Linux-Advocacy Digest #619, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Tim Hanson)
Re: NEEDED: A Loadlin Distro. (WAS: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks
government help to stop) ("Chad Myers")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Chad Myers")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Chad Myers")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bloody Viking)
Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax) (WarpKat)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
NICE TO SEE A POSITIVE SPIN OFF FOR POOR COUNTRIES ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Bloody Viking)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Dave)
Re: NEEDED: A Loadlin Distro. (WAS: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks
government help to stop) (Dave)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Jakob Kosowski)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Bloody Viking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:11:21 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> JD wrote:
> >
> > Free software doesn't constrain the freedom of those who redistribute code. It
>doesnt
> > add conditions or create additional requirements (including payment of money or
> > code.)
> >
> > For example, for fun, link a GPLed library with your own code. The entire work
> > becomes redistribution encumbered (you must be able to provide source code),
> > especially if there is no other GPLed library with the same interface. Not only is
> > the GPL a restrictive license, but it invokes the much hated interface copyright
> > concept (per RMS.)
> >
> > By affecting your freedom (the owner of the code), by having to make a choice
>between
> > using the library or not by giving your source code to the recipient, the software
>is no
> > longer free. Therefore, the GPL takes your freedom away, and the software library
> > that was licensed under the GPL is certainly not free.
>
> So you're saying that using the standard C/C++ libraries as embodied in gcc
> means your software is encumbered. Horse shit.
>
No. gcc is licensed under the more permissive LGPL, not GPL.
--
Once at a social gathering, Gladstone said to Disraeli, "I predict,
Sir, that you will die either by hanging or of some vile disease".
Disraeli replied, "That all depends upon whether I embrace your
principals or your mistress".
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NEEDED: A Loadlin Distro. (WAS: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks
government help to stop)
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:02:27 GMT
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97rhls$cg3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Is booting the last frontier on the desktop? We all know about LILO, but on
> some machines it doesn't work. Like mine.
>
> Donal K. Fellows ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Everyone has the right to waste their free time and energy how they wish.
>
> And the legal-to-do attempts at destroying Microsoft are never a waste of
> time. Coding FreeDOS as an effort to destroy the Antichrist is an effort on
> the part of the forces of Good to triumph over Evil.
Isn't there a mothership approaching earth that you should be looking
to hitch a ride on.
QUICK, DUCK! THE BLACK HELIOCOPTERS ARE COMING!
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:05:06 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:31:45 -0500, JS PL wrote:
> >
> >
> >But your IQ theory only applies to those in the 50 to 120 range. Since I'm
> >160 I can see the obvious. There's no possible monopoly when theres always
> >been a huge number of OS choices.
> >http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
>
> We should be clear about what is meant by the term "monopoly". If you use
> the definition used by the courts (which would seem appropriate in a
> discussion on the DOJ case) The fact that it is *possible* to obtain an
> alternative OS does not mean that MS does not have a monopoly.
>
> BTW, how many choices of OS were there on consumer laptops 3 years ago ?
> You couldn't buy one without paying for a Windows license. Not from anyone.
> Is that not a monopoly ?
You couldn't get OS/2 on a laptop?
I seem to recall some vendors offering the ability to ship w/o
an OS. In fact, about 2 years ago, I ordered a laptop without an OS
and they lessened the price as a result. It wasn't a main-brand reseller,
though (Dell, Compaq, et al), but I still bought a laptop without an
OS.
I don't think that there was ever a time where a resourceful person
couldn't have bought a laptop w/o an OS.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:15:43 +0000
> I'd suggest the results are mixed on this. While there are some trial
> court (district court) decisions that have gone the way you say, there
> are two appellate court rulings that have held that cryptography source
> code is speech.
>
> What latest spate of rulings are you refering to which suggest the
> opposite?
DeCSS
IIRC they ruled that printed code was free speech but online code wasn't.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:07:30 GMT
"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:v4co6.3465$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Amazing... but I think you are lying. Why? Well, how do you figure that
> you,
> > > joe blow average user, using a piece of crap pentium pro scraper can get
> > > 4200 but it takes IBM a quad Xeon 700 to get 4200? You really expect me
> to
> > > believe that you generated 4200 rps on a PP200? ahahahaha
> > > Where is your gigabit ethernet? Did you have 4 nics and 6 10k scsi
> drives in
> > > it? or maybe your just such a software guru that you figured out how to
> do
> > > what all the engineers at IBM couldn't.
> >
> > 4200 requests per second, if we assume about 512 bytes per request and
> > the server is serving up 2k static pages, could easily be done over a
> > single 100Mbit connection.
> >
> > 4200 * 512 + 4200 * 2048 = 10752000 bytes per second
> >
> > 10752000 * 8 = 86016000 bits per second, easily doable with 100Mb.
>
> But I'd hazard a guess that the web hits being measured by JJS are not the
> same thing as measured by TPC benchmark which is really measuring database
> lookups when front-ended by webservers, not simply hit/s a-la Webstone. I
> ran some Webstone tests a few years on an NT 3.51/Netscape combo and got
> numbers not dissimilar to those that JJS gets, but its not the same
> benchmark or even close.
I haven't been following this thread to intensely, so I'm not sure
if this is relevant or not, but the TPC units are typically transactions
per MINUTE, not second. I don't know if that changes anything or not, but
it might be useful in whatever you're talking about.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 3 Mar 2001 20:24:23 GMT
T. Max Devlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Apparently, MS got some clustering code which isn't as horrible as the
: system code they've compiled. So they can do five nines. Wow. But
: almost any two arbitrary Linux boxes could probably provide more
: reliability than five dedicated MS systems. ;-)
So long as the electricity stays up! (: From my own expierence with Linux,
it's more reliable than the hardware and power companies or even power company
+ marine batteries. It just doesn't crash unless you fuck up badly. The only
problem I ever have it seems is that wierd "Japanese" you get if you try to
cat a binary to the screen triggering it. I reboot only becuse I don't know
how to fix it otherwise, NOT becuse it crashed. In that case, the reboot is
from my own lack of a piece of knowledge to fix it. In that case, it's mere
operator error.
But Linux is rock solid. I leave my box up 24/7 and it's ALWAYS at the ready
with nary a crash. I've gotten spoiled! (: I remember the bad old days when I
used Windows. It would crash all the time.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: 3 Mar 2001 20:29:01 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:38:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>And if they are let off, won't they start cracking down on Linux?
Probably. But it will be harder for them to do so. Locking someone out
is easier if they aren't already "in". And they are not going to try
competing with Linux on price any time soon.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:35:04 GMT
Bloody Viking wrote:
> So long as the electricity stays up! (: From my own expierence with Linux,
> it's more reliable than the hardware and power companies or even power company
> + marine batteries. It just doesn't crash unless you fuck up badly. The only
> problem I ever have it seems is that wierd "Japanese" you get if you try to
> cat a binary to the screen triggering it. I reboot only becuse I don't know
> how to fix it otherwise, NOT becuse it crashed.
I hate rebooting, that's one reason I like Linux so much.
To get rid of the japanese, try typing "reset" in the terminal.
It should reset the screen.
> But Linux is rock solid. I leave my box up 24/7 and it's ALWAYS at the ready
> with nary a crash. I've gotten spoiled! (: I remember the bad old days when I
> used Windows. It would crash all the time.
Same here - I used to do windows programming, and my
finger got sore from having to press the red button so much.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 3 Mar 2001 20:39:34 GMT
Shane Phelps ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I wasn't thinking about just servers. I just log out of my NT box at work
: overnight, It's only had a couple of BSODs, and it only gets rebooted every
: couple of months when it slows down too much. I think I've only had 1 BSOD
: on the NT box at home, and it stays on most of the time (but not doing much).
: As I said, I haven't had as bad a run with NT as many others have. OTOH,
: most of the W9x users turn their PCs off every night and *still* get crashes.
Of all people here, I surely had the worst imaginable expierence with NT of
any flavour. When trying to install it on a _virgin_ computer (a homebrew) it
would BSOD on the install _floppy_. I tried to get install floppies from
another person, but alas, it would still BSOD. $300 (seppo) down the drain.
So, in my case, NT got five zeros for reliability. It would reliably BSOD upon
install attempt. Never again will I ever spend any money on an OS made by the
Antichrist.
If a PC don't work on Linux, it does not work. Period. In any version of
English, including Strine, mate. Now, ask yourself this one. If you have to
reboot becuse it's getting slow, don't you think something's wrong? An OS
should never have to be rebooted due to memory leaks. Ever. That's bullshite
from the get-go if memory leaks exist in the first place. There is no excuse
for an OS that leaks memory until it inevitably crashes into a BSOD.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: WarpKat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax)
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:39:52 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> Armando Ortiz wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > > WarpKat wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've actually asked a full $180 (or whatever the cost of Windows currently
> > > > is) to be deducted from a laptop that I had no intention of running Windows
> > > > on. The sales person laughed at me. I hung up. 'nuff said.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Better to talk to a supervisor, and inform said supervisor of
> > > said order-taker's lack of customer service skills.
> >
> > Supervisors are glorified laugh-ats in customer service and have just about as
> > much of a clue as a sack of wet mice.
>
> Then you keep going up the food chain until you get the VP of Sales.
That's just it...why should I have to keep eating up the food chain for a measly
$180 that the company can simply put elsewhere for some Windows zealot to buy?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 14:42:59 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Windows XP is the same thing as Windows 2000; they use the same NT
> > > core that NT4 and NT3 did.
> > >
> > > Windows ME isn't much cheaper than Windows 2000.
> >
> > Windows XP will ship in three major versions. Personal, Pro, and
Server.
> > Pro is equivelant to Windows 2000 today and will cost about the same.
> > Personal has fewer features and will cost what ME costs today.
>
> Just like NT shipped with 3 major versions which were all exactly the
> same at the core?
Yes, they use the same kernel. So what? It's the license that you are
buying, not the software.
The Personal license does not allow you to become a member of an NT/2000
Domain (much like Win9x can't be a member of a domain, though it can access
domain resources). It only supports one processor (Pro supports 2
processors). Pro supports multiple monitors, Personal doesn't.
> > > Yes, but most people use Microsoft Word and not professional tools.
> >
> > Most professionals do not, and the market for professionals has
increased
> > greatly.
>
> Not that I've seen. Adobe hasn't shipped a new version of PageMaker
> in well on 4 years now. I only know one person who owns PageMaker,
> but I know dozens who bought Photoshop. One is a niche product, the
> other is more mass-market.
I listed Photoshop in my list of software that hasn't changed price.
> > > Because it's not *worth* that much for a word processor. Microsoft
> > > gets away with it because they have enforced compatibility (IMHO).
> > > This is the reason why the monopoly is a bad thing for consumers, and
> > > is the core of the argument.
> >
> > Wordperfect can read and write word documents just fine.
>
> Then why don't people buy it? If there is a free market, and
> Wordperfect is just fine at reading *all* Word documents (including
> OLE spreadsheets and DAO snippets), then how come it isn't wildly
> successful? It does cost about 1/4th as much. Boggles the mind.
I didn't say it did everything Word did, I said it can read and write word
documents just fine. It doesn't do everything Word does.
> > > WordPerfect, in short, *can't* compete because the market isn't fair.
> >
> > How is that MS's fault? What could they do to prevent that?
>
> How about
>
> 1) Stop pre-loading at ridiculous rates with Windows bundles (ie,
> using one monopoly to foster the other)
Make up your mind. You just sat here and bitched about how high the price
of Word was compared to it's competitors, now you're bitching because it's
too cheap. Can you at least choose a single position and stick with it?
> 2) Stop integrating their desktop products with their operating
> system (ala IE/Netscape debacle -- see DOJ for more info)
Word is not integrated with the OS, nor is any other package in the Office
suite.
> 3) Compete on *merits* instead of *marketing* -- that's what really
> irks me; Microsoft makes some REALLY GOOD software. If they
> weren't so *afraid* of losing (Bill Gate's paranoia at work, I
> suppose) all the time, they could actually work with other
> companies and people instead of against them all the time.
The purpose of business is to make money. Further, when you are a publicly
held company, you have a legal responsibility to increase your profits and
increase the value of your stock. If you don't, you can be sued.
> > > I know you're going to disagree, but that's the heart of the argument
> > > as described by Orin Hatch (R-Utah), 18 states' attrouney's general,
> > > the US Department of Justice and the very conservative judge Jackson
> > > (appointed by Ronald Reagan).
> >
> > Uhh.. I didn't see Wordperfect mentioned in the trial.
>
> It wasn't, but it's the same issue.
No, it's not the same issue. There may be similarities, but it's not the
same.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NICE TO SEE A POSITIVE SPIN OFF FOR POOR COUNTRIES
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:45:27 +1300
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-5008013.html?tag=mn_hd
Its nice to see poor countries getting into the internet thanks to the help
of Linux and economies of scale in the computer componentry sector.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: 3 Mar 2001 20:55:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: 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.
There isn't too much slack between the couplers of the train cars. Also, with
commuter trains, half the time the engine pulls and pushes as it goes from one
end to the other. The accelleration is equally pathetic in either mode, as can
be readily expected. We could sure use some bullet commuter trains that have
good accelleration you can feel. Trains in general have pathetic accelleration
for the simple reason they are real heavy, and a 2,000 horse engine, despite
series-wound motors in the wheels and the engine running a giant welding
generator, can't be expected to accellerate all that mass quick.
But that drivetrain is about the best use of energy for a vehicle, and it
obviously found its way with the trains first. Only now, do we see automobiles
with a petrol-electric drivetrain with triple fuel economy but have decent
accelleration. Why? In the 1970s with that oil crisis, the petrol- or diesel-
electric car wasn't introduced but the locomotives were already around - and
made in Detroit! Why only now? (HINT: oil is finite...)
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 13:47:20 -0700
On 3 Mar 2001 20:29:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 19:38:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>says...
>
>>And if they are let off, won't they start cracking down on Linux?
It's already begun. Trial or not, Microsoft just can't afford to let
linux get any more of a foothold. I suspect that the recent
open-source comment by Allchin was an initial probe to see what they
could get away with on the PR front.
>Probably. But it will be harder for them to do so. Locking someone out
>is easier if they aren't already "in". And they are not going to try
>competing with Linux on price any time soon.
I can think of ways they could do linux in, that would be in keeping
with past Microsoft strategies. How about launching a patent-violation
lawsuit and demanding that linux be removed from all computers unless
some absurd royalty is paid? The lawsuit wouldn't have to have any
real chance of winning so long as it could create the usual FUD among
corporations trying to decide whether to switch. Or, any hardware
manufacturer cooperating with the linux community on drivers might
find themselves left out of future releases of Windows.
Personally I hope MS tries something like this. The backlash would be
spectacular!
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NEEDED: A Loadlin Distro. (WAS: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks
government help to stop)
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 13:48:45 -0700
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:02:27 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:97rhls$cg3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Is booting the last frontier on the desktop? We all know about LILO, but on
>> some machines it doesn't work. Like mine.
>>
>> Donal K. Fellows ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>
>> : Everyone has the right to waste their free time and energy how they wish.
>>
>> And the legal-to-do attempts at destroying Microsoft are never a waste of
>> time. Coding FreeDOS as an effort to destroy the Antichrist is an effort on
>> the part of the forces of Good to triumph over Evil.
>
>Isn't there a mothership approaching earth that you should be looking
>to hitch a ride on.
>
>QUICK, DUCK! THE BLACK HELIOCOPTERS ARE COMING!
LOL. Never use sarcasm when Chad's around, he's too dumb to "get" it.
------------------------------
From: Jakob Kosowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:02:44 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Lets not forget that KDE is the default desktop for the majority of
> professionaly oriented Linux distributions like Caldera, Mandrake, Suse -
> only exceptions are RedHat (dont know about Debian). There must be a
> good reason for that :-)
Why do so many people use Winblows? There must be a good reason for that :-|
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 15:07:36 -0600
"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> > Nor should they? What is the price of Adobe Photoshop in 1992
versus today?
> > > What is the price of PageMaker? Illustrator? Quark Express?
FreeHand?
> > > Novell Netware? OS/2?
>
> The price of OS/2 was supposedly about $3,000 when it first came out
> in 1987!!!!!! I am not sure if that figure is correct but that is
> what an IBM salesman friend told me. I do not know what the price was
> in 92 but in '94 or so a friend of mine was thinking about buying it
> and he told me it was about $500-600. Again, not sure about the
> figure; just going on his word.
OS/2 came in several versions, some by IBM, some by MS. IBM only sold OS/2
on IBM hardware. MS sold OS/2 for "everyone else". The IBM OS/2 was locked
to IBM's hardware due to special "Asynchronous BIOS" calls (which was
basically a reentrant BIOS). OS/2 also came in an EE (Enterprise Edition)
and SE (Standard Edition). The EE was probably about $3000. I don't recall
the price of SE, but I don't think it was more than $500.
> > > I think you'll find all these are roughly the same prices they were in
1992,
> > > if not more expensive today.
>
> I cannot speak of the others but OS/2 is now $279, so it has steadily
> come down in price. And even at that price, IBM has been accused of
> deliberately overpricing it to fulfill an illegal contract with MS
> that remains in effect to this day. Incidentally, you get a lot more
> for your $279 now then you did back then at the much higher price.
OS/2 2.0, the first (mostly) 32 bit version came out in 1992 (March or April
IIRC), and while I can't find an exact price, it's street price was slightly
less than it's current street price.
This article from 1994 lists OS/2's retail price at $199. So, the price of
OS/2 has actually gone up by $80 in at least the last 7 years.
http://baden.nu/public_html_index/NT_Linux_OS2.html
This article, also from 1994 states that OS/2's price is "more than $200"
http://www.byte.com/art/9401/sec8/art11.htm
I don't know what the price was before 2.0, but it would not surprise me if
it were the same.
> > > Then how does that explain OS/2 hasn't dropped in price?
>
> As you can see above, Erik, in the case of OS/2 you are completely
> wrong, as usual. :(
I fail to understand how you pulling figures out of your (or someone elses)
ass is proving me wrong.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Date: 3 Mar 2001 21:09:33 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Get TeX/LaTeX as well, because editor+TeX = far better quality output
: than MS could ever *dream* of and at a fraction of the effort required to
: write a long document in a wordprocessor.
As of now, a text editor works fine, as I have no real need to format
documents nice and pretty. If I did, I would have to fix X then go ahead and
use TeX all I want, or get OpenOffice, or whatever. When I once used Works, I
resorted to UN-formatting documents by adding a { and } with the text in
between lines and run a proggie in QBASIC I coded to strip the crap, leaving a
plaintext file. The Works spreadsheet thingy wasn't bad, also since I didn't
need any super sophisticated options.
In modern times, I ended up learning to pretty well live sans X, and use
"pico" as my "word processor" of choice, and use C for math. About the only
thing I would need a GUI for is to view .picture files. That's my main use of
Winblows these days, and even that's fairly rare. To get on the net, I login
to a shell account with minicom as the term proggie.
I really should get into ASCII graphics. (: I'm definitely old school with
computer use!
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
