Linux-Advocacy Digest #556, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 11:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: why open source software is better (phil hunt)
Re: why open source software is better (phil hunt)
Re: why open source software is better (phil hunt)
Re: why open source software is better (phil hunt)
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: why open source software is better (Peter Seebach)
Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Time for a Windows reinstall! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Off topic but do u fancy a game of chess? (Woof)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: why open source software is better ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/ (Peter Hayes)
Re: why open source software is better ("Edward Rosten")
Re: why open source software is better ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:53:43 +0000
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:49:15 +1100, Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:11:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
>wrote:
>
>>>>The only thing i use Windows for is playing games. I will only use
>>>>it for programming when someone pays me to do so at my normal
>>>>consulting rates.
>>>
>>>You expect someone to write your OS for free though. Or at the very
>>>least give you all his source code. Good one, Do you live in a trailer
>>>park ?
>>
>>Do you completely misunderstand the concept of a community? You get the source
>>code, and can acquire the OS for free (though can easily pay for it if you
>>want a nice box and extra documentation), but can contribute back to the
>>community by coding (or paying for the software, or writing documentation, or
>>providing help/support to others). The internet was built on free software,
>>and without it you wouldn't be sitting here typing now.
>
>Aren't you getting confused now? Open source does not necessarily mean
>free,
It meas free as in speech, but not necessarily as in beer.
>As for community, 99.99% of the population can't or wont do the
>contributing you suggest.
It is estimated there are about 100,000 people who have
contributed to open source software. This is a considerable
proportion of all programmers, and an even higher proportion of
good programmers.
>Why should I do work for my OS when I get it
>free with my next PC ?
No-one's saying you should if you don't want to. I wrote Leafwa because it
was useful *for me*. Since I find it useful, I thought others might do
too, so I publish it on my website. Do you understand the concept of
"helping others"?
>You suggest a situation where 0.01% do the work and the rest enjoy the
>fruits of the labour. BTW that didn't work in Russia even when 100%
>did the work or at least pretended too.
You are a troll and I claim my ten pounds.
BTW, what worked in Russia is irrelevant.
OSS does work. It runs most web servers. It runs the machines that
run the Internet. It is daily getting more users. There are an
estimated 40 million Linux users today, and it's the fasteest
growing operating system in the world, and it's flexible enough to
run on anything from an MP3 player or PDA to a supercomputer. It
has wiped a quarter of a trillion dollars from Microsoft's share
price, which is why Ballmer calls it the "number 1 threat" and
Allchin say's it's "un-American".
With all this Linux and OSS have going for them, don't you think
it's time you considered trying it too?
>We no longer live in the 19th century, you want something, you buy it.
>No-one makes their own ketch anymore. We buy it.
ITYM "ketchup"; A ketch is a kind of boat.
>Maybe they do it when they are young and out to change the world. Then
>they get married, have kids and suddenly find there is no free lunch,
>especially in the US.
Let's test that scenario, shall we? Linus is married with kids...
guess what, he's still developing Liunx.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:05:26 +0000
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:07:52 +1100, Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Read the originator of this tread he quoted Ralph
>Levien. I read one line then stopped
>
>"Background: free software and proprietary software"
>
>"Free software, by contrast, is written for lots of different reasons,
>including a simple desire for the software on the part of the author,
>education, and being part of the free software community. However,
>getting the job done expediently is almost always an overriding
>concern. Thus, free software tends not to be much more complex than
>necessary, and making use of existing modules and protocols is often
>more appealing than reinventing things from scratch."
>
>He is confused too.
Why? What's confused about the above?
>>Napster isn't open source. Napster has *nothing* to do with open source.
>
>Same principle by the same rabble.
You are added libel to willful stupidity, now.
The Napster software is *not* open source.
>>>All Linux has got really going for it is that it is free.
>>
>>I've bought several boxed sets of Linux, costing GBP 20 to 50 each.
>>Have you ever tried downloading several CDs worth on a phone line?
>
>That is all the (few)
40 million is "few", is it?
>None of them like paying and don't, I have never seen a Linux boxed
>set.
Then you haven't looked very hard.
>>3. the cost of Linux or Windows is typically a lot less than the cost
>>of the computer that it runs on
>
>Eh ?
E.g. Suse boxed set = GBP 30. Computer = GBP 700.
>My system of software development is proven, sustainable and creates a
>good living for everyone involved.
What is your "system"?
>Yours is unproven, has no business model, is creating a bunch of
>companies existing on hype alone.
Mine? I didn't invent OSS, you know.
>Who would you rather be Bill or Linus ? One is wealthy,the other has
>to take a second job in the real world to make a living.
I expect Linus is happier than Bill.
>The most successful Linux company Redhat is derided by most hardcore
>Unix guys as a heap of crap.
Rubbish.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:08:57 +0000
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:07:52 +1100, Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The most successful Linux company Redhat is derided by most hardcore
>Unix guys as a heap of crap. The AOLer of Linuxes. It is the most
>successful and is still an economic basket case.
Red Hat recently bought out another company for $47,000,000 in RH stock.
It could do this because the market values RH high enough for the
stock to be valuable. Note, the opinion of people *putting their
money where their mouth is* is that RH is a valuable company.
If you think it isn't valuable, I suggest you buy RH put options,
of other instruments that imply you are betting the share price will
go down.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:39:35 +0000
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:07:16 -0500, vrml3d.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The subject line for this message should be "why open source software
>> is better for the *customer*".
>
>No, it should be "why open source software is better for the customer in the
>short run". Anything that drives producers out of the market in the long
>run is bad for consumers in the long run, business cycles not withstanding.
OSS will only drive proprietary out if it is perceived as better.
For example, if OpenOffice drives out MS Office, it will be because users
consider that it better suits their needs. This IMO would be a good thing;
computer users don't benefit from upgrade treadmills and other MS tactics.
>Anecdotal evidence suggests a serious decline in shareware applications,
>with open source an obvious culprit. Fewer apps, fewer choices. Sorry I
>don't have numbers to back it up.
Then how do you know you aren't mistaken?
Tucows has about 80,000 shareware programs, mostly for Windows.
Freshmeat has about 13,000 open source porgams mostly for Linux/Unix.
If OSS is crowding out shareware, these figures don't indicate it.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
"Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:08:51 +0000
>> >Hardly. Windows is not a version of Linux. Our W2k terminal server is
>> >not
>> Really? Win is not a version of Linux? Damn thanks for telling! I
>> always thought it was just X11 running on those machines. If you didn't
>> get the irony by now I make it clearer: Windows is a dummed-down OS
>> that tries to be as functional as Linux.
>>
>
> I really don't care if it is 'dumbed down' and I don't know if MS makes
> it in an attempt to duplicate the functionality of Linux. Fact is, for
> what we use it for, it works great. Period. Now, if I could do the same
> thing with Linux, I'd definitely be interested.
You can use Linux as a terminal server.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 28 Feb 2001 15:11:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craven Moorehead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Windows 2000 is crude ? In what way ?
I recently saw someone posting to a number of newsgroups asking for help.
He'd upgraded his computer, and it would no longer boot, because Windows 2000
couldn't survive switching from one SCSI controller to another. The only
"solution" was to do a fresh install.
Every Unix system I have used in my life has been able to adapt to changes
of that sort. Typically, the first SCSI disk found gets called "sd0", and it
doesn't matter that sd0 was on a Symbios Logic controller yesterday, and is
on an Adaptec controller today.
Windows is the only system I am aware of that CANNOT BOOT if you replace one
supported piece of hardware with another. Macs get this right. Amigas get
this right. All Unixes, including free ones, get this right. Windows, and
Windows *ALONE*, can't handle it.
That's crude, and it's a particularly stupid kind of crude.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux--First Impressions from a semi-newbie
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:26:18 +0000
> How does installing device drivers work under linux anyway?
I've never installed drivers, but I expect that they will come in the
form of a binary module.
You will probably have to put the module in
/lib/modules/kernelname/
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Time for a Windows reinstall!
Date: 28 Feb 2001 15:28:12 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys) schrieb:
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:44:50 -0800, Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a third party software
> : pkg called Nero screwed up and filled up your HDD. Now your pc runs slow and
> : you blame MS for this. How is MS to blame for this ?
>
> Umm, maybe because the problems did not go away after he cleaned up the
> drive? That is, he removed the offending file(s) that were causing his
> filesystems to be out of space, and the problems persist. Sounds like
> it's quite ok to blame MS for this.
>
>
Clearly, the damage had already been done. Was he using FAT16
filesystem? BTW, W98 here sends up a dialog: "Your xx drive is
getting full", etc. Did he do a Scandisk and a Defrag, too? Just
removing 'offending files' is not necessarily enough. These
simple tools *do* work, but ultimately if a prg precipitously
trashes your drive in a 'consumer-grade' operating system, you
will be glad you made a backup.
XXCopy will alow Windoz users to wipe out their (broken) boot
partition (format C:\ drive) and then quickly Xxcopy a fresh copy
from a cd or tape backup. You can be back in business in a matter
of minutes with a fresh operating system. This is 'backing up',
not doing a 'reinstall' which would be tedious and
time-consuming. But
it requires having a bare-bones 'os-only' C:\ partition, with all
data and prgs on other partitions. This is beyond most Windoz
users capability and is certainly not the 'Micro$~1 way'. Just
keep 'em stupid and coming back for more. :)
Vacuo
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: Woof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Off topic but do u fancy a game of chess?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:31:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
I see in your sig that you are a member of a chessclub
If you fancy a game sometime let me know and we can arrange to play on
Icc or somewhere
Ill warn you though ive never lost a game
I shall look forward to eating all your pieces
> >
> > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > >
> > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Clamchu
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote
> > > on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:04:04 -0500
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >Watch closely:
> > > >
> > > >Kulkis is a shit-head.
> > >
> > > Uh huh.
> > >
> > > And this advances the cause of Linux precisely how?
> > >
> > > I still want someone to count the number of fleas on Planet Earth
> > > and then prove that that count is less substantive than arguing
> > > about a participant's signature's length in c.o.l.a.
> > >
> > > (I'd do my part, but I don't have fleas or a pet. :-) )
> > >
> > > >
> > > >There. A. Kulkis' .sig will now grow in size to at least 3 more lines.
> > >
> > > Heh. Well good luck; judging from his .sig, it takes truly inspired
> > > idiocy to be enshrined therein. :-) Mere run of the mill moronity
> > > doesn't make the cut.
> >
> > True.
> >
> > Chad Meyers and Erik Funkenbusch STILL haven't made it in yet.
> >
> <snip>
> I'm sure if you give them enough time...
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: 28 Feb 2001 15:41:11 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> . . . when an engine moves out, there is a little bit
> of "slack" in the knuckle-arm connectors, so that the full load of
> the entire train doesn't have to start rolling all at once. You hear
> this BANG---BANG---BANG---BANG--.... noise...one BANG for each car
> in the train as it's connection comes under tension.
>
> I'm currently living in a neighborhood relatively near to a heavily
> used freight line AND a the switching yard is only about 1 km (1/2 mile)
> from the central "downtown" business district of my (suburban) city.
> When I was a kid, I lived in this same area, and NEVER heard these
> sorts of noises when a train pulled out....so, something tells me that
> the connectors have changed.
>
I've always heard that sound when a train takes off (since
growing up in the 40's). Like you say the train would be unable
to start if it weren't for the slack.
Vacuo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:42:11 +0000
>>> What was Linux like in '95. crude crude crude.
>>
>>I don't know. I got in to it in 1998.
>
> Well if you started using computers recently then Linux may be just the
I started using computers a long time ago. I have used Win3.0, Win3.1,
Win3.11, Win95 Win98 and NT a lot (and associated DOS versions where
applicable). None of them are particularly good.
> shot if you don't need to use common commercial and consumer software.
I don't use much commercial software (with the exception of Matlab),
especially as the alternatives are in many cases better.
> But I have been using MS products since 1982 and they have always served
> me well.
Well, they served me, but not as well as Linux does.
>>> Well ....you can say the same thing now :)
>>
>>Compared to what. For what I want, windows is crude.
>
> Windows 2000 is crude ? In what way ? Not in the interface, not in the
Yes in the interface. The GUI and commandline are both crude.
The command line is a horrible abortive thing, and doesn't have a
fraction of the ability and power of UNIX command lines. Installing
cygwin is an absolute must on any windows computer.
I don't like the GUI either, the window manager, especially is truly
horrible. There are no virtual screens, one focus model, very limited
customization.
And furthermore, there are no virtual consoles avaliable. The consoles
you can get from "maximizing" a DOS box are pretty poor, since they can
still only manage 80x50, where as here, I'm running at 160x64 with a 16
pixel font.
So, in brief, I don't like the interface.
I use FVWM2, btw.
> applications and not in it's capabilities.
Most of the applications I use under Linux, I can get for Windows but
they work better under Linux.
And what do you mean by its capabilities? For what I do, Linux is far
more capable than windows.
I make quite heavy use of the remote GUI abilities of Linux/UNIX. Windows
is not nearly as capable in this respect.
> I have used various Unixs and Linux, for the desktop, they are
> unbelievably crude
For what I do, they beat the hell out of windows on the desktop. The
really poor window management is one thing (you can't move a crashed
application's window amongst other things).
> sure they are good servers.. I don't need an OS that
Yep they do that too.
> lasts a year between reboots, that is all Linux has got going for it
> (apart from being free) for the desktop.
All that Linux has going for it on the desktop is that it is absoloutely
first class.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anyone know how much computer power we have/
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:54:27 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:37:13 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> "Marada C. Shradrakaii" wrote:
> >
> > >>65 - Mostek
> > >>68 - Motorola
> > >>74 - Fairchild
> > >>80 - Intel
> > >
> > >Does this mean Harris got 18? :-)
> > >
> > >e.g. 1802, 1861.
> >
> > Is there a list of this somewhere? Might be an interesting factoid.
> >
> > Also, where does the Intel 4004 fit in, if they're supposed to be using 80*?
> >
>
> It might have been before the prefix scheme.
I thought it merely indicated the size of the data bus
Peter
--
The past is almost as mysterious as the future.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:03:00 +0000
>>>What it REALLY means to most people is free is better then paying for
>>>something.
>>
>>No. Do I make myself clear?
>>
>>You have totally missed the point of the argument.
>
> Technically yes.
>
> Read the originator of this tread he quoted Ralph Levien. I read one
> line then stopped
>
> "Background: free software and proprietary software"
>
> "Free software, by contrast, is written for lots of different reasons,
> including a simple desire for the software on the part of the author,
> education, and being part of the free software community. However,
> getting the job done expediently is almost always an overriding concern.
> Thus, free software tends not to be much more complex than necessary,
> and making use of existing modules and protocols is often more appealing
> than reinventing things from scratch."
>
> He is confused too.
How so?
>>>50 million people use Napster, how many would if they had to pay
>>>commercial rates for the songs ? 1-2 million MAYBE and they would be
>>>very choosy in what they downloaded.
>>
>>Napster isn't open source. Napster has *nothing* to do with open source.
>
> Same principle by the same rabble.
Incorrect. Napster isn't about freedom of information, it's about free
music. Read some of RMS' essays at www.gnu.org about Free Software (tm).
I didn't get in to Linux because it cost me nothing (it cost me �30), I
got in to it because it is high quality and _OPEN_.
>>>What do you hear all the time ? Linux guys downloading the latest ISO
>>>of Linux, clogging up the net with downloads.
>>>
>>>Would they do it if they had to pay a fee ? No, most would not.
I paid for it. I only have braodband access for 30 weeks each year, so
downloading everything isn't an optio (or a very expensive one).
>>It just goes "thud" very loudly.
>>
>>>All Linux has got really going for it is that it is free.
>>
>>I've bought several boxed sets of Linux, costing GBP 20 to 50 each. Have
>>you ever tried downloading several CDs worth on a phone line?
>
> That is all the (few) Linux guys I know talk about. "The next one will
> kill MS" "The next one will kill MS"
What has downloading CDs have to do with killing MS.
> None of them like paying and don't, I have never seen a Linux boxed set.
Then you've never looked. The bookstore nearest to me has 4 different
brands of boxes sets on sale. I, personally have paid for a boxed set. I
would happily have paid 10 times the amount, since it came with so much
useful stuff. For the quality of upgrade it gave my computer, �300 would
not have been a bad price.
>>> If everyone had to pay for Linux and the price was
>>>the same or more then Windows (the price of Windows could be very
>>>elastic if MS wants) it would be as dead as a Dodo from a popularity
>>>perspective.
>>
>>1. Red Hat, Suse, etc, sell many boxed sets.
>
> Not *anywhere* near enough to be sustainable.
Do you have eny evidence for this? And they sell service too.
>>2. because of the "Microsoft tax", Linux often does cost the same as
>>windows, if you have a laptop for example
>
> Linux costs more and Redhat still is a basket case.
No it costs the same. Look up some prices. And what do you mean about
RedHat?
>>3. the cost of Linux or Windows is typically a lot less than the cost
>>of the computer that it runs on
>
> Eh ?
Computer �1000, Window �100?, Linux �0-�50.
>>So, your argument is complete and utter bollocks.
>>
>>The only question that remains, is why are you talking so much crap. Is
>>it:
>
> My system of software development is proven, sustainable and creates a
> good living for everyone involved.
>
> Yours is unproven, has no business model, is creating a bunch of
> companies existing on hype alone.
Open source development is as old as computers and has lasted up till
now. Since its been arouind longer, its more proven than closed source
development. Anyway, who cares about the companies existing on hype.
whatever happens to them, we will always have Debian GNU/Linux.
> Who would you rather be Bill or Linus ? One is wealthy,the other has to
> take a second job in the real world to make a living.
I would personally rather be me (hey, its nice to have self-esteem:).
Failing that, I'd rather be Linus, since I hahe neither a criminal nor
vindictive mind.
You seem to think that money is the only worthwhile thing and that it
should be obtained at all costs. I value other things as well.
> The most successful Linux company Redhat is derided by most hardcore
> Unix guys as a heap of crap.
It has some issues, but none are insurmountable. If you listen to the
really hardcore UNIX gurus, they deride _everything_ as a heap of crap.
> The AOLer of Linuxes. It is the most
That's more like Corel.
> successful and is still an economic basket case.
>
> Craven
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:05:05 +0000
>> The subject line for this message should be "why open source software
>> is better for the *customer*".
>
> No, it should be "why open source software is better for the customer in
> the short run". Anything that drives producers out of the market in the
> long run is bad for consumers in the long run, business cycles not
> withstanding.
>
> Anecdotal evidence suggests a serious decline in shareware applications,
> with open source an obvious culprit. Fewer apps, fewer choices. Sorry
> I don't have numbers to back it up. That's why it's only anecdotal.
Hmm. What are all those shareware programmers doing now? Mabey they are
writing open source programs?
Also, the number of OSS programs has gone up. Has the total number
avaliable gone down or up. If its gone up, then so has choice.
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:08:44 +0000
> I didn't say it wasn't improvement. I said it was more fixing a
> deficiancy than improving. Both terms apply, but fixing the deficiancy
> has a higher ranking in my estimation.
Oh, yes. I remember, you're speaking EFed up English.
How is fixing a deficiency not making an improvement?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
