Linux-Advocacy Digest #733, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! ("Otto")
Re: Anybody want to test a widget? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Astroturfing (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing (Michael Marion)
YES YES YES GD IT! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51???? ("LinuZ TorvaldZ")
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (2:1)
Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Gardiner Family)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:44:45 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Snip...
: >Even with that, you're right, it isn't terribly taxing. I just happen to
: >like Windows installation routine, setup.exe for most of the programs,
: >install.exe for others. That has nothing to do with being "indoctrinated
: >into", it's just personal preference.
:
: Sure it does. You only tolerate one way of doing things regardless
: of how featureful or easy any other method is. Things must all be
: a clone of WinDOS.
Did you ever think about that maybe the Windows way IS easier and people
might not need additional feature? You call them "indoctrinated into", I
call them practical. Just to get a program running on a system, regardless
of the actual OS, a single file should be sufficient enough. Computers
suppose to make life easier, not harder. If developers, admins, etc, want to
play around with libraries and other features, that's fine. They should not
try to push it on everage users as "it is as easy as setting up programs
under Windows", because it isn't.
Snip....
: >: Nevermind the fact that for a serious server, intel based machines
: >: aren't going to be very price competitive anyways. That's not even
: >: getting into the scaling and HA options that RISC vendors have
: >: been delivering for years already.
: >
: >Intel based machine came on a long way and Sun will worry, before you
know
: >it.
:
: Intel based servers are still not price competitive.
:
: Intel based servers can't scale to the levels Suns can.
The question is, does people need all of the scalability what Sun can
provide all the times? Not to mention the fact that you didn't define the
level of scalability. Are you talking about the enterprise level machines,
or something less than that?
: Sun hardware isn't standing still either. It's undergoing another
: rev both in terms of marketing numbers (cpu mhz) and bus bandwidth.
Sun has been standing still for awhile now and just like Novell, too little
too late.
: >: Even today, the systems that NT can run on are relative toys.
: >
: >And those who have the most toys WINS.... (as in WINS servers, not
intended
: >for screaming)
:
: When you need performance, running hardware that is years behind
: the curve simply wont' do. Despite the deceptive CPU clock speeds,
: Intel based systems are still behind where Sun WAS, never mind
: where it will be.
That would explain why NT, running on those "deceptive CPU clock speeds", is
5 times faster when it comes to crypto calculations. Not to mention the
login rate what NT can handle vs. Solaris. Your statement about Intel
hardware being behind Sun's is simply false. Had you define specific areas
where Intel hardware lags, I might've agreed with you.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Anybody want to test a widget?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:43:44 GMT
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 04:26:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>> I don't suppose you happen to know of a similar simple html viewer
>> that I can call from Python scripts?
>I don't have any experience working with TclTk and incorporating it
>into different languages, but it's cross-platform and it has an HTML
>widget in there...
You can call Tcl/Tk from Python, in fact it is sort of the standard GUI
for that language. But the version (8.0.?) I have doesn't have an html
viewer widget. At least Tkinter doesn't support one. There is a
partially-done class based on the Tk text widget. Clearly, there is
more research to do. Thanks.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: 18 Oct 2000 18:53:08 -0500
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
>> >>>Apparently, humans colonized America long after the `monkey's were
>> >>>gone. IIRC, it happened some 15000 or so years ago, when the first
>> >>>people made it to Northwesteern America from Northeastern Asia.
>> >> I heard it was 30,000 years ago.
>> >Was the NE-Asia inhabitated by then?
>> >I'm not sure, so you might pretty well be right.
>>
>> The eatrh didn't evan existe back tehn, moran.
>>
>
>The earth is about 4.6 billion years old, Tim.
No, stuppit, it's only 6 THOUSAIND years old.
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:43:46 GMT
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:17:49 +1300, Gardiner Family
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:48:35 +1300, Matthew Gardiner
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >a decent mail client would be one that is a mail client and usenet
>> >client, that is small, fast and feature rich (such as spell checkers).
>>
>> Like...Pine?
[re-ordered to the standard way]
>except with a nice GUI, unfortunately I am one of those dumb, only use
>console as a last resort types.
Well, you didn't say _that_, and Pine meets all of the criteria that
you did mention. It is really pretty easy to use, what with on-screen
help bars and such.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:43:47 GMT
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:05:41 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Neat! How many Microsoft people are paid to do research on Linux's
>weak points?
A lot, I hope. Free QA testing from a well-funded outfit is a Good
Thing.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:56:59 -0700
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BipH5.52$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Nope. It has to be Lotus -- because everyone always quotes "DOS Ain't
Done
> > Till Lotus Won't Run", and it's being used as a keystone for an argument
> > here.
>
> Has to be Lotus, huh? Are you suddenly afraid that proof will pop up
about
> some other competing product?
No -- but I'd like to fight one battle at a time, thankyou.
> Or perhaps you're already aware of it, and
> you're worried that someone else here might bring it up.
Not to my knowledge.
> How about this -- can I get you to say that Microsoft just absolutely does
> not do that? Deliberately break other people's products, I mean.
>
> Do you have the courage of your convictions?
Yes. I have the courage enough to state that to my knowledge, Microsoft does
not write its products so as to deliberately cripple competing companies'
products. Its applications have no innate advantage over other applications
on the same OS.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:01:27 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> Moreover, you sysadmin types need to get your head out of the clouds
> and realize your job is nothing but a secondary role. Whether it is
> desktop PC's or supercomputers your job is merely to keep the machines
> running securely. It's the people who actually use the machines to
> produce a product are playing the primary role in a business. When the
> machines don't run, the shit hits the fan and the sysadmins hear
> it. When the machines do run the cutomers forget who the sysadmins
> are. How is that any different from being an HVAC mechanic? The only
> way to really do well as a sysadmin is to be a consultant. Othewise,
> it's a thankless job.
Man, you must work for some shitty people. I used to work in our company's
core services sysadmin group and thought like that for awhile.. then I moved
to a position where I'm directly supporting engineers (they can call, or walk
right up to us and ask for help). It's amazing how much more rewarding the
job is when the users will thank you for your help whenever they see you in
the hallways, and when we get thanked everytime a project is done. Our users
know that without us, they wouldn't be able to get their work done.
> As far as whether I "work in the field", I wouldn't want to. I'm an
> aerospace engineer working in an avionics lab on a research
> prototype. We have an onsite contractor who does our sysadmin work for
> our offices and many of the machines in our labs. A few specialized
> machines we do oursevles. I appreciate the work the sysadmins do. I
> appreciate the mechanic who fixes my car as well. But both are generally
> thankless jobs.
Unfortunately, they're usually thankless because most people aren't like you..
they don't care how much work it takes someone to keep the computers, cars,
etc running.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
Linux is harder to learn than Windows. But it is easier to use.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: YES YES YES GD IT!
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:02:16 GMT
Okay! I'll tell you! IT'S VI!!!!!
Sean Clarke wrote:
> jazz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : In article <e1qG5.3420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan
> : Schaumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : >
> : > > I really need a powerful word processor with templates, styles, etc.
> : > >
> : >
> : > Learn LaTeX (or LyX) - you'll be much more efficient in no time.
> : >
> : > > What is available for Linux? How about for Powerpoint and Excel?
> : >
> : > I use gnumeric for spreadsheets.
> : > If you need something like powerpoint... *shrug*.
> : > But with LaTeX you canproduce some nice slides...
> : >
> : >
> : > Cheers,
> : > -Jan
>
> : Unfortunately the world uses Word, and since I coauthor papers, I have to
> : use it or something compatible.
>
> : Thanks
> : Jim
>
> Which journal doesn't accept Latex files then?
>
> Sean
------------------------------
From: "LinuZ TorvaldZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:09:34 GMT
"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:09:08 -0700...
> ...and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One annoyance I have with the windows explorer vs KDE's Konqueror, is
that
> > Konqueror lets you "drill down" the dirtree, just grab a file, and drag
it
> > over a dir, and after a half second, the dir opens and you can drop down
errrr??...Windows 98 has that...witch Windows was the last you tried?
Windows 3.11?
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:56:49 +0100
Tim Palmer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HTym Parma wrote:
> >> >>>Apparently, humans colonized America long after the `monkey's were
> >> >>>gone. IIRC, it happened some 15000 or so years ago, when the first
> >> >>>people made it to Northwesteern America from Northeastern Asia.
> >> >> I heard it was 30,000 years ago.
> >> >Was the NE-Asia inhabitated by then?
> >> >I'm not sure, so you might pretty well be right.
> >>
> >> The eatrh didn't evan existe back tehn, moran.
> >>
> >
> >The earth is about 4.6 billion years old, Tim.
>
> No, stuppit, it's only 6 THOUSAIND years old.
Oy, Tym. yaw beeing verry idyotik tooday, aarn't ewe. Vee erf (eatrh) iz
seviral byleeon yirs owld. morron.
-de
--
Conrad Zeus shul bee rekognized. Hee bilt teh forst | Edwood Roston
bynari digtal kompewter (Z1, wiv flowting poynt) teh | Engynear
fotsr genrol porpoise compewta (teh Z3) and teh fist | i09rkt@
commy won (Z4). | egn.oks.ak.uc
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:09:09 GMT
2:1 wrote:
> Gardiner Family wrote:
> >
> > I am suprised that Microsoft is still selling Windows, considering that 80%
> > of their revenue comes from Microsoft Office. If I was the CEO from
> > Microsoft I would open source Windows (both NT and 98), combine the good
> > aspects of GNU/LINUX and Windows and release a Microsoft Linux.
> > Considering, in the near future OSs will play a smaller role as applications
> > will move onto the web and all processing made centralised, either via a web
> > browser or Citrix Winframe client (which is available for many platforms).
>
> They have the monopoly on the OS, though. This props up the other
> monopolies. If they OSS Windows, wine will cease being beta very quickly
> and the OS monopoly would have vanished in a puff of smoke. The direct
> revenues from windows may be low, but the position it puts them in is
> worth a lot.
>
> -Ed
>
>
> --
> Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
> binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
> first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
> commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
Hey!
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
This is yet ANOTHER reason why Microsoft will be out of business soon!
Considering the Microsoft still hasn't arrived at an IA64 level yet,
it's going to be several years before they mount this new IBM based processor
fixing to roll off the lines.
Since IBM's base install for their servers is not RedHAT, we can assume
that Linux will be the ONLY operating system rolling on this new chip.
AND NO! I don't think IBM is going to sit on thier hands for 3 years
waiting on Microsoft to finish a Windows for it!
I'm shocked that Intel is sitting on the IA64! It's been out for
mainframes for at least a year now.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 18:13:15 -0500
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Listen. I only asked you to post proof that "Microsoft advocates scoffed
at GUI
> of Amigas, Macs, and Atari STs. No real productivity could ever be
achieved
> with those mouse things, they said. And who needed
> multitasking? Why would anybody ever need to run more than one program at
a
> time, for god's sakes? And of course, 640k ram was enough for anybody."
>
> Neither COMA nor COMNA existed then. I was asking you to provide a link
to
> prove those comments were made. I remeber being jealous of those cool
graphical
> toy computers. But my PC was so much faster and I multitasked quite
nicely with
> DesqView and Sidekick.
Your PC was faster? You're having a false memory, apparently. PCs were
snails back then.
> > If you say so. Don't be surprised if the only people who agree with you
are
> > your fellow MS worshippers.
>
> Oh, you mean the 25 million other folks that thought just what I did and
bought
> it between 1990 and 1993? In just three years Microsoft Windows went from
> virtually no Windows users to 25 million. That's 2.5 times more users
than
> Apple had in 1993 and Apple had been shipping Mac System software since
1984.
> Doing 2.5 times better than the competition in about a third of the time
just
> shows how many folks thought it was good.
Faulty logic. The hidden assumption is that Microsoft didn't have a lock on
the market. They could have offered pretty much any piece of crap they
wanted to and they'd have sold 25 million copies.
Hey wait. They *DID* do that. Sorry. :)
> > > Then Windows 95 came out and you all stuffed hat. Then you
> > > started bellyaching about how Windows ripped you off. Sad.
> >
> > Windows 95 came out in what, 1995? You do know that it was just Windows
4.0
> > and DOS 7.0 bolted together, don't you?
>
> On the contrary, it is a 32-bit protected memory pre-emptive multitasking
> consumer OS. It boots from the DOS bootloader but when it loads it takes
over
> control from the DOS subsystem and it every bit it's own OS. Windows 3.1
did
> the same thing only it still used 16-bit addressing and used cooperative
> multitasking.
Wait a minute, here. You worked at Microsoft and you believe that Windows
95 was a genuine operating system that only needed DOS to load?
Windows 95 was a modest upgrade from Windows for Workgroups. The main
difference was that you booted directly into the GUI. DOS was still there,
and Windows still relied on it. This thing about the "DOS bootloader" is
silly. If Win95 was an actual operating system independent of DOS, it could
have used the same ROM bootstrap routine that every other operating system
(including DOS) uses.
I've never heard of a "DOS bootloader" before. Has Microsoft resurrected
their phony claims about DOS not being present in Windows 95 or something?
> >
> > Sorry, I can't post proof of this. I'm not a magician.
>
> Leaked numbers are not sufficient. DR-DOS was not supported by Microsoft.
The
> error message warned that Windows might not work correctly running on it.
No it didn't. It said
Non fatal error detected: error number 2726
Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support.
Press ENTER to cancel, or C to continue.
Had they done what you claim they did and simply said that they Windows may
not run correctly on DR DOS, then everything would have been fine. But they
didn't do that, because then some people might have got the idea that it was
Windows that had the problem, not DR DOS.
The real purpose of the error message was Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt with
regard to DR DOS. There was never any error. The message didn't pop up
because something bad had happened and the system was just notifying the
user about it. The message popped up when Microsoft secret, encrypted,
self-modifying, debugger disabling, ofuscated code detected DR DOS.
If you see nothing wrong with that, you shouldn't even be in this
discussion.
> > Wow, you never get tired of it, do you? Don't you ever get embarassed?
I
> > mean, you spend a lot of time calling people liars and demanding they
post
> > proof of something that is in the public record for anyone to see.
>
> But when you assert you must show proof. Standard debate rules.
Ah, but you ask for ridiculous proof. You ask for proof of what anonymous,
average computer users said 15 years ago. Your standard response to
virtually statement is, "Prove it!"
So far, I've complied (except for those 15 year old statements, which I
could not prove), but it's getting tiring.
Is that the point? To demand proof over and over until finally your
opponent gets so tired of providing proof that he quits?
jwb
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:14:11 GMT
http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
Microsoft doesn't even have the IA64 working!
Microsoft is NOT keeping up with technology!
The are falling into the shit pile!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:19:18 GMT
look at the marketing machine of Microsoft, blantant lies and manipulation of
the facts. Microsoft can't even release a program that is not being exploited
by script kiddies, remember the lovebug? The perfect example of when the
marketing and PR machine take over the places of programmers resulting in
crapping, third rate products such as Windows ME/98/95 and the biggest joke
Windows 2000 Pro, mega bloatware, both memory and harddisk space. I am not
anti-microsoft, I am anti-sloppy programming, if microsoft said to
programmers, "write Windows 2000 pro so that it takes as little space up as
possible (say 200MB), uses only 16MB ram and the BSD kernel as the heart of
the os", this could be done, it would be just a matter of efficient
programming. If this was done I would be more than happy to go out and pay
even $600 for it, however, until that day comes, MS will never be technically
superior, only their marketing think tank has the advantage over Linux.
matt
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:23:22 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >features based on resources -- that means engineering cost, QA,
> >documentation, tech support. Sierra On-Line allocates features based on
> >resources -- that means engineering cost, QA, documentation, cost of
goods,
> >tech support et al. Would you care to name some software companies that
> >don't do this kind of cost/benefit analysis when they're looking at doing
> >feature work? I've already named two that *do*.
>
> All of them might think they do. It just goes to show how entirely
> disfunctional the software industry has become because there is a
> monopoly preventing free market competition. In real business, you're
> supposed to figure out what sells the most, not take it for granted how
> much you can sell based on whether it will intrude on Microsoft's turf.
> ;-)
How does running your business in a bottom-line manner "intrude on
Microsoft's turf"???
In a real business, as you said, you're supposed to figure out what sells
the most. That means that you're supposed to maximize your profit. That
means that you implement features based on how much they cost. Do you
understand?
> [...]
> >> It doesn't have anything to do with grasping the principle of supply
and
> >> demand; merely your desire to use a simplistic excuse for the principle
> >> in order to defend a monopoly. Make a note: supply and demand only
work
> >> in free markets, which means there aren't any illegal monopolies
> >> preventing actual competition.
> >
> >Well, given that I don't agree with you about Microsoft's supposed
> >"monopoly" status, I can't argue with you on that point, as it would be
> >futile for both of us.
>
> So you are aware you have no argument, and no support for your position,
> I presume? You can deny gravity, too; that doesn't make it reasonable.
> Nor is denying the mountain of evidence which proves quite convincingly
> that Microsoft has monopolized.
We'll see at the end of the court case, Max. Until then YOU have no argument
either.
> >> >Compatibility costs money. If MS won't certify something as
> >compatible,[...]
> >>
> >> It is not for Microsoft to 'certify' anything, but for their customers
> >> to enjoy compatibility, or seek a vendor which provides it, if this is
> >> their desire. Your rather pitiful attempt to pretend that nobody
> >> desires it, and that's why it isn't provided, is naive to say the very
> >> least, and certainly shows an ignorance of reality.
> >
> >Wrong. Microsoft has to certify its software's ability to do certain
things.
>
> No, it doesn't. What makes you think it does?
Ok, it doesn't have to. But if it does, it can cut costs and help reduce
consumer confusion and complaints. So it does. Most software companies put a
system requirements list on their boxes. This is to reduce tech support
costs, and reduce customer confusion.
> >One way it does so is by stating a minimum requirements list for
software.
> >If the hardware doesn't match that, then they can point to it and say "we
> >told you we wouldn't support it on that configuration". Other software
> >companies do this as well.
>
> Who's talking hardware? We're talking about software compatibility.
Same thing. You certify that it has been tested on a given system. Which
means that you can reduce costs if people run it on uncertified systems by
not supporting them. This is done industry-wide, with everything from Dell
to Microsoft to pretty much any other company.
> >I didn't claim that no-one desired compatibility. I stated that if the
> >desire for compatibility doesn't outweigh the cost, then the extra work
> >won't be done.
>
> IOW, you tried to use a tautology as a logical argument.
No, I didn't.
> >If it will sell enough copies of the software to recoup the
> >costs, then the work will be done. Capice?
>
> So omniscience is a prerequisite for commerce, is that what you're
> saying? Or is it just control of the market, prices, and competition?
No, you run focus groups. Market surveys. Talk to your potential customers.
Talk to your current customers. This is how most business is done in the
real world. There's no use spending millions of dollars developing something
that people don't want -- so you do your homework first. Show me a company
that doesn't, and I'll show you one that's either just got a SHITLOAD of VC
funding and needs a way to blow it, or one that'll be out of business very
soon.
> >If enough people want that
> >compatibility, they'll vote their their checkbook, and it'll be put in --
or
> >the company in question won't be able to sell that software.
>
> So first they pay for it, and then later on it gets developed; is that
> what you're saying? Boy, supply and demand must be really easy to
> figure out when you're omniscient, or you've got your customer base
> locked-in to a monopoly.
No -- they vote with their checkbook. They *don't* pay for it, the company
goes back and says "oops, we screwed up", and adds the functionality that
they *will* pay for.
Stop being so facetious, Max.
> >> >Businesses are around to do one thing and one thing only -- make
money.
> >>
> >> Yada yada yada. They have to produce something to make money;
> >> otherwise, they're around to do one thing only: rip off their
customers.
> >
> >They won't have any customers if they rip them off. Cause and effect.
>
> You mistake 'customers' for victims of a monopoly. Lock-in and
> predation.
So let's see: if a company rips off customers, then the customers are
victims of a monopoly?
So this is why the company I work for does everything I've stated above.
Wow. I didn't know we were trying to get a MONOPOLY! Cool! That'd be like so
neat. We could lock them in and feed upon them. Thanks for the idea, Max!
Simon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
