Linux-Advocacy Digest #616, Volume #30 Sat, 2 Dec 00 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Whistler review. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux for nitwits (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: OS Sound OFF. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Bob Hauck)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows review ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:28:06 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90c6vq$4t6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <FL9W5.36288$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:90a95n$se$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <rSUV5.1163$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >> >> No, they dropped the more powerful CPUs because NT could not be
> >> >> rewritten to both stress those systems and not slow to a crawl
on
> >> >> the contemporaneous Intel CPUs.
> >> >
> >> >Um... please. Let's stick with facts. Demand for NT on anything other
> >> >than x86 was light, at best.
> >> >
> >> Demand was light because few apps existed.
> >>
> >> Few apps existed because Microsoft did not update development
tools.
> >>
> >
> >What about third party tools?
> >
> Hard to do when you don't have source. Yes Microsoft would sell
> access to the source for a steep price and then raise it 300% if the
> development became "too successful". As proven in the Bristol case.
You expect MS to write your third party tools for you? IIRC Borland ported
their C++ to the Alpha. You don't need OS source code to write applications
for an OS.
>
> >
> >The upgrade treadmill, as you call it is driven by the Hardware
> >manufacturers.
> >
> Of course Microsoft added 30 million lines of code to NT to
> transform it into W2K because the hardware makers forced them to.
>
No they did that to take advantage of the existing hardware and to benefit
their customers.
> Microsoft preloads applications and consumes megabytes of RAM so
> they will not show their load time when the user clicks the icon
because
> they are terrified of the RAM manufacturers.
>
Yeah, right a software company is afraid of hardware manufacturers????
> >> Microsoft held back the development tools while they tried to
cripple
> >> NT on RISC processors without also crippling the x86 version.
> >>
> >
> >Blatant Lie. Ever run NT on Alpha?
>
> NT ran great but had no apps because Microsoft did not port the
> development tools they already had in third party hands for x86.
>
And that effects server sales how?
> >Wrong. HAL enabled a single source tree. Even the x86 versions were
> >originally developed on MIPS.
> >
> So if Microsoft could have a single source tree for the Microsoft
> apps which were bundled with NT why did they not recompile their
> developer support tools and languages ?
>
They did. No market demand.
> >
> >Except that they only exist in your virtual world.
> >
> I told earlier that I asked vendors why they only had x86 versions
> available and was told, repeatedly, that it was lack of the tools
> they were working with on x86.
>
Humph! Small talk was avail. cross platform, MS C++, Borland C++ what
tools were they talking about?
> >
> >You should be talking to the CEO of SGI then. He refused to allow NT to
run
> >on SGI boxes. (Hint: MIPS became SGI in 993)
> >
> You mean the guy who almost drove SGI into bankruptcy, was kicked
> out and now works for Microsoft ?
>
The very same. He adamantly, in 1993, refused to allow SGI to build NT
boxes. At the time I worked for a developer that had a major partnership
with SGI and we heard all about it from the inside. He did sell MIPS chips
to a couple of manufacturers for development of NT machines but they never
got off the ground.
> I heard that he was spearheading the effort to run NT and can IRIX
> but that the engineers kept coming up with these things that NT
> would not do but that customers insisted they needed so customers
> stopped buying and when bankruptcy loomed he bailed to his job that
> friends had waiting at Microsoft.
>
Nope.
> >No it was the fear of the UNIX manufacturers that hindered NT development
on
> >their platforms.
> >
> Not fear of the OS but of Microsoft extending their monopoly.
>
> Partnering with Microsoft being invited to dinner by Hannibal
> Lecter. You have no idea when you are to be served.
>
In 1993 there was no monopoly....
> >> The world would not have needed to wait for Linux to return to
> >> sanity.
> >>
> >
> >Guffaw.
> Sales of Microsoft OSes are almost totally flat overall.
>
> The growth in W2K is coming from conversions from NT.
>
> In two years that will be finished.
>
> Meanwhile Linux installs are still doubling every year. Next year
> they should number more than NT and W2K combined.
>
> The year after that even you will realize that the end has come.
>
Not. The old kludge that is UNIX is doomed.
> --
> "Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
> they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
> consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
> -DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:29:12 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> My understanding of the US legal system is miniscule, but check this out:
>
> http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/ebiz/story?id=3a1c16e71a4
>
> "An agreement called "one source." They have consolidated their entire sales
> strategy around Red Hat Linux"
>
> In essense, agreeing not to sell any other Linux dist aside from RedHat.
>
> http://www.siteofthesentient.com/inframe/sherman.anti-trust.act.html
> The Sherman Anti-Trust Act:
>
> "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
> conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or
> with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
>
> Isn't this what MS was accussed of?
>
> Granted, Dell is just one OEM, but still...
Neither of the two have the ability to form a contract that restrains
trade. They aren't monopolies in the terms of the law. The similar
contracts that MS forced on its customers became illegal only after MS
was declared a monopoly. ( They signed a Concent Degree recoginizing
that status no matter what you think of Judge Jackson).
Still, I don't like RedHat making such contracts. But that is just my
opinion that they aren't being nice and tarnishing their image.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:38:52 GMT
jtnews wrote:
>
> Mike Raeder wrote:
> >
> > jtnews wrote:
> > >
> > > How come Dell bundles Windows with every PC?
> > > Why can't I buy a machine without having to pay extra for Windows?
> > > Same goes for all the other manufacturers.
> >
> > I think that Dell is now offering workstations & laptops with Linux
> > preinstalled.
>
> but, the trouble is every single one of those machines are the more
> expensive
> models. Look at their cheapest Dell Dimension series, all Windows, with
> no
> option to buy them without Windows, at an even cheaper price.
>
> -----= 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! =-----
that is because their cheapest machines are cheap. They have such things
winmodems and winvideo and winHDs that work only with (guess what!)
windows. These devices "simulate" the real item in software and that
software is available only to those who pay money to (guess who) MS.
Avoid like the plague.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:40:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:48:58 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The one thing I missed (about Solaris x86) was the cleaness of the CDE
>GUI, no flashy icons and rubbish, it got the job done, with any hassles.
>Now, if Windows GUI was like that then real progress would have been made.
The Windows GUI is exactly like that. You just have to squint
really really really hard.... :-)
(Pay no attention to that blue screen behind the curtain! :-) )
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 77 days, 21:10, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:43:40 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 20:34:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Try blackbox,
>
>Blackbox has no background image capability, while
>FVWM2/95 both have this option.
In my other post I forgot to point out that this doesn't mean what you
might think it means. All it means is that blackbox itself won't load
a background image onto the root window and doesn't provide any tools
to manage this. You can still use an external tool to do it though
(e.g. xv or xsetroot). In fact, the majority of blackbox themes do
seem to include a background image.
I don't like background images myself, but I'm apparently a minority.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:43:45 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 01:15:38 GMT, James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
>Actually not on a personal level, no.
I would think the incentives for a company with 10,000 seats might be
even stronger. Now we're not talking $300 but millions, repeated on a
regular basis. We'll get to see over the next few years.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: OS Sound OFF.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:43:47 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 05:27:58 GMT, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Everybody who reads this, sound off with your OS please.
>The one your using or like the most.
Using now: Caldera OpenLinux 2.3
Others at Home: COL 2.4
Others at Work: NT4SP5, COL 2.4, FreeBSD, Solaris
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:43:42 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 02:14:10 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Try reading HTML 1.1 web pages with Netscrape 1......
I'm guessing you're referring to HTTP 1.1 and name-based virtual hosts,
since HTML is up to v4 or something. And of course the response is
that HTTP 1.1 doesn't apply to the HTML itself but to the transfer
protocol. HTML on your hard disk is readable even by Mosaic.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:43:51 GMT
On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:24:48 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:svYV5.31493$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> No contradiction. The driver needs to communicate with the BIOS for
>> proper power management. Not all BIOS's are equal.
>
>Hmmm, weren't you the one saying it was a Linux problem when a bad
>bios reports the wrong amount of memory?
I think that was Chad Meyers. The dim Chad.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:46:06 GMT
In article <aMcW5.5420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> MF is of course the british company Micro Focus.
>> I thought you would at least know that.
>
>Why would I know that Charlie? I've never heard Micro Focus referred to as
>MF.
>
>So, Charlie, what's your answer? Why are you still using software to which
>MF have no answer? Why aren't you suing them? Why aren't you changing to
>something better?
>
No we are not sueing MF.
MF is the only company in the world which provides a compiler
adequate for replacing our mainframes Cobol compiler.
MF say's the problem is with Windows but they don't
know why.
>You're in this group whining about Windows 2000 but what are you _doing_
>about it?
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
There's nothing you can do about it.
They don't have Net Express for Unix.
They stupidly decided they were not going to support
an equivalent product for unix.
So there's another fucked company on planet earth.
What can I say.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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, 02 Dec 2000 21:53:40 -0500
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Simon Palko wrote:
> > >
> <trimmed>
>
> >
> > What part of "UNDOCUMENTED" do you not understand???
> >
> > There are entire BOOKS covering undocumented Lose32 APIs.
> >
>
> Anyone else see the irony in this post???
If the book isn't written by Microsoft, then it's undocumented.
> <trimmed>
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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, 02 Dec 2000 21:54:50 -0500
Adam Schuetze wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2000 14:37:08 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Exactly! It's bizarre. Vendors must be stupid, or something.
>
> > No matter what is going on, you *always* need more RAM.
>
> Thats about the size of it. I don't think (within reason of
> course) that you can ever have to much ram.
Depends on the ewe.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 21:59:20 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, kiwiunixman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:19:29 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Do you remember the Amiga 500 with Workbech 1.3, now that is efficient
> >programming, and surprisingly fast considering it ran off a FDD
>
> Pedant point: that was the *680x0* model microprocessor, not the 68xx model.
> But I agree, the Amiga series was a wonderful set of machines,
> especially with their custom coprocessor. The OS code was
> also very tight and OO -- before OO became such a buzzword.
Actually, UNIX is OO...ever since the beginning.
substitute the word "object" for "file" in Unix, and see what I mean.
>
> To whoever proposed the teaching of floating point:
> I would advocate a Harris 1802. It has many, erm, advantages
> over the 6502:
>
> - no JSR or RET instruction.
> - no offset indexing of any kind. If one wanted indirect load,
> one had to use LDN (Rn), LDA (Rn), or LDAX, after setting
> a register. (The 6502 has the infamous LDX, LDY, and LDA (n,X)
> and LDA (n),Y instructions. Bizarre? You bet your sweet bippy.)
> - no fixed PC register; the P register is 4 bits and is used to
> determine which of the general registers is used for instruction fetch.
> This can lead to all kinds of hacks, including a (very slow) emulation
> of a more traditional JSR and RET, using SEP.
> - the stack can be anywhere in memory; the 6502's stack was restricted
> to one "page" (0x01xx).
> - 1.7 megahertz clock cycle, 8 clocks per memfetch, 2 memfetches
> per instruction cycle except for long jumps or long skips,
> which took 3. In other words, it was blazingly fast. Not.
The 6502 was only 1.0 MHz, until the late 80's when a 2 Mhz version
was finally produced.
> - *two* subtraction instructions: SDI and SMI, with and without borrow.
> - no PC-relative code at all. Short jumps set the low 8 bits of
> the register currently used for the PC. Long jumps set all 16 bits.
> - The SEX instruction! (No, it's not what you think; there's a
> 4-bit X register, useable in LDAX and STXD, and a few other places.)
I believe 6809 has SEX also.
> - no dynamic memory refresh capability.
> - 7 I/O ports.
> - multiplexed address bus.
>
> Note that both are 64K addressable, 8 bit data bus. The nice thing
> about the 1802 is that it had a DMA mode that could be used for
> manual program loading.
>
> (I'm not familiar with such microprocessors as the Intel 4004 and 8008,
> which are even dumber.)
>
> >
> >kiwiunixman
> >
> >Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>
>
> [snip]
>
> >>>>> The 65xx line is only appropriate for industrial microcontrollers
> >>>>> and toys.
> >>>>>
> >>>> And therefore an excellent tool to teach floating point theory!
> >>>> I'm a sadist, Aaron, not a realist.<g>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, you are.
> >>
> >>
> >> But, I'm a sadist with a plan. Performing IEEE floating point operations on
> >> a processor that doesn't even posess an MUL operand - A wonderful exercise
> >> in logic. Performing complex operations with a minimal instruction set and
> >> with limited resources builds a great deal of discipline. Hell, it used to
> >> be par for the course. Those worthless arcade games written for VIC-20s and
> >> C64s were classic examples of efficient software design.
> >>
> >> I agree about the 68xx line. It was, IMHO, excellent. A lot more appealing
> >> than anything Intel had to offer at the time.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Tom Wilson
> >> Go home Al....
> >> Game over, man!
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- see, I can be sadistic, too :-)
> up 77 days, 17:17, running Linux.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:00:08 GMT
In article <90b6be$hvbu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>My understanding of the US legal system is miniscule, but check this out:
>
>http://www.upside.com/texis/mvm/ebiz/story?id=3a1c16e71a4
>
>"An agreement called "one source." They have consolidated their entire sales
>strategy around Red Hat Linux"
>
>In essense, agreeing not to sell any other Linux dist aside from RedHat.
>
>http://www.siteofthesentient.com/inframe/sherman.anti-trust.act.html
>The Sherman Anti-Trust Act:
>
>"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or
>conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or
>with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
>
>Isn't this what MS was accussed of?
>
>Granted, Dell is just one OEM, but still...
>
>
I should have deleted this whole thing.
Linux is freely available from dozens of places.
Just because RedHat may have signed a deal with
somebody to EXCLUSIVELY offer RedHat doesn't make
it ILLEGAL as Linux is available from other sources.
Now if Windows had been available from OTHER sources
away from Microsoft, Microsoft would not have been
convicted!
HUGE DIFFERENCE HERE MY FRIEND.
The two issue's your trying to mate up here are
not even from the same galaxy much less solar system.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
