GPLed software.
> >The model is:
> > people are wildly irrational, and
> > people are not very self-interested
>
> I see, but you are self interested and thus you act like an asshole
> which is what you think is rational.
The height of arrogance. Do you seriously think that hurting your
feelings has anything to do with being an asshole? The original
example was extorting money from a deparate neighbour you like
just because you're moving and won't have to deal with them again.
> >Religions like to claim a lot of things.
>
> Yes, and so do philosophers. I don't blindly follow either.
Just like you don't blindly follow doctors, pharmacists, chemists,
engineers, architects, mathematicians and logicians, right? If you
don't grok something then that must be because it's wrong, not
because of any failing on your part. After all, who wouldn't want
to go running around to prove things to your satisfaction? But I'm
an asshole according to you so I'll demand that you pay me first.
------------------------------
From: [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: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:29:14 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:57:37 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:18:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> >>>
>> >>> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >>> >On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 23:05:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >>> >>Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [deletia]
>> >>> I was under the impression that KDE was a directly commercial venture
>> >>> which seeks to make money on distributing their developments. I don't
>> >>> consider that an inherently unethical act, but I do question why it is
>> >>> considered competitive with GNOMES purely open approach.
>> >>
>> >>What gave you such a weird impression?
>>
>> ...perhaps Miguel's own statements regarding why he started
>> the whole thing.
>>
>> GNOME was a reaction to the licence of libqt. It's basically
>> "KDE without the commercial library underneath". There are
>> other personal difference beyond that but that was the initial
>> motivation.
>
>And still, that doesn't say anything close to "KDE is a directly
>commercial venture".
>
>[snip]
It doesn't have to be. That's the problem. "Indirectness"
can be misleading. That is the problem.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:42:42 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 21:33:37 GMT, A transfinite number of monkeys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:27:18 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: >Check it out Leon, Oracle ships with default admin passwords, MySQL
>: >ships with default passwords. If you are so unfamiliar with the
>:
>: The oracle rdms installer since at least version 7.1.x has
>: forced the admin to set passwords for the superuser accounts.
>
>Not so.
>
>I just installed 8.1.6.1 EE on Linux the other day. After I installed,
>I created a database using dbassist, and had it create the db, rather
>than save shell scripts. At no point in time did it ask me to change
>the passwords for sys, system or ctxsys. I had to go into sqlplus
>and do it myself.
...and I just rebuilt an Oracle 8 database last week.
It sounds like Oracle is still skimping on the Linux installer.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: GNOME/KDE issues (was: Come on, Jedi, where are you?)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:48:55 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 19:04:18 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 18:09:01 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:10:05 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi�:
>> >> >
>> >> >> This is the big question. With all of the labor potential the
>> >> >> KDE project seems to have, why not make a clean break to a
>> >> >> core library that is beyond reproach?
>> >> >
>> >> >You are liberal at spending the effort of others. Join [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >>
>> >> Not nearly as much as you are.
>> >>
>> >> You want others to fix your poo.
>> >
>> >Where have I asked anyone to fix something for me? Put up or apologize.
>>
>> You are whining about my reluctance to waste my labors
>> fixing the poor design decisions of others. KDE is not
>> my poo to fix.
>
>You tell me to fix it. I tell you: fix it yourself. If that's asking you
>to fix my "poo", then so be it.
No. I merely stated that KDE had 'labor to burn' and that
dumping QT would be quite worthwhile for PR purposes.
>
>> Plus there are legal complications.
>
>Such as? Fraudulent impersonation of a programmer?
Being sued by TrollTech.
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Besides, it's the core development team that has to eventually
>> commit to an alternative library. Even a feature complete
>> version of Harmony won't achieve that.
>
>Show us the library, we may show you commitment. Should we not
>show you commitment, I'm sure you can find your way through to
>make a huge /. article about it.
This is just a lame excuse to not make an easy first step. It could
even be a completely meaningless 'first step', yet be quite useful
in terms of PR.
Anyone who works on Harmony has to worry about legal challenges from
Troll, the FSF offering no support unless the library is not licenced
LGPL and the possibility of just plain being ignored.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:47:22 GMT
In article <8nud3a$tcp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8nfcid$6rp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <8n8lut$gg3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > news:8n8032$8v8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article
> > > >
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 07:32:54 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore, with operating systems consuming 100
> > > > > >megabytes and taking nearly 10 minutes to reboot
> >
> > If you shut down cleanly, it takes about 10 minutes to go through
> > all the sanity checks and such.
> > I'm probably working with a different class of NT Server than you.
> > Typically, these things have rather large databases, complex
> > applications, and SCSI/RAID arrays which have to be synchronized.
> >
> > On some of the really big systems, I have to wait for as much as
> > an hour from boot to fully functional availability.
> >
> I assume you're talking hundreds of gigabytes of database.
> An Exchange
> server with a 15GB database takes around five minutes to start. Are
> you saying that it's NT's fault that applications take a long term to
> start, or should you be looking at the application itself?
If you really want to go to extremes - an NT workstation running on
a 10 gig 7200 RPM IDE drive functioning as nothing more than a trivial
file/print server with a few shared printers and servers only takes
about 3 minutes to reboot.
At the other end of the spectrum, RAID 5 SCSI systems require time to
poll and settle the SCSI bus, servers often need to be synchronized,
dynamic configuration parameters such as DHCP take a few seconds,
synching up the browsers, and initiating servers that require secondary
authentication such as LDAP or Kerberos add even more time.
I tend to work with large enterprises that are often using both UNIX
and NT because some of the NT applications have already "fallen off"
NT. They also have big mainframes that they also want to wire into
the mesh which means getting all validated by RACF. And they run
complex applications (but not so complex that they end up on UNIX).
Typically, when I look at the logs for these systems, the shutdown time
to startup times on key services averages about 10 minutes. Once in a
while, such as during an unscheduled outage such as a BSOD, Lock-up, or
overloaded partition, the recovery process can take quite a bit longer
(since the RAID may have to recalculate checksums).
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 22:54:36 GMT
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:48:32 -0400, Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Larry
>Brasfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> It is the law itself which is required to put
>> people on notice as to what it forbids. And
>> the Sherman Act does not clearly indicate that
>> Microsoft's portion of the O.S. market should
>> be considered a monopoly. It is not clear.
>
>
>The case law is pretty clear. Find me an example in the case law where
>a company with over 90% market share was found not to possess monopoly
>power.
>
>There are cases where a company with market share that high was sued for
>illegal acquisition of monopoly power, and the company won because it
>(a) acquired the power legally and (b) did not abuse the power, but I'm
>not aware of a case where the courts said there was no monopoly power
>present for a company with 90%+ share.
>
>Now, you might protest that you shouldn't have to wade through mountains
>of case law to determine whether or not you're breaking the law. I
This is what you hire lawyers for.
[deletia]
While common law is certainly a burden of complexity on the common
man, common law should certainly be little problem for the large,
highly profitable corporation.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and
Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating)
Date: 22 Aug 2000 23:08:11 GMT
On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 14:59:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>My point is that is a movement a foot in the popular press, in the
>newsgroups, of how Linux should evolve to support the hoped for influx of
>potiential Linux users comming to join the Linux community from the Windows
>warrens.
The said movement is only relevant to the degree that
(a) someone in the movement is prepared to write code
(b) someone outside the movement sees a business opportunity in writing
code that embraces the philosophy of "the movement".
>The words evolve and change and modified etc to support "them". It comes in
>many flavors but that argument is the "emperor's new clothes". There is no
>reason for any changes to what makes the OS what it is. There is no reason
>to destroy all that we have created for acceptance by those who have not
>chosen to use it before.
You are still vague. As we've already discussed, nothing is going to
"get destroyed" and it's unlikely that anyone will voluntarily write
software for users that don't exist, so the free movement is not going
to "change" the OS just to "get more users".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
