Linux-Advocacy Digest #593, Volume #28 Wed, 23 Aug 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:17:54 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> It means your argument cannot be disproven.
> >
> >This is traditionally considered to be the sign of a sound argument.
>
> You are in error. A good argument is one that has not been disproven.
Which is, at that point in time, inditringuishable from an argument than
cannot be disproven.
> If it "can not" be disproven, it is a worthless position,
> unsubstantiated by argument.
No, it simply means that _you_ cannot disprove it.
However, since you, and many others, have entirely missed my point, it's not
surprising you cannot disprove my argument(s).
> >> This makes your argument
> >> worthless, by the way, valueless. If a theory cannot be proven wrong,
> >> then it cannot be considered correct.
> >
> >Interesting contradiction. How can a theory that has been proven wrong,
> >possibly be correct ? Are you trying to say there are no "correct"
theories
> >?
>
> I didn't say it had been proven wrong; I said it *could* be proven
> wrong.
And how do you propose to determine whether or not a theory can be proven
wrong, without actually doing so ?
> In other words, there are no "incorrect" theories; even theories
> that are later proven wrong are correct *theories*, because they are
> falsifiable. A theory (or argument, position, etc.) which cannot be
> proven proved wrong (for instance, if all facts supporting your case are
> presumed true, and all facts negating your case are assumed false) is
> just an imaginary supposition, not a theory. This describes your
> position, in fact.
No, it doesn't.
> All of the evidence that Microsoft has done wrong
> you simply discard, all suppositions supporting claims that they didn't
> do wrong are accepted as fact. This makes your position unfalsifiable,
> and your arguments meaningless.
False.
> >I'm glad you agree there are no facts that counter my openness to a
> >rational, reasoned argument.
>
> No, I said you have no facts supporting your argument.
I said:
"No, a calm, rational well though out argument about how Microsoft are
behaving any different to any other organisation has a very high chance of
grabbing my attention."
To which you replied:
"I'm afraid the facts don't support this contention."
I followed up with:
"You are welcome to expand on "facts"."
To which you responded:
"They would have to be facts for me to expand on them, and they're not."
As I said, I'm glad you agree there are no facts that counter my position.
Unless, of course, you simply got confused during your creative snipping ?
That would explain the apparent typo of "they're".
> >> In fact, many of the 'facts' you are trying to present as such are
> >> explicitly contradicted by the court transcripts and evidence, AFAWK.
> >
> >You need to work on your context. Your creative snipping attempt is
> >obviously confusing you.
>
> Its called editing.
No, editing is when you remove things that don't matter. Clearly what you
removed *does* matter, since removing it has confused even you.
> Insisting that I got rid of something that is
> important for your argument would require you to have an argument, and
> so far all you have is denial and delusion.
If you insist on ad hominem, at least try and make it amusing.
> >In any case, the facts you appear to be referring to now, that I listed
> >above, came straight out of web pages
>
> Yes, I know. That makes them of dubious origin to begin with.
Ah, but the facts *you* get from web pages are for some reason indubitably
true ?
> The fact
> that they were originally derived from Microsoft press releases denying
> that the litigants had a case and filled with lies makes them tenuous.
That is not a fact, ergo your sentenct has no substance. They were derived
from multiple web pages, with multiple editorial swings on them. I quite
deliberately sought out pages from both sides of the argument, to see which
issues they agreed on.
> That you would present them as if they were convincing matters of
> inquiry, as if these issues hadn't been examined, and the arguments
> refuted, is an argument from ignorance. We know all of those things are
> either not important or not true; not because we refuse to accept or
> examine that they are, but because we've already considered and
> investigated whether they are, and they have been found to be empty
> protestations of innocence, not supportable defenses for criminal
> behavior. Just because they're still posted on a web page doesn't mean
> they haven't been dealt with and discarded.
Given the penalty imposed (or rather, not imposed), they were quite
obviously taken into consideration.
> >> The DR-DOS message was much less than "non-fatal"; it was entirely
> >> spurious.
> >
> >Something we knew after the event. Something we could only _assume_
> >beforehand.
>
> So? The question is whether it *was* spurious, not whether it was
> thought to be at the time.
Ridiculous. Are you suggesting that warnings should never be given until a
problem has actually occurred ?
> Well, let me take that back; Microsoft
> specifically intended that the consumer was not supposed to realize it
> was a spurious error; they were supposed to "get scared" if they have
> any problems with *Microsoft's* software, and dumb DR-DOS and get
> MS-DOS.
A pity so few consumers would actually have ever seen the message.
> So you're right; we couldn't know until after the event, and
> could only *assume* beforehand, at best, that the message was spurious.
> Which is why it was both effective in its purpose and illegal.
I'm afraid I don't quite see the leap of logic that brings you to that
conclusion. Possibly because there isn't one. A line of reasoning like
that would lead me to believe that you think doing things like listing
minimum software requirements on the package are "spurious" and illegal.
> >> The code which caused it was left in after the beta, it was
> >> merely disabled.
> >
> >So ?
>
> So, you seemed to insist that the fact it was in a beta was important
> (without any support for your argument).
What more support would that argument possibly need ? A beta is a software
release to a select group of people who are supposed to know enough to
realise what's happening, and why. The whole _point_ of a beta is to find
out whether or not problems actually exist.
> Why wouldn't it be appropriate
> to point out that it *wasn't* only in the beta that this "scare tactic"
> code existed?
Because as it is only active in the beta, it being present in the final is
totally irrelevant.
> >> DR-DOS was more than compatible; it was competitive
> >> and, according to some, superior.
> >
> >DRDOS was in almost all ways superior to MSDOS. As an ex-DRDOS user I'd
say
> >I'm in a fairly good position to state that.
> >
> >However, it was in no way "more than compatible", there were many
> >incompatibilities between DR and MSDOS, primarily in memory management.
Any
> >gamer from the era will support that. That's why us DRDOS users always
kept
> >an MSDOS boot disk handy.
>
> That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
It has everything to do with the issue.
> MS-DOS 4 was
> different than MS-DOS 5, and MS-DOS 3.
So ?
> The issue is that MS was
> restraining trade by scaring people away from a competing OS using an
> entirely spurious error in their *Windows* beta, which was a separate
> product at the time.
A product designed as an extension to *their* DOS, not DR's.
> >This was mostly due to game developers only doing serious testing and
> >development under MSDOS, with a token run on other DOSes, but that's
> >irrelevant to the issue at hand.
>
> You confuse knowing what you are talking about with knowing what is
> relevant to the discussion.
Not at all.
> >> Microsoft can provide no evidence
> >> whatsoever of any specific incompatibilities, and it was a lack of them
> >> which prompted the inclusion of the warning message, in fact.
> >
> >They don't need to prove the existence of any specific incompatibilities.
>
> They do if they want to pretend that the error wasn't spurious.
No, they don't. Do makes of rat poison have to *prove* their product can be
harmful to humans, or is it enough to infer that from the fact it kills rats
?
> >They were producing an extension to *their* DOS, MSDOS.
>
> No, they weren't. They were producing Windows, not an extension to
> "their" DOS.
Windows was first and formost and extension to MS DOS. IIRC you'll find it
says on the box something along the lines of "only for MS-DOS and 100%
compatible operating systems".
> At least that's what they wanted everyone to believe,
> which is why they didn't simply say "Windows is an extension of MS-DOS,
> and no other OS will work with it".
First they peddled it as a desktop environment, then as it picked up more
and more functionality, as an OS.
> That would have been honest, at
> least.
So marketing it as an extension solely for MS DOS is ok, but giving an error
because it isn't running on MS DOS is bad ?
> But since it would have been a stupid move, they decided that
> being dishonest and lying and restraining trade was better. The last,
> at least, is illegal, even if many businesses manage to get away with
> the first two.
>
> >Not an extension to
> >DR, PC or any other DOS, *MS*DOS. A message basically saying "this is
only
> >supported on MSDOS and is not guaranteed to work on any other" is not
> >uncommon.
>
> You are entirely incorrect in your knowledge of... practically
> everything, it seems. Business, technology, software, markets, the law,
> the message, the products... everything.
>From you, that's hilarious.
You'll understand why, I'm sure, in light of previous postings by you on
numerous topics, why I wouldn't consider you to be in a position of
authority in anything about which you post.
> >If i develop a software program, of which someone else has a "clone" and
> >claims to be compatible with, then if I develop an extension to my
product I
> >am under no obligation legally, ethically or morally to support their
> >product.
>
> As long as you don't say otherwise, maybe. Microsoft said otherwise,
> because nobody would have been interested at that time in a GUI for
> *only* MS-DOS.
Given MS DOS had most of the market sewn up, I'd say an extension for DOS,
even only for MS DOS, would have had a lot of buyers.
I'm sure you can point out where Microsoft ever said Windows would run and
was supported on non-MS DOSes.
> There were still too many niche markets where the
> per-processor licensing hadn't stamped out all alternatives, and a
> growing after-market OS market, which DR-DOS had the lions share of.
> When MS killed DR-DOS using a spurious and dishonest message in their
> Windows beta to prevent competition in the DOS market, they were being
> immoral, unethical, and illegal.
MS didn't kill DRDOS with that message. What they eventually killed DRDOS
with was Win95, after which DOS because irrelevant.
> >> Your comments on Blue Mountain are simply all imaginary; you appear to
> >> be transcribing Microsoft press releases.
> >
> >Whereas in reality, I am posting facts upon which both parties agreed
with,
> >given on a number of sites about the case.
> >
> >If you are in possession of, or can give direction to, documents which
> >refute the above then fire away.
>
> You numb-nuts. The documents refuting these lies are sealed; that was
> the link I posted. Blue Mountain supporting the filing by three
> newspapers to open the court records, because Microsoft is lying about
> what happened but managed to get all of the documents which show this to
> be true under seal by claiming confidentiality, spuriously.
How convenient. Funny how even the websites who thought Microsoft were in
the wrong, agreed on those issues.
> >> The Blue Mountain url which I
> >> provided, in fact, was a filing they made to demand that the court make
> >> public the transcripts and evidence in the trial, because Microsoft was
> >> spreading bullshit like this.
> >
> >And contains, unsurprisingly, nothing that refutes the issues I noted
above.
>
> That's because your issues were misdirection and empty contentions, not
> evidence.
My issues were facts noted by many web sites, and agreed upon by both
parties.
> Reason is enough to refute them.
So where is it ?
> Now, if you were to address
> the facts of the case itself, rather than making up new facts which have
> nothing to do with the matter, perhaps you'd get somewhere.
Those *were* the facts of the case. It only happened in a beta product, it
blocked other companies cards as well (including MSN's) and it had to be
specifically enabled by the end user.
IOW, this was not something that would happen to most people and was not
something that solely affected Blue Mountain.
> The fact
> that these attacks on the free market begin with beta versions is
> irrelevant,
First I've ever heard spam blocking being called an attack on the free
market.
> the fact that Microsoft's greeting cards were also affected
> is important only in its absence of reality,
An abscence of reality which you seem to be able to find nothing actually
documenting.
> and the on/off switch which
> gave the end user no capability for controlling or even knowing what is
> being filtered is meaningless to the issue.
They are very pertinent to the issue.
> >Why should your pontifications on an article on Blue Mountain's web site
be
> >any more or less accurate than my pontificating on articles on
> >www.microsoft.com, or any other web site ?
>
> Well, Blue Mountain doesn't stand convicted on two or three other major
> claims, for one thing.
I said your pontifications, not Microsoft's trial record.
> >> It takes a mighty dishonest person to
> >> remain as purposefully ignorant as you are, Christopher.
> >
> >I looked over about 2 dozen web sites before I responded on that
particular
> >issue. Whilst (unsurprisingly) many had different opinions, those are
the
> >things they all agreed on.
>
> That's because they all read the same Microsoft press releases.
I have no doubt many of them read the BM press releases as well.
> >> Your comment on Stac was a fib as well; Microsoft *claims* the code was
> >> in a product they bought off another company.
> >
> >As such, how is an assertion that Microsoft bought the code from someone
> >else a "fib" ?
> >
> >Presumably you are in possession of actual documents that prove they
didn't?
>
> And once again, you fail to see the reality of the matter.
On the contrary, I am the one solely focussed on the reality of the matter.
> The actual
> documents would be the fact that they were found guilty.
Of a *patent violation* in code they bought.
> I could find
> them somewhere, possibly, if Microsoft hasn't buried the bodies as they
> like to do, but you would just deny their validity.
If you found a valid source, it would be hard to deny their validity.
> >I'm an ex-user of Stacker as well. I even bought the addon ISA
compression
> >coprocessor card they sold. I continued to purchase and user Stacker all
> >the way through to their Windows 95 product, because Stacker was better.
I
> >still have that card at my parent's house somewhere in an old 386.
>
> What do you want, a medal?
Just inserting a bit of context. I have no reason to go against Stac.
> >> Guess what? The court
> >> found them guilty, and they paid the penalty, and they *didn't* sue the
> >> source of that product to recoup their $130 dollars. Why is that?
> >
> >I don't know, and neither do you. Additionally, without evidence to back
up
> >your opinion then at face value it is worth no more than mine.
>
> I'm afraid I must disagree, quite strongly.
So noted.
> You might be so clueless as
> to insist that we cannot understand the truth of the matter, but I
> refuse to pretend ignorance when it is not legally required. I might
> not know, but you simply refuse to know.
No, I just don't "know" either.
However, I am free to opine, as are you.
> >OTOH, *my* assertion, that the code was bought, is supported by available
> >evidence.
> >
> >*Your* opinion, that it was not, is supported by.....nothing.
>
> Well, there's Microsoft's conviction; if they knew the infringing code
> was in there, it doesn't *matter* if they bought it from someone else or
> reverse engineered it themselves; they stole it.
No, because a patent violation is a very, very different thing to "stolen
code".
Code isn't patented, ideas are.
> >> Nobody has ever contended that you don't have the right to disagree.
> >> The fact is that you don't have the *ability* to disagree; you are not
> >> qualified, you show a predisposition for believing lies and denying
> >> truths, and are generally incapable, it seems, of performing sufficient
> >> acts of reasoning to be able to competently disagree in any rational
> >> way.
> >
> >Strangely enough, I feel the same way about you.
>
> That is meaningless to me.
Ditto.
> >> >How much more reasoned do want than a conclusion drawn from numerous
> >> >observations of the law screwing up ?
> >>
> >> A single case that holds up under examination.
> >
> >How does that, in any way, disprove "I don't accept jurisprudence as a
fair
> >arbiter because it so rarely is" ?
>
> You haven't shown that it rarely is to begin with, that's how.
Irrelevant. How would a single case disprove my statement ?
> >A superior system would be one that in no way involved people. People
are
> >inherently prejudiced, corruptable and illogical and as such, are the
reason
> >behind my distrust of the legal system.
> >
> >"Everyone has a price", is another one of my favourites.
>
> Dishonest people often assume that everyone else is as dishonest as they
> are.
Normally I'm quite offended by implications I'm dishonest. From you, I'm
just used to it.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:09:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Ahh. Another proponent of trickle-down economics. Of course, some
> > > people see that for what it really is: a way for rich people to
> > > justify their exploitation of the system.
> >
> > That's possibly true.
> >
> > But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> > "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> > Reagan and Bush administrations?
>
> Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
> from a stronger economy.
That's certainly one possible explanation.
But what made the economy better? The tax cuts of the 80's perhaps?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:22:07 +1000
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8nplbe$q3l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Killing off middleware platforms _is_ targeting alternatives to
Windows;
> > > it reinforces the applications barrier to entry.
> >
> > This is going back before the middleware buzzword was invented.
>
> Doesn't matter what label you give it. Java was middleware from the
> beginning, and Netscape had the intention of turing its browser into
> middleware. Microsoft knew this, and didn't like it.
Hardly surprising, don't you think ?
In any case, it's still going back further. "Write once, run anywhere" is a
nice pipe dream, but it's still not realistically possible with non-trivial
stuff.
> > So IBM don't have the balls to do "the right thing" and that's
Microsoft's
> > fault ?
> >
> > If OS/2 really was a compelling alternative, then the correct response
the
> > Microsoft threatening not to give them Windows 95 would have been to
laugh
> > in their face.
>
> Catch-22. Microsoft used its market power to prevent IBM from turning
> OS/2 into a viable alternative by making it impossible for IBM to
> promote it.
Why couldn't IBM just drop Windows 95 altogether and solely promote OS/2 ?
Answer: it wasn't good enough.
> Is it really possible that you don't see how how Microsoft's actions are
> immoral and illegal?
Illegal, yes. Immoral, no.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:11:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > And spending more than Gore on things like (broken) missile
> > > defense.
> > >
> > > The fact is, I don't _know_ he'll be deficit spending. He's so
> > > vague on the issues that it's hard to tell anything at all. But
> > > he'll either be deficit spending or he'll be cutting killing rather
> > > important social programs, and neither is worth it just to give the
> > > average american
> >
> > Important to whom?
> >
> > I think the important thing is that the government should take the
> > minimum amount of money and use it wisely.
>
> I doubt there's anyone who doesn't believe this.
>
> > Let's take one of your important social programs--welfare. The number
> > of people on the welfare rolls is down by about 75% over the past 5
> > years. Yet the total dollars being spent has hardly declined at all.
>
> What should we do with people who can't support themselves, Joe? Let
> them starve in the streets so you can keep a bit more of your income? Is
> that _really_ the kind of society you want to live in?
I didn't say that.
Read what I said again. Wouldn't you expect that when the number of
people needing welfare drops by 75% that there might be a reduction in
government welfare expenditures?
>
> > The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as they
> > can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
>
> The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get their
> hands on it, of course.
Or anyone else involved in government.
>
> > > family a $43/year tax break. And there's certainly no chance of him
> > > paying down the debt.
> >
> > Actually, his plan does include some debt reduction.
>
> Does it? What's your source for this information?
Just what I read in the local paper-- which isn't always the most
accurate source.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:27:32 -0300
Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> >Nathaniel Jay Lee escribi�:
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >Allow me to do a little collage :-)
> >
> >> If I see someone ask for something that I think isn't the
> >> 'proper direction' to take the system, I'm going to say
> >> something. Obviously you (Roberto) thought that my
> >> concerns were silly.
> >
> >I only got into the argument when it had already reached
> >the "windows clone" phase, which indeed seemed silly
> >to me, so I didn't see these, which I will be happy to
> >address individually, because they are NOT silly:
> >
> >> My basic premise is that we can attract Windows users
> >> without copying every feature of Windows (including the
> >> bad ones), while the current 'popular' view seems to be to
> >> try copying every feature.
> >
> >Popular among who? Basically among those who make no
> >difference, because they are not writing the code.
> >Look at who is actually doing the GUIs, and you will
> >find noone saying "we must clone the bad pieces of
> >windows".
> >
> >You will find Corel saying we should clone windows, maybe.
> >Well, Corel's effort hampers the effort of the rest in
> >what way?
> >
> >> The idea of converting /etc
> >> into a registry like entry (and removing the ability for
> >> individual users to change personal dot files),
> >
> >I must say i have never seen anyone advocate that, at least
> >nobody who knows what he's talking about, so I'd rate it
> >as "extremely unlikely to happen".
>
> It isn't as 'extremely unlikely to happen' when we have a
> lot of coders working for companies.
Find me a company that wants to take care of converting
every program that stores configuration on /etc to work
on a registry, and I'll show you a company that's driven by
nutcases and will never release anything.
> As this is already happening to some extent, and it will
> continue to happen,
To what extent has /etc changed to a binary registry?
> there is a chance that 'management' in the said companies
> will decide it is a good idea, contrary to what those that
> have a clue as to what they are talking about. I think
> this is where our original disagreement stemmed from. You
> agree that the idea I've stated are silly (which was my
> point) and you don't think it could happen because of how
> silly it is. The problem I see with that is, we should at
> least say they are silly ideas, so that those thinking it
> isn't silly have a more informed position in the future
> (and stating it here probably isn't going to matter over
> all, but....).
Ok, I will also state that eating rat poison for breakfast
while running around the pool is a bad idea.
> >> the idea of fully integrating X (or any graphical display)
> >> into the kernel,
> >
> >There is merit to the idea of a limited integration of
> >an architecture to access the video into the kernel,
> >like the current framebuffer stuff. All of X makes
> >no sense, though, and I have seen noone in XFree
> >say it should go into the kernel.
>
> No one in XFree that I'm aware of has said it, but it is
> where the original conversation started. There are those
> that want 'full graphical integration' in the kernel.
Could you be a bit more specific? It would help me
take this more seriously.
[snip]
> >> the idea of integrating http servers into the kernel,
> >> basically fully integrating things in ways that negatively
> >> impact either the overall performance, or the overall
> >> stability of the system.
> >
> >a) TUX is completely optional
> >b) TUX is a heck of a lot faster than anything else so
> > far, so it hardly impacts performance negatively!
> >
> >As far as TUX impacts overall stability, I have no idea.
> >However, I know that if you don't want to use TUX, you use
> >Apache, or Roxen, or whatever, and you have now more
> >choice than before, including the choice to have
> >something much faster than before. I can't see anything
> >bad about that.
>
> TUX is extremely fast. TUX is also a security risk (that
> I don't consider worthwhile.
That's your decision. Allow those willing to take the risk
to have TUX, as well.
> Again, as I said before, as
> long as this remains 'optional' and does not become the
> 'standard' then I have no problem with it.
Optional it will always be, I guess, simply because I
see no way anyone can make a kernel option mandatory.
As for standard, standard declared by who?
> I was
> originally speaking out against those the ask for 'full
> system integration' through kernelspace the way Windows
> does things, expecting everything to be in kernelspace,
> and leaving you no option of anything else. After all (as
> they argue) this is what makes Windows 'so good'. I
> realize that this position is usually taken by those that
> are totally ignorant of good system design, and those that
> don't code, but I also want them to understand why it
> isn't good design practice. And that is where my original
> statements came from.
Ok, as long as it's for educational purposes ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 16:24:44 GMT
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > But, OTOH, perhaps you can explain why income disparity between the
> > > "rich" and the "poor" is vastly worse today than it was under the
> > > Reagan and Bush administrations?
> >
> > Because the economy is much better, and the rich always benefit most
> > from a stronger economy.
>
> That's certainly one possible explanation.
>
> But what made the economy better? The tax cuts of the 80's perhaps?
Not really, to a huge degree. Sure, a lot of the *accumulation* of
wealth by the most-wealthy folks has come about because of tax breaks,
but most of the improvement in the US economy has come from things like
the increased efficiency of goods management (invnetory control), along
with the scads of new technologies adopted over the last decade.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
