Linux-Advocacy Digest #637, Volume #30 Sun, 3 Dec 00 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version (Andres Soolo)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:25:46 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:09:31
[...]
>*Developing* software is what cost money.
>Which you don't get in return if you GPL it.
But you don't get it in return if you copyright it and wrap it in a
trade secret, either. Whatever it is you do make money on has to cover
the cost of developing, either way. Your argument is specious.
[...]
>> >The problem is that you can usually do *without* buying the support.
>>
>> How is that a problem?
>
>The companies that invested money in making dist/programs/tools that you use
>get no money in return.
Same with commercial software; you don't make the money you invested
back, unless you sell something to make a return on the investment. You
seem to be treating development of a product as if it were manufacture
of a commodity. Microsoft, of course, encourages such mistaken
thinking, very much.
And while obviously this would be a more lucrative arrangement for
software producers, your *assumption* that this is necessary or else
software cannot be produced is, as I've mentioned, a specious argument.
Try this, Ayende. Just for a few moments, try not to consider the
market from the *producer's* perspective, but from the *consumer's*
perspective.
[...]
>> Strangely enough, what you get for free is often less valuable than what
>> you pay money for. Go figure.
>
>Ready to apply this to OS market?
As soon as there is a free market in OSes, sure. Again, it is your
inability to even conceive of an OS market not monopolized by
anti-competitive activity which leads you to misunderstand the
situation.
Here's another perspective that might help clear the log-jam in your
head. The GPL is an *anti-competitive* licensing mechanism. As you've
been describing, GPLing code is *not* conducive to a free market in
software code. It is, however, *VERY* supportive of a free market in
software *products*. Most software publishers are not very keen on
having to engage in the kind of super-heated competition which such a
market presents. Too friggen' bad for them, I say. Most of them are
just profiteers, to begin with.
As I've described several times (and if Professor Lessig might actually
have the opportunity to read this and the time to respond, I would
humbly ask for his comments, public or private, on the matter) it is not
possible to compete with an anti-competitive company (monopolist). You
have to "_out-anti-compete_" them. So the direct result, more or less,
of treating software as copyright-wrapped-in-a-trade-secret-license, is
that the GPL has been created. And adopted, more and more, by the very
programmers that you insist will be put out of work by it.
The free market does always win in the end. The only real question is
whether it gets tougher for the producers, or the consumers, during the
transition. Since GPL represents "free software", and the alternate
approach represents "rented permission to use", I think its obvious
which causes more pain to the consumers, and it is no surprise that you
are arguing this point from the perspective of the producers (or, as you
inaccurately refer to them, the programmers.)
>> >Now, assuming that I make a good software, no matter what size it is, I
>> >would hope that people can learn to use it without *requiring* my help.
>> >Frankly, if I sell support and give the software away, I find myself in a
>> >conflict of interests. On the one hand, one of my definations of good
>> >software is that it's easy to use or learn.
>>
>> You have confused "support" with "newbie help", I'm afraid. That's not
>> what IT professionals mean when they say "support".
>
>Not quite.
>If you've an advance question, you can post it in number of places, and
>you'll get an answer for that.
>I don't think that there are that many questions that you can get an answer
>to on the web.
You misinterpreted my contention. I said that "support" means technical
support (your "advanced question"), not newbie help. As you've pointed
out, this is a valuable service, quite capable of supporting a profit
margin, since there aren't that many questions that you can get an
answer to on the web.
The newbie help supports just as much (actually, much more) of a revenue
stream, of course, but the competition would be much more fierce, since
almost anyone, not just the developer, can generally do that. (And
today, they do that generally much better than the developer, who has a
tendency to use such transactions to deny their culpability, provide
marketing research, and act as a sales opportunity, rather than provide
the service the consumer desires.)
>> >I know this seems like a flame, but I think that those are real concerns
>> >when a programmer/company need to decide whatever to GPL their code or not.
>>
>> <*chuckle*> Your point might be a tad more believable if it weren't
>> entirely up to the programmer whether he GPLs his code.
>
>That *is* what I'm talking about.
>You think that companies don't have the same doubts about GPLing the code
>their programmers where paid to make?
I don't think I care. As far as I know, they're just a profiteer trying
to extract exorbitant profits by limiting the availability of the
programmer's work. I'd just as soon they did go out of business, thank
you. They're massively inefficient, from the standpoint of free market
production.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Date: 4 Dec 2000 03:17:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just amusing to see RedHat following the dollars and not technology for
> technologies sake.
They're a publicly owned company, so basically there are laws that
tell them to do just that.
If you want technology for the user's sake, go for Debian.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Always run from a knife and rush a gun.
-- Jimmy Hoffa
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:20:59 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > I'm glad you pointed out that you CAN remove TCP/IP (and other modules)
> > from Linux, since you can't do that in any Windozzzzzzzzz version.
> > Although you might be able to remove some DLLs and put up with chronic
> > error messages (?)
>
> Of course you can remove TCP/IP. Open the network settings dialog, click
> TCP/IP and click remove. It's gone. No error messages.
So you're saying TCP/IP is not built into the NT kernel, but is built into
the Linux kernel?
I guess I don't understand what this thread is now belaboring.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:19:07 -0700
I'm game.
1) IBM PC 640k dual floppy. Monicrome monitor used in an oscilliscope lab
with a few wave forms burned into the phosphors. PC DOC 1.1. I was 12.
2) Apple ][e in Jr. High.
3) More PCs.
There not as interesting as most of you, but at least I sounded off.
Adam Ruth
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:25:17 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> As well they should with Daley's Chicago and all the rumors (facts rather)
> of corruption, voter fraud, voter intimidation, coaching, etc that cost
> Nixon the election.
Where's your source on this? Where is your proof?
> Let us also remember that Nixon only litigated for at the most two weeks
> and then bowed out. It's now over three weeks and Gore continues to
> manipulate and piss on the Rule of Law to weasel himself into office.
And the margin in Illinois wasn't nearly so close in Nixon's case, either.
How can Gore get away with pissing on the Rule of Law? Sounds to me
like the voting was so equal that the normal uncertainties in counting
now become important. I've seen someone here say the margin of error
was 5, but that sounds like a number pulled out of someone's ass.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:15:31 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:r2zW5.41622$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:38:26 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >well to be honest the legal system never thought we would have such a
> > > > >crybaby loser like we have with Gore so b/c of him we are having a 30
> > > > >day election instead of a 1 day election with some votes counted 5
> times
> > > > >and the other 95% counted once.
> > > >
> > > > Gore did win the popular vote nationally, so your man Bush was really
> > > > the minority choice. If the tables were turned, would you be telling
> > > > Bush to concede or would you be insisting that he's only taking
> > > > advantage of the options available and saying that the electoral
> > > > college system needs to be thrown out?
> > >
> > > <soapbox>
> > >
> > > Actually, Republicans wouldn't have allowed Bush to follow this course.
> > > They're not stupid. What Gore is doing now is damaging a party already
> > > banged-up by Clinton. How the hell else, in this strong economy, could
> the
> > > election have even been close? What Gore's doing now is adding more
> nails
> > > to the Democratic coffin. I used to be a STAUNCH Democrat, until around
> > > 1993. The Democratic party, now, isn't the party I used to support.
> Their
> > > idiotic post-election behavior just re-enforces that decision. The
> longer it
> > > goes on, the less viable the party becomes. A smart Democratic party
> would
> > > have gracefully bowed out, allowed the Republicans to have a
> legitimately
> > > questionable four year turn at the helm, then come back and clean house
> in
> > > 2004. As it stands, they're putting 2002 senate races in jeopardy. Mark
> my
> > > words, the longer this goes on, the more seats they'll lose. Now, any
> > > efforts by them to tie up the senate to counter Bush proposals will
> appear
> > > as more sour grapes. In 2004, they're going to nominate Hillary Clinton.
> > > Just watch. It will be an unmitigated disaster!
> >
> > The Democrats are at the point of Desperation
> >
> > Here's what they (the Demoncroos) are facing:
> >
> > 1) No Gore-issued universal pardon for Bill Clinton.
> > 2) Justice Department will FULLY investigate the relationship between
> > Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and agents of the (communist) Chinese
> > People's Army, including illegal campaign contributions,
> > Clinton's executive order MANDATING nuclear weapons research
> > facilities REDUCE their counter-espionage actions and precedures
>
> As opposed to investigating the links between the comunist chinese and GHWB
> Sr. in relation to the granting of Favored Nation Trading Status shortly
> after Tienenman Square.
Or Clinton granting them permanent MFN status on the anniversary of it?
China had had MFN status for awhile. GHWB bowed to the corporations, yes,
but at least he didn't completely sell out the entire nation and its
security like Bill Clinton has. Clinton has not only given them perm. MFN,
but also given them sattelite missle tracking capability, thus giving them
ICBMs which are targeted at San Fransico, thank you very little. He's given
them many more missle and deployment technologies. He's ensured the Lippo
Group's domminance in markets such as low-sulfur coal (Federal park in the
middle of the desert in Utah, give me a break!), millitary equipment, and
espionage (Los Alamos!?!). It's a far cry from the precedent that GHWB
followed to the precedent that Clinton is setting.
> > 3) Exposure of their fear-tactics to be nothing but lies.
> > Democrats have been claiming for years that if the Republicans
> > get power, that the result will be concentration camps for
> > blacks, and elderly kicked out into the streets to starve to death.
> >
> > 4) Republican control of the education system, resulting in reforms
> > that start to re-introduce actual EDUCATION in inner city schools.
> >
>
> By removing any funding for the systems. Good choice that one.
Typical Democratic fear tactics. "The children will starve without
school lunch programs!". Give me a frickin' break.
Tell me, where did the $5 billion that the DOE lost go? Is GWB supposed
to continue pumping money into a corrupt and hopelessly unmanageable
institution?
Earnst & Young, financial experts, were recruited to investigate and
account for the missing $5 billion. They gave up after only a few weeks
saying that the books were so poorly kept, that a full investigation
was impossible as there were no records. The GAO was sent in to try
to make heads or tails and they probably won't be able to find anything
at all.
All GWB is proposing is accountability for schools, government offices,
and the people who hold those offices.
Unfortunately, liberal Democrats are horribly scared of this because
accountability is a dirty word to corrupt Democrats.
> > 5) They know that Republicans want to get blacks INTO the work force.
> > More self-sufficient blacks means fewer parasites who vote straight
> > ticket Demoncrook. Democrat strategy is based on maintaining a large
> > population of people who are kept impoverished so that they can lure
> > people to the voting booth with promises for more and more handouts.
> >
> >
>
> At least Buchanan was honest enough to run on the true RACIST GOP agenda.
Ah yes... the race card. It always comes out with the liberals.
Conservatives want to break everyone's dependence on the government as a
source of life. They want people to be self sufficient and independent.
Minorities should be proud of what the GOP's goal intends. If the
minorities were to ever stand up, fight, educate themselves, and assert
themselves (peacefully) in business and politics, they would be a real
force to be reconded with. It is the liberals who are content to keep
the minorities down, spoon feed them and make them lazy and dependent.
In this dependent state, they have no recourse but to do whatever the
liberals say, because if they don't, their livelyhood would be cut.
The smartest thing a minority person could do, would be to vote for
a conservative.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:19:34 GMT
"Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:28yW5.4475$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <TbxW5.885$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vann the helper robot starts winding up. . .
> <snip>
> >> What you SHOULD be doing is running something like Windowmaker, and
> >> adding bits and pieces of KDE (or gnome, or whatever) that you need, as
> >> you see fit.
> >
> > Yes. Even though KDE isn't all that bad, I'm probably going to
> > "downgrade" to a less resource intensive wm.
> As a personal user of Blackbox, I'd have to recommend that. I used to use
> WindowMaker on my 486, and it ran fine, but ever since I got my new (
> Well, it's old now ) computer I've been running blackbox.
> http://blackbox.alug.org, if you're interested. It's fast, small, and it
> can be made to look damn good. It's a matter of personal choice, though,
> there isn't much difference performance wise between blackbox and
> windowmaker on a machine like that.
> >> > 2000 is simple to setup. In fact, it asks for nearly no information.
> > Why
> >> > do you criticize things you've never obviously used?
> >>
> >> 2000 is indeed very easy to set up. I'm running it right now, and
> >> after a hellish time finding a video driver for my TNT2 Ultra
> >> (hercules) that
> > didnt
> >> lock the machine up and bear the nessesity of re-installing every time,
> >> im pretty happy with it.
> >>
> >> Though honestly, I still use unix for pretty much everything except
> > playing
> >> games and looking at pretty web pages.
> >
> > Yeah, I can't stand web browsing in Linux. I keep a high resolution
> > desktop on a 21" monitor, and it's almost impossible to read the text on
> > lots of pages. Increasing the size of the text just makes the text
> > blocky and virtually unreadable.
> Well, I used to have that problem, but there are ways to solve it. First
> off, you can increase the dpi used in XFree86. For me, I have this line
> in /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers:
> :0 local /usr/X11R6/bin/X -nolisten tcp -dpi 92
> The -nolisten tcp is for added security, since I don't use the networking
> features built into X. -dpi 92 is pretty self explanatory. Then, if you
> use the x font server ( I don't with XFree86 4.01 ), edit
> /etc/X11/fs/config, and make sure there is a line like this:
> default-resolutions = 75,75,100,100 Now, you can install truetype fonts,
> if you want. There's a nice tutorial on how to do that at
> http://www.linuxnewbie.org. Again, TTF font support is built into XFree86
> 4.01, so there will be additional steps if you're using XFree86 3.3.x
> I run my monitor at 1280x1024, and the text looks perfect in netscape.
> See, now this wasn't so hard, was it? *cough cough*
Or you can just get a real OS with a real windowing and display system
that support advanced font rendering, color correction, aliasing or anti-,
etc.
-Chad
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:22:18 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Feminists like to set the pace for how women like Mrs. Clinton are judged,
> > correct? Well, in recent weeks feminist writers for The Washington Post and
> > other news outlets have told us that we ought to judge Katherine Harris by
> > her eyelashes, makeup and wardrobe, and decide based on these criteria that
> > she cannot be trusted. So it's apparently okay, once again, to judge a
> > female politician based on her looks, figure, clothes or makeup. This makes
> > me think of something we can now say about Mrs. Clinton. In line with the
> > feminists, I want to be the first to go on record as asserting that we
> > cannot believe anything Hillary Clinton says, because she has a big broad
> > beam and elephant ankles - and I want to thank the feminists of America for
> > agreeing with me. "
> >
> > -- Rush Limbaugh
>
> To hell with Rush. He's an idiot.
But he's right. Regardless of what you think of him personall, he makes
a whole hell of a lot more sense then say, Carvel, Gephart, or William
"Bugsy" Daley: Chief Democratic Windbag.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 03:42:58 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Note that these "more accurate counts" are only happening in largely
> Democratic counties, and even specific precincts in those counties. If
> we had a full state-wide recount (which we shouldn't have had any hand
> recounts in the first place, since the law has yet to allow for them in
> Florida) we would find that Bush is still the winner.
If one assumes that erroneous counts are truly random, then a recount
in any given precinct would only rarely change the results. Of course,
this assumes that the precincts are large enough that extremes in either
direction are unlikely.
So, when you say that a full recount would yield Bush still being the
winner, you are almost certainly right. However, the same statement
can be made about a Dade-only recount, though the certainty of being
right would be a little less, since smaller numbers are involved.
> In Duval county, a Republican stronghold, almost 30,000 ballots were
> thrown out due to the same things the Democrats are complaining about
> in Dade and Broward. Why aren't the Dems concerned with those votes getting
> counted?
Because it is the Republican's job to follow up on their interests.
Furthermore, if the place is a Republican stronghold, perhaps the tally
for the Republicans was so high that the results of 30,000 votes would
not change the total result in Duval county.
> Please don't fall for the Democrat mantra that all votes must count, they're
> just interested in counting enough selective ballots to give them the victory
> and sweep all the other Bush ballots under the rug.
No, they're just hoping that Lady Luck will somehow uncover enough more Gore
votes. The odds are against it.
> Let us not also forget about the 60,000 ballots in Oregon, 40,000+ in New
> Mexico, 100,000+ in Iowa and 85,000+ in Wisconsin. Not to mention the
> several hundred cited, documented, proven incidents of Democratic fraud
> in Milwaukee alone that cost Bush thousands of votes and would've enabled
> him to win the state.
You've been listening to Rush, ain't ya?
> Shall we talk about the 5,000 felons in Florida who voted for Gore?
Jumpin' off the deep end, here!
> Or the 30,000+ illegal alien Mexicans who voted in California?
Whom did they vote for? Says who?
> Or
> the 60,000+ deceased democrats who voted nation-wide (probably more)?
Another unsubstantiated guess, with a gratuitous "probably" thrown in.
> What about the 50,000+ aliens who were expedited through the
> nationalization process (which usually takes 10+ years) in 5 months
> to vote for Democrats in Washington and New York?
So now government efficiency is wrong <grin>?
> Whenever I hear a Democrat spout sanctimony, it makes me sick because
> they are so corrupt, so foul, and break every conceivable law and ones
> that haven't even been written yet to foul the whole election process.
When someone speaks about a group having some horrible features, lumping
all instances of individuals in that group with the word "they", you
know that the speaker has turned off his or her mind. In fact, the
strength of your vituperation shows that you're either angry or crazy.
Look at some famous enemies in history:
Republicans/Democrats
Hindus/Moslems
Catholics/Protestants
The angry words and calumny fly thick and fast, yet the differences
between the two groups are essentially without significance.
> > Gore owes it to those who voted for him to keep fighting until there
> > is actually good evidence that he is not rightful winner.
>
> Which ones? The felons? The illegal aliens? The dead people? or the
> incompetent elderly who couldn't punch through the hole?
All the people in America, you dolt.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
