Linux-Advocacy Digest #253, Volume #32 Sat, 17 Feb 01 01:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article ("Les Mikesell")
Re: It's just too easy
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Todd")
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Todd")
Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Charlie Ebert)
Re: It's just too easy
Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit ("Todd")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else ("Todd")
Re: It's just too easy (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Re: Interesting article ("Todd")
Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 05:11:20 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hFlj6.41815$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > < Perm bits
> > > are ancient, a poor design, and are really unsecure.
> >
> > Describ a way to get over permissions in any *nix that implement perm
bits
> > (all of them).
>
> You're not understanding what I'm saying...
We understand what you are saying, we just don't understand why...
> It's the mentality. Permission bits are extremely limiting, as they
> only allow one owner, one group, and everyone else.
>
> Secondly, permissions are not applied pervasively. That is, they're
> only applied to files and file/devices. You can't set an ACL on
> whether or not someone can access a specific porition of a file,
> you can't set permissions on whether or not a particular process
> can perform specific functions with the OS.
I thought everyone concluded that unix was a big improvement over
the older Multics that included all of those little used security
concepts that get in the way of the reason you actually have
the computer: letting the groups that work together share things.
Microsoft has never learned the lesson of elegant simplicity
and keeps dragging this old baggage back out of the closet
even though almost no one wants it.
> Secondly, this is a little off of perm bits, but related, there's
> almost no auditing, or not serious auditing in Linux, for example
> and in many Unixes. The Unixes that have DAC have a full auditing
> scheme. In fact, that's a requirement of DAC is to verify that
> permissions are applied properly and that users are not circumventing
> the intent of the permissions.
>
> Perm bits, as agreed by anyone who has a basic understanding of
> secure OS implementations, are kindergarten-level, and are insecure
> by nature.
Speaking of insecurity, which company is it that has sold the most
copies of OS's with absolutely no security at all?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 05:14:48 -0000
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 23:48:03 GMT, Pete Goodwin <imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com> wrote:
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <96karo$1u9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>I installed a new NIC in a frien's RH 6.2 box today.
>
>I installed a new NIC in my own PC. On Windows, it asked for a driver disk.
>On Linux Mandrake, it didn't even notice it was there.
Alternately, I have had it "just work" with Linux and need
to manually point W2K to the appropriate driver *inf file
on the corresponding driver disk.
Otherwise, it would try and load a Win9x driver.
[deletia]
>>It's too easy. This has been my experience (more or less) with adding
>>hardware since RH5.2 (my forst distro). This is why I am skeptical about
>>the wintrolls with all these problems. I've simply never had them.
>
>You think your own experience is the norm?
We certainly don't trust yours.
[deletia]
OTOH, most of us have had problems with WinXX that are
even worse than your "ordeal" with Linux.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 05:15:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 16 Feb
>2001 06:15:02 GMT;
>>
>> Businesses do not like to "throw it away and write a better one" if
>> what they already have can be tweaked to keep producing.
>>
>> That is going to be a major conflict with the Open Source
>> philosophy.
>
>Why do you say that? It seems to me it would be a perfect match. In
>the Open Source world, there'd be no need to throw anything away, and
>its much easier to tweak code when you can see it.
>
I have seen that Open Source folks are honest enough to admit that a
particular implementation is becoming a nightmare to maintain and
rewrite similar functionality but handle a superset of the old
functionality.
A prime example is configuring the Linux kernel. It has become a
rats nest of dependencies where changing anything without breaking
other choices is the maintainers primary headache.
Eric S. Raymond has started a project to fix it. All the old hacks
that device driver writers were using to build a Makefile which
compiles and links things in the correct order get thrown out.]
They are replaced by a short description file which lists their
dependencies and conflicts in an easily comprehensible fashion.
It will move customizing kernel builds into the list of things that
an almost-newbie can do routinely.
It does require throwing away code "that still works" but after
reading your post I realized that those with a stake in the old way
are not forced to adopt the changes but that their community of
people using that old code will dwindle over time till *they* have
to become the primary maintainer or move to the newer code.
But it is up to each user when that decision point is reached.
Meanwhile the main codebase will evolve while leaving the old to
survive as best it can.
Not a conflict at all. Just an education in economics for the ones
clinging to the old code.
Open Source is going to require lots of us to reassess our beliefs
about software development costs.
Thank you Max for getting me to think harder.
--
How much do we need to pay you to screw Netscape?
- BILL GATES, to AOL in a 1996 meeting
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:15:23 +0800
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96kd2o$3gf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ox7j6.28893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paul
> Dossett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Before I spent much time in this NG, I would have agreed with you. But
> >> just yesterday I read something that's near and dear to my heart -
> >> Linux can play several MP3's at once. I had just assumed that the
> >> inability of Windows to output a ding-dong sound when something went
> >> wrong while I was listening to a WAV or an MP3 was a hardware
> >> limitation. It's not. The OS is simply not flexible enough to handle
> >> two inputs to the same piece of hardware simultaneously. Someone then
> >> posted a pretty funny question - "Why would you want to run several
> >> MP3's at once? The din must be horrible" - and I had to laugh. But, I
> >> love to seque songs. One of the main things I do with my Windows OS is
> >> compilation recording. To date, all I've used my Linux machine for is
> >> server tasks; mail, firewall, gateway, etc. But now I'm going to have
> >> to take some time and fool around with the desktop just so I can look
> >> into these claims.
> >
> > Um, my Windows box plays several MP3s at once without any problem.
> > Perhaps your hardware is not up to the task? Most modern soundcards
> > will mix up to
> > 64 streams of audio IN HARDWARE, and yes, Windows does allow it.
> >
> > Unless of course my Windows box is MAGICAL.
>
>
> Why do you play several MP3s at once? It must sound truly awful. Please
> explain this to me.
Duh. It's not that he *does*, it's that he *can*. Or more importantly,
that Windows 2000 can. Easily.
-Todd
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:18:02 +0800
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96kabp$1o7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Edward Rosten wrote:
> >>
> >> > It seems unlikely that the Itanium code can be called finished until
> >> > the chip ships.
> >>
> >> In case you hadn't noticed, the Itanium is shipping now, in HP
> >> computers.
> >>
> >> MS somehow coerced intel in to not releasing it for lower end stuff
> >> until MS were finished.
> >
> > To the benefit of AMD.
> >
> > I'll bet this is the LAST time Intel ever makes a deal like that.
>
>
> I hope so. If the 64 bit AMD cpus hit the market soon, they could make a
> really big impact.
>
> This is one thing Linux is *really* good for. Since it is so portable, it
> meand that every CPU around can have a very high quality, highly
> avaliable OS developed in a very short time. The result should be much
> greater competition in the CPU market, since CPU vendors don't need a
> whole new OS to be made.
But the market for Linux is small. Yes, that's right, compared to the
consumer market (where almost nobody really *uses* Linux), the Linux showing
is small.
New CPU vendors would definitely need to target the mass market... and the
mass market runs Windows.
-Todd
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Yum! A new laptop screen, i thinks ill fry it!
Date: 17 Feb 2001 05:15:58 GMT
meow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>>
>> meow wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > >
>> > Time to get on with your life and stop fighting everyone
>> > Its a war youll never win
>>
>> When your hourly rates are as high as mine, you can afford
>> to spend more time on USENET.
> Id be amazed if you earned anywhere near my hourly wage
Hourly wage? You poor dear.
> After all your only a Unix Systems engineer
You have your terms mixed up, unless you are making over 200K per year.
Which I doubt quite highly.
You're probably referring to unix systems administrators, whos average
salary in the united states is 80K.
Still not too shabby. Adjust for the cost of living of course, in NYC
the average wage is over 100K.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 05:16:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
kool breeze wrote:
>>
>>REPUBLICANS!
>>.RIP It's where *THEY'LL* will be going!
>>
>>This .NET thing is the *WORSE* case of REPUBLICANS attempting to fuck
>>REPUBLICANS I've ever seen in my life.
>>
>>And REST ASSURED, if you're the corporate manager who's just set your
>>company a course on Microsoft's path, REPUBLICANS will blame you for
>>this disaster and they will *FIRE* you.
>>
>>*BANK* on it junior.
>
>This republic of America gave you the right to spout off, the internet
>access to do it on and the free time to do it.
>
>dumbass.
>
>I hate MS and love linux, but you happened to biting the hand that fed
>you.
>
Well, don't leave the fine people of COLA in the dark here.
Let's finish the job. Biting who's hand who fed who?
Explain yourself. If you have the time to post a two liner, you
have the time to finish the job.
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 05:17:54 -0000
On 17 Feb 2001 00:24:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <imekon@$$$remove$$$.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <96karo$1u9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[deletia]
>>>All problems I have had have been with faulty hardware. All the other
>>>problems have been with Win9X which is quite frankly awful.
>
>> My own experiences have been the complete opposite of yours. Who is telling
>> the truth here? You or me?
>
>You both are. Hes running redhat 6.2, youre running mandrake. They are
>different in many ways.
They're not that much different.
One is based on the other. They both use the same kernel and
they both use the same hardware autodetection daemon.
Short of Mandrake being less tolerant of vidcards that don't
support X well, I have not seen much significant difference
between the two in this regard.
I run them both: Bughat 6.2 for my server and Mandrake 7.x for
my workstation.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 64 bit and Windows 32 bit
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:19:38 +0800
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:96j7vr$76i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It seems unlikely that the Itanium code can be called finished until the
> > chip ships.
>
>
> In case you hadn't noticed, the Itanium is shipping now, in HP computers.
Really? What computer system?
> MS somehow coerced intel in to not releasing it for lower end stuff until
> MS were finished.
Do you have *any* proof of this, or is this just more conspiracy theory
stuff?
-Todd
>
> -Ed
>
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:23:23 +0800
"Mark Bratcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:54:03 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:00:09 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>>>In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>>>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>Perhaps, although humankind existed for 100,000 years without
> >>>>formal science... 3 or 4 hundred years is probably not enough time
> >>
> >>> So. That doesn't have any relevance to your own existence.
> >>
> >>I'm sure that ethics had a part to play in my eventual existence.
> >>
> >>Our parent's didn't strangle either of us at birth. I can't imagine
> >>Science had anything to do with that.
> >
> > Sure it did.
> >
> > It avoided the conditions necessary for such issues to
> > actually exist. You and your ancestors have lead rather
> > sheltered lives compared to those animals that find the
> > need to eat their young.
> >
> > Also, despite your protestations: in more "spiritual"
> > days you would have been considered the property of
> > your father to be disposed of accordingly.
>
> PMFJI... but "disposed of accordingly" in "more 'spiritual' days"?
> Could you be more specific? The only period of time I see more universal
> "disposal" of offspring outside of primitive cultures is in modern
> days (viz. abortion). What your describing certainly was not true in
> family culture described in the Old Testament.
How do you know what is written in the "Old Testament" is true?
I've found most Christians either very hypocritical or just plain
disillusioned and wrong.
Remember when Christians thought the earth was the center of the universe?
Heh. Time after time, scientists prove Christians wrong again and again.
Religion sucks. All it does is gives man another reason to hate one
another.
-Todd
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> That is just empty rhetoric on your part. The fact still
> >>> remains that you only exist because technology has allowed
> >>> you and your forebears to live and thrive. Unless you are
> >>> Amish, just about anything you have is a result of this
> >>> 'highly questionable' scientific method that is taken on
> >>> faith.
> >>
> >>I agree, so what. I'm saying that Science depends on faith.
> >
> > That the universe works in a predictable fashion is not
> > an article of faith. It is an axiom that is time tested.
>
> Ah, and there lies the rub. Scientists over some period of time have
> "pet" theories and notions that, although they are theories and have
> indeed been confirmed for the time being, become axioms which make
> them unquestioned assumptions to be defended to the death.
>
> There's an interesting book, too bad it's out of print, called
> "Science is a Sacred Cow" that discusses this issue.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> Mark Bratcher
> To reply, remove both underscores (_) from my email name
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Escape from Microsoft's proprietary tentacles: use Linux!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: It's just too easy
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 17 Feb 2001 05:21:04 GMT
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:50:15 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I installed a new NIC in a frien's RH 6.2 box today.
>
>It went something like this:
>
>Open the case.
>
>Push out the blanking plate
>
>
>Swear at the case manufacturer for using push out blanking plates
>resulting in me not having enough screws any more.
>
>Put in the NIC
>
>Screw it up.
>
>Put the case on
>
>Plug bits in
>
>Boot up.
>
>kudzo loads.
>
>Enter the IP address.
>
>Away!
>
>
>I had to include the hardware bit to make it look like I'd done something.
>
>
>It's too easy. This has been my experience (more or less) with adding
>hardware since RH5.2 (my forst distro). This is why I am skeptical about
>the wintrolls with all these problems. I've simply never had them.
>
>All problems I have had have been with faulty hardware. All the other
>problems have been with Win9X which is quite frankly awful.
>
>-Ed
Here's my account of adding a NIC (Ne2000isa) to Win98 box yesterday.
1/ open case
2/ plug in NIC
3/ powerup pc
4/ No hardware detected automatically so go to CONTROL-PANEL, DEVICE-MGR
ADD-NEW-HARDWARE, Select from list (auto detect hangs pc), Novel/Anthem
5/ alter settings, suggested by Win98 as the interrupt and i/o are wrong
6/ reboot (long wait)
7/ set up tcpip settings, dns etc for the new NIC
8/ reboot (long wait)
9/ test it works
Easy hey ;-)
Ill take a linux box over a Windows box anyday!
Terry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 05:29:27 -0000
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:48:18 GMT, Pete Goodwin <imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>Sounds like they do a better job than Mandrake.
>
>>Crass generalisation, I'm running Mandrake 7.2, Reisfer FS, Gnome
>>desktop and it is very smooth, very elegant, piece of cake to install.
>
>Except for the group of people posting about Linux Mandrake here, I guess.
...which is meaningless considering that this
is "Shills R Us" and not a tech support group.
[deletia]
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:33:26 +0800
"JamesW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
> > Microsoft has already started promoting the next
> > one (Whistler, or PX or whatever) with the promise that it
> > will be better. They're copying Linux KDE login screen and
> > Desktop, in order to make it at least *look* better.
>
> Have you seen a screenshot? XP is truly hideous.
I thought it looked great. Of course, you will be able to choose which
interface you want to use under XP, so it shouldn't matter too much...
-Todd
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Politics (was Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 05:37:29 -0000
On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 16:05:39 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:45:14 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Bloody Viking wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Walt wrote:
>> >>
>> >> : In Los Angeles, thousands of illegal immigrants, along with people in
>> >> : local cemeteries, registered and voted in recent elections. And of
>> >> : course, they voted overwhelmingly Democratic.
>> >>
>> >> And in Florida, the GOP does the same crap. And we all know about
>> >> the election debacle that ensued.
>> >
>> >So why did Gore only challenge the counts in DEMONCROOK-controlled
>> >counties?
>>
>> Republican dominated counties probably didn't have hordes
>> of upset republicans demanding a recount. If there's no
>> uproar, there really isn't any point to Gore serving as
>> champion.
>>
>> >
>> >Is that a sign that not even a Democrat candidate can trust
>> >a Democrat election board to do things properly?
>> [deletia]
>>
>> No, you just can't see past your GOP reality filters.
>>
>
>What part of LIBERTARIAN do you not understand?
I understand well enough to know that the label is quite
often total bullshit. I wasn't just hatched yesterday.
Many Libertarians and Federalists are nothing more than
Republicans going by a different name.
[deletia]
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 05:39:18 -0000
On 16 Feb 2001 23:36:41 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: That's why Materialism is hopelessly flawed. We all know that JFK
>: was shot, but can't repeat the experiment. How do we go about
>: proving a historical event.
>
>WTF does that have to do with materialism?
Whether or not JFK was shot or not is a question of history.
The techniques of historians are not the subject of this discussion.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Date: 17 Feb 2001 05:40:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
> Open Source does threaten commercial software
>innovation. Why should a company (not just MS) invest millions into R&D
>when open source peoplewill come along and offer a free version?
>
It forces a higher quality product to compete. If people can get an "Okay"
product free, they won't pay for an "Okay" competiting product, but I expect
they'll still shell out for a "Really good" one.
Give people something worth paying for, at a reasonable price, and they'll buy
it. I liked AbiWord, but I found WordPerfect 8 more capable, so I paid the 20
USD for a copy. I would not pay $(Much larger) for Word.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
This post is No. 54 056 in a limited edition of 700 000 000. Certificate of
Authenticity attached.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
