Linux-Advocacy Digest #603, Volume #30 Sat, 2 Dec 00 09:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows review ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Netscape review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:09:45 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Nb_V5.28159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:907utc$8kk9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > > > As usual you are avoiding reality. Do you dictate to everyone
> > else
> > > in
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > > office and your clients and customers how they are allowed to
> > > > > communicate
> > > > > > > with you, or do you do what you are forced to do and
accommodate
> > > them?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I dictate them to use a file format which I can use.
> > > > >
> > > > > And just how many clients and customers have gone along with your
> > > demands?
> > > >
> > > > All of them.
> > > > If they want me to read their files, they send them in a format that
I
> > can
> > > > read.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And that format would be? You aren't going out on much of a limb here
> > > if it happens to be the one holding a monopoly position.
> >
> > Practically any, duh.
> > There is such a thing called *Viewers*.
> > They are *free*.
> > No need to upgrade, no need to pay anything to anyone.
>
> Note that (a) these things didn't exist for some time after office97 was
> already on everyone's desk who got a new PC, and (b) it looks like
> all the things you mention only run under windows.
I do think they did, although I can't offer any dates.
So it only run under windows?
Big deal, so does Office, and that is what you are arguing about, isn't it?
That customers had to buy/upgrade Office in order to read their documents,
Office mean windows. Therefor, I provided evidence that you don't need to
upgrade/buy Office in order to read those files.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:15:12 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >
> > He had also mentioned avoiding Trojans. Most of the stuff there is just
> > intended for that purpose.
>
> I meant for Trojans and port 139 exploits to be treated as different.
>
> To lock down any system, Win or *nix, a hell of a lot of steps have
> to be taken. Maybe a few more for Win, especially Server. The
> end result is a machine no one can use very well. And often the
> quickest cut to this Gordian knot is "social engineering".... calling
> some poor dumb peon and eliciting information from him or her.
Not that many steps, actually.
It goes like this:
Shut down the machine.
Uplug power cables.
Open the case.
Remove all network or modem cards.
Close the case.
Plug power cables.
Bott the machine.
7 steps method, and you're 100% safe from hacking attempts.
You've my word on it that no other method is that easy, or that successful.
:)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:16:05 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Curtis wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your example had me wondering though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What practical real world task are you doing with you real world
> > > > > > operating system in the context of browsing that I can't achieve
> > with
> > > > > > IE? I use Netcaptor to be exact that uses the IE engine. I don't
use
> > OE.
> > > > >
> > > > > Avoiding Trojans comes to mind. Not to mention that NT/2000
require
> > > > > some serious reconfiguration to avoid myriads of problems due to
that
> > > > > leaky boat called "port 139".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Two settings changes are 'serious reconfiguration' hell you can turn
it
> > on
> > > > and off as desired. Or just implement IPSEC and still use it as
> > designed.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This link provides something more than two setting, in order
> > > to provide a certain amount of security for NT. Is the
> > > fellow crazy or you're oversimplifying a bit?
> > >
> > > http://bunbun.ais.vt.edu/work/securing_nt.html
> >
> > He's downright paranoid. But he's addressing more than just port 139
which
> > is what we are discussing. Interestingly I just put up a firewall
system
> > using most of his techniques just today.
>
> Means that you're paranoid too? ;-)
> (Sorry I couldn't resist!)
If he is setuping a firewall, he had better be.
> > That site pertains to NT 4, Win2K
> > is easier and IPSEC does most of those steps by policy rather than
registry
> > hacking..
> >
> > HTH
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:23:46 +0200
"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I can only give you a couple of personal experiences, one as a customer,
> the other as a programmer.
>
> My company has purchased a big program for the administration, raw
> materials, stock, production scheduling, billing, everything. The
> program is reasonably well done, it is very flexible, and you may play
> with hundred of options. Well, in principle we have the expertise to
> handle it, and to set up the appropriate options as the need arises.
> But we have our job to do, so we pay an annual fee, in order to have
> someone, with good knowledge of the program to spend some time with
> administration people, production people etc. listen to them, set up
> options, suggest the best approach for a given problem, etc. In five
> years we've spent twice or thrice as much as the original price. If the
> program had been free, and the fee higher, it wouldn't have made a big
> difference.
> If the program had been bad, we'd have stopped paying after the first
> year. Considering the company which provides the program, and the
> assistance, I'd say that 20% of their revenue comes from selling the
> program, 80% from selling the service. Should the source be freely
> available, a second company could copy it, but could be in competition
> only if they could provide a better service. The time it would take for
> them to learn all the insides of the program compares with writing a new
> one, while the original company works to produce next, better version.
>
> My company is specialized in special purpose microprocessor based
> industrial controls. We provide electronics to our customers which
> manufacture mechanical machines, and then sell everything to the end
> user. One of our customer has an internal lab with some expertise, so we
> always supply the sources of the microprocessor programs, in order to
> make it possible for them to quickly respond to particular requests from
> end users. Well, when the modification is really minimal, they do it
> themselves (usually with a telephone call to check that what they're
> doing is correct). As soon as the modification is bigger than that, they
> ask that we do it, because they've found out, out of experience, that we
> do it faster, safer and cheaper. They had tried once to hire a
> programmer of experience, have him implement some extra functions, and
> they've been forced to ask us to run to help in Germany, where a machine
> was failing a test for Bundes Post, because of some errors of the above
> mentioned programmer of experience.
> Of course, that's what keeps us on the market. If we weren't able to
> provide better service at lower cost, we would be pushed out.
>
> Can those experiences be extended to the whole world of software?
> Almost everybody can fix the plumbing at home. But plumbers are among
> the best paid professionals all around the world. (I can hear T. Max
> Devlin yelling: COMPUTERS ARE NOT BATH TUBES, but analogies help to a
> certain amount!)
What if it was free, and widely use, and you couldn't afford to buy support?
Or just had some guy from accounting looking at it and thinking, "Here we
can cut down the prices and make more money avialable for me to direct ot
the secret bank accounts in switchland" ? :)
If the system is not widely used, then you've got a point, but if it is...
Then you can get the support you need quite easily, without needing to pay.
I agrees that it wouldn't be to the same quality, btw.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:33:08 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Snarf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:906o5q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Win95 on a 386 with 4 megs of RAM? You might be able to install it,
but do
> > > you really think it will run? Looks like yet another one has fallen
for
> > > Uncle Bill's Windows propaganda.
> >
> > Those are the minimum requirement.
> > This mean it will run (more likely stumble along, actually) on it.
>
> Microsoft routinely quotes minimum requirements on their boxes.
> You need to double what they say. If you want to run a lot of software
> at once, then quadruple it. Realistically.
I know that, and it's true for every software around.
Mimimum requirements are just that, the least you need to run the software.
I was pissed off about Wheel Of Time game, which I bought, several months in
advance, the *recommended* hardware components, not the minimum, the
*recommended*.
It sucked on that hardware!
I had to switch some parts of my hardware to make it work as good as it
should.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:37:08 +0200
"Adam Schuetze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 15:06:25 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > 64MB is a big amount of RAM, even today.
>
> Are you kidding? 64 meg doesn't even come close to what your
> average machine should have these days.
>
> In fact, I can't belive they (oems) keep shafting buyers by selling
> them machines with only 64 MB of ram. Can you say, "bottleneck"?
> They sell you the top-of-the-line cpu's, graphics cards etc..
> but then they give you a puny 64 MB of ram. What use is that?
I don't know, which is why I read things such as "933Mhz Intel Pentuim II
top-of-the-line!!!!!!!!! & a 64MB 100Mhz RAM" and laugh at them.
> Extra ram goes a LONG way. I keep seeing people upgrading from
> (for example) pentium 200's to PIII etc.., rather than just
> buying some ram. CPU speed is nice, but a lot of the
> performance lag is from swapping pages of ram to disk and back.
And RAM is very cheap today.
> IMO, your average machine (PII-450 --> PIII 500) should have at
> least 256MB of ram, or else your great speedy cpu is just
> idling, waiting for the hard disk.
I recently doubled my RAM, for some reason, I find that the need of RAM
decreased sharply.
Absolute numbers, of course, not relative ones.
Of course, I also upgraded the display adapters, so it *might* be that.
> Really though, if you are ever dipping into your swap
> file/partition, you need more ram :)
Let me correct you.
Really though, you need more RAM.
No matter what is going on, you *always* need more RAM.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:43:52 +0200
"John & Susie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Robert Wiegand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Eric Meyer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
> > > >
> > > > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or
the
> > like),
> > > > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
> > >
> > > Then you are a pretty lucky guy.
> > >
> > > Windows may be nice if everything works correctly, but it is a
nightmare
> > > when something fails. Since you can't see hwat is really happing
inside
> > > the OS it is really difficult to trace down and fix a problem.
> >
> > No, that is simply not true.
> >
> > > Windows is also a major pain to install if you have a number of
> > > devices that aren't supported by the base OS. Installing everything
> > > on my Windows PC takes about 5 CDROMS and 2 floppy disks. And you have
> > > to reboot the stupid machine after installing each driver.
> >
> > I've 3 devices that are not supported by win9x natively (though win2k &
> > whistler & some linux does support those natively), it's neither a
nightmare
> > nor does it require a reboot after each driver installation.
>
>
> From one NT user to another - bullshit.
NT & installing hardware go along quite easily with words like "hellspawn"
and "WTF!!!"
Try 2000, if it offered nothing else to top NT, it would still be worth
going to it *just* for this reason alone.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:56:23 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LgZV5.28093$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:907teu$7nph$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > > So? First, my job description ventures far further than administrating
> > just webservers, I'm
> > > just using webserving as one (1) example of where NT/2k can't keep up.
> In
> > any case, though, my
> > > point is, if NT/2k can't handle the stress of being a webserver, how
is
> it
> > going to handle an
> > > equal amount of _any_ activity, webserving-related or not?
> >
> > Win2k handle the biggest site in the world, and the second most popular.
>
> With help from load-balancing equipment that hides the dead ones,
> protects them from pings, and the like.
If you linux on those machines, would they be able to do the same without
load balancing equipment?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:59:24 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Zl_V5.28179$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:907t3q$7heh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You know, I can't even view the MS website
> > > > > > properly with Netscape as the ONLY browser
> > > > > > you can see it with properly is MSIE.
> > > > >
> > > > > The funny part is that I bet they don't even know
> > > > > that. They probably just used the Microsoft tools
> > > > > they sell everyone else that claim to follow standards
> > > > > but in fact don't interoperate correctly with anything
> > > > > else. Perhaps they have even deceived themselves.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You'd like that eh? Too bad it just ain't true.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You mean they made it broken on purpose? Why?
> >
> > It isn't broken. You can surf to it with any browser that you would
like.
> > It's optimized to IE, of course, but netscape would do just as well.
>
> It works now, but in the recent past the page did not display at
> all under Netscape, either windows or linux. I don't think anyone
> is going to admit whether this was intentional or they just used
> their own tools that encourage that to happen.
>
> > If you had done some advance HTML-authoring (java-script, dhtml, css)
you
> > would realize that it is a nightmare to try to do it for netscape.
>
> You mean using the MS tool set that only works right when viewed
> with IE?
No, I'm meaning hand coding, as in using notepad or other text editors
(recommended by me is CuteHTML, because of the reference)
Doing this kind of stuff for netscape can be a PITA.
Doing that kind of stuff so it would work on both NS & IE is a herculian
task.
And updating this kind of page is impossible.
Either you break IE compatability, or NS compatability, and usually both.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:11:58 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wZ_V5.28261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ORYV5.31505$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > 2- If all that varies from vendor to vendor is those three
> > > variables (freq/volt/amp), then you don't need to spend months
> > > on one special solution that only applies to one vendor like you
> > > do with word processor formats.
> > >
> >
> > Correct because the supplier in our case has, and always has provided
> > transformer applications free.
>
> "Always" meaning somewhere around the introduction of office97, and
> the applictions always need a copy of their own OS to run.
I recall a viewer for word 7.
There were probably other before it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:13:41 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:33:14 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >StarOffice has an annoying way to load *everything* when you open it.
>
> >*And*, it replace the familiar look of Windows with a totally new one,
> >which I, presonally, don't like.
>
> And that is enough to justify paying several hundred dollars instead of
> taking the free one? I don't think so. Network effects and vendor
> lock in explain it a lot better.
UI is the most visible thing that the user sees. As well as the most
important one for the user.
Bad UI is the quickest thing to drove a user away from a program.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 08:29:52 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >>> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> >>>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >>>>> The only tests that 'demonstrated' superior speed on a Dvorak
> >>>>> board were those conducted by Dvorak himself (1943, US Navy).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> All other trials have failed to reproduce the results.
>
> >>>> <http://www.som.syr.edu/facstaff/dvorak/blackburn.html>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Typing, Fastest. Mrs. Barbara Blackburn of Salem, Oregon can maintain
> >>>> 150 wpm for 50 min (37,500 key strokes) and attains a speed of 170 wpm
> >>>> using the Dvorak Simplified Keyboard (DSK) system. Her top speed was
> >>>> recorded at 212 wpm. Source: Norris McWhirter, ed. (1985), THE GUINNESS
> >>>> BOOK OF WORLD RECORDS, 23rd US edition, New York: Sterling Publishing
> >>>> Co., Inc."
>
> >>> Big fucking deal.
>
> >> On the contrary, it represents a trial that did not fail to reproduce
> >> the superior speed.
>
> > There is NOTHING to indicate that she could not achieve the same
> > speed on a QWERTY keyboard.
>
> On the contrary, there is the 150 wpm speed, which is 20 wpm less than
> the speed achieved with the DSK. That is something to indicate that she
> could not achieve the same speed on a QWERTY keyboard.
>
> >> It doesn't surprise me that you would try to downplay the significance
> >> of evidence that contradicts a claim of yours.
>
> > The choice of ONE PERSON proves nothing, dave.
>
> On the contrary, it represents a trial that did not fail to reproduce
> the superior speed. You claimed that "All other trials have failed
> to reproduce the results." At best, you can now only claim "all but
> one", until such time as additional results are provided about which
> you may be unaware.
>
> > The only way to determine which keyboard is better is to take
> > two large groups of non-typists and put them through touch-typing
> > programs on the two keyboards, where they have exclusive access to
> > that keyboard configuration ONLY, with identicla keyboard time,
> > ....and then see what happens.
>
> That represents only "a" trial. You claimed that "all other trials"
> failed to reproduce the results. It only takes an example of one
> to eliminate the validity of the "all" claim.
>
> > Dvorak claims to have done this...but in 55 years NOBODY has
> > reproduced his results.
>
> Mrs. Barbara Blackburn apparently did. Do you consider her a "nobody"?
1 person does NOT constitute a test group + a control group, you
IGNORANT FUCKING SHIT-FOR-BRAINS.
12+ years of posting to USENET, and Dave Tholen still has yet to
write an opinion based on rational thought processes.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:04:28 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:16:28
[...]
>> I could write, say, a wave editor, and sell it, posting the
>> code for anyone who wants it, with a GPL license. Some people
>> might want to buy the software so they can call me to get help.
>
>Most people, however, would opt to the free choice, which is the get the
>source and compile it, and then use it.
That is irrelevant. The question is how many people would, and how much
they are willing to pay.
>All of this without you seeing a penny.
You are aware that in business, you generally make the product first,
and then sell it? It's not you've got to set up a special production
line for this or that particular piece of code.
>Not to mention that someone else might take your application, make some
>minor changes, and sell it, profiting from *your* work.
No, they'd be profiting from their work. Admittedly, its not much work,
taking an application (did you pick the right one, or the best code
base, or the correct set of features?), making minor changes to it
(knowing how to avoid changes which will have far-reaching major
ramifications, understanding the codebase enough not to introduce bugs,
ensuring the changes are attractive to the marketplace), and selling it
(finding the customer, knowing their price-point, engaging in commerce,
delivering the goods), but, then, if he can do it better than you can,
doesn't he *deserve* to earn a profit on it? Obviously, he couldn't
earn very much profit, since he hasn't the ability to actually *support*
the product. But, then again, if his minor changes turn out to be
popular, guess who just benefitted from a little competition and learned
how to improve their product without a dime in market research?
>And if you design your application well, people won't *need* to call you for
>help.
Yes, indeed, the great paradox of commercial software. I'd rather see a
million programmers fighting with dogs over scraps in an underpass than
fat, dumb, and happy monopolists continuing to extract exorbitant
profits from goods who's only value is the artificial barriers they
build to prevent consumers from controlling their own computers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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
******************************
