Linux-Advocacy Digest #184, Volume #33 Fri, 30 Mar 01 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Windows "speed" (Barry Manilow)
Re: TurboLinux Lite (Brent R)
NO operating system is secure... (Brent R)
Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel (J Sloan)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is (J Sloan)
Re: Communism ("Andrew Manore")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("Michael Allen")
Re: All your PCI slot are belong to Microsoft. (Ray Chason)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Windows "speed"
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:52:34 -0800
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Barry Manilow wrote:
> >
> > "T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > NT is
> > > certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
> >
> > I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20% slower
> > than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
> > be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend has
> > it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
> > using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
> > lumbering beast.
> > --
> > Bob
> > Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> > today!
> > Why do you think you are being flamed?
> > [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> > [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> > [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> > [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> > [ ] Other (describe)
> > [ ] None of the above
>
> Hello Barry.
Grey Cloud! Wassup my man? LTNS. :)
That's about what I've read in the microsoft performance
> ng.
> It just keeps getting slower by each release. Some say Solaris is slow,
> but on my machine as compared to win98, its a lot faster than win98.
>
Yes it used to be, "Boot Windows, get a cup of coffee". But if this
trend keeps going, it'll be, "Boot Windows, go to Colombia."
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: TurboLinux Lite
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 03:59:56 GMT
Barry Manilow wrote:
>
> Hi folks to get off the wonderful commie subject for a sec, I have the
> opportunity to get a copy of Turbo Linux Lite from a friend of mine.
> I figured it was probably legal to have him burn a copy of it and give
> it to me but I wanted to check in here to see first. I have never
> used Linux before. I have only used DOS, WinDOS 3x, 95, 98, Win NT,
> Mac OS and OS/2. I also would have to figure out how to partition a
> drive on my hard drive to install it. I suppose I will have to use
> Lilo? The drive is already partitioned between OS/2 Warp 4.5 and
> WinDOS 98. Wondering what the Lite in the title of the distrib
> means? Also wondering where I can find any docs on TurboLinux. TIA
> to all answers. Also wondering whether my system will support Linux.
>
> Basic Quantum Hard drive.
> Creative Sound Blaster 16 PNP PCI card
> Epson ES-1200C scanner
> Canon BJC-6000 printer
> Adaptec AVA-1505 SCSI card
> Diamond Stealth III S540 video card
> Mitsumi CD-ROM
> Mitsumi CR-4804TE
> US Robotics 56K FAX EXT PnP external modem
> Asus motherboard
> Aladdin chipset
> --
> Bob
> Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
> today!
> Why do you think you are being flamed?
> [ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
> [ ] You started an off-topic thread
> [ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
> [ ] People don't like your tone of voice
> [ ] Other (describe)
> [ ] None of the above
I've heard bad things about that distro.. and I think they are out of
business. Might be better to get Red Hat or Mandrake.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NO operating system is secure...
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:03:19 GMT
when you have dumb users:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/550850.asp
Also anyone else think it's kind of weird how MSNBC will criticize
Microsoft's security and still use Active Server?
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:08:20 GMT
Alan Po wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Would you tell me the size of Linux 2.4.1 kernel? Is it very large?
>
The compressed image is just over 600k -
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 661329 Mar 26 12:57 vmlinuz
However dmesg tells me the kernel occupies 878k of RAM -
Then there is the cumulative memory usage of the kernel modules -
# lsmod
Module Size Used by
sr_mod 12448 0 (autoclean)
cdrom 27008 0 (autoclean) [sr_mod]
isofs 18528 0 (autoclean)
iptable_filter 1824 0 (autoclean) (unused)
ip_nat_ftp 3280 0 (unused)
iptable_nat 13376 1 [ip_nat_ftp]
ip_conntrack_ftp 2016 0 (unused)
ip_conntrack 13440 2 [ip_nat_ftp iptable_nat
ip_conntrack_ftp]
ip_tables 10784 4 [iptable_filter iptable_nat]
scanner 6560 0 (unused)
tdfx 53328 1
ide-scsi 8080 0
scsi_mod 92720 2 [sr_mod ide-scsi]
autofs 10752 1 (autoclean)
eepro100 17072 2 (autoclean)
emu10k1 44880 0
mousedev 4160 0 (unused)
hid 12352 0 (unused)
input 3392 0 [mousedev hid]
usb-ohci 15472 0 (unused)
usbcore 51536 1 [scanner hid usb-ohci]
The compressed archive is just over 20 MB:
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root root 20499361 Feb 21 17:00
linux-2.4.2.tar.bz2
However the directory it creates when uncompressed is much larger:
# du -sk linux
133632 linux
So the answer could be anywhere from 600k to 130 MB depending
on what you mean by "Linux" -
cu
Jup
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:16:04 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The four most critical
> > pieces of infrastructure that make the Internet work are BIND [Berkeley
> > Internet Name Daemon], Perl, Sendmail, and Apache. Everyone of them is
> free
> > software.
>
> You mean DNS,
check
> CGI (why is this an infrastructure?)
huh? he never mentioned CI, why would you make a leap like that?
> , SMTP,
OK
> HTTP ?
OK
>
> I would add FTP,
a minor role in comparison -
> NNTP,
Many people read news entirely via http these days.
> Goper,
Pretty much gone at this point, hardly infrastructure.
> POP3 and some other protocols, but that is
> beside the point.
> Don't confuse the applications with the protocols they implement.
He's not confusing anything, however you did confound
perl with cgi (I still don't get how where you pulled that from).
He is absolutely correct in that sendmail is the de facto standard
mail transport agent of the internet, in fact, sendmail.com could be
accused of a monopoly based solely on their market share.
Likewise bind, which is the standard name resolution protocol
on the internet, and like sendmail, developed at Berkeley.
Apache powers the majority of web sites in the world, again
an open standard.
Perl (not "cgi") is the glue which hooks so many parts of
the internet "wiring" together behind the scenes. You may
have heard of perl only in a "cgi" or "web" context, but
perl was a popular and well respected tool before the web
existed, and does a great many other things you would
not have thought of -
Hope this helps,
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Andrew Manore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:16:21 -0500
"Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ah but they love Castro. That is the part of the equation that u
> missed.
Speaking of Castro, when's that old fuck either going to dry
up and die or get shot down by Cuban freedom-fighters?
--
Andrew Manore
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ Number: 1004725 - "f0gger" on AOL IM
PGP Keys: DH/DSS: 0x53345629 | RSA: 0x5856C691
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
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: 29 Mar 2001 14:27:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[comin back]
JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The GPL encumbers beyond the objects being transferred.
It doesn't, really. It only encumbers the redistribution of GPLed code.
>The GPL ADDS restrictions, and the BSDL removes most of them.
Please name *one* restriction that has been ADDED by the GPL.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
The Wright Bothers weren't the first to fly. They were just the
first not to crash.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:40:13 GMT
Said Roger in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:52:26 -0600;
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:36:11 GMT, someone claiming to be T. Max Devlin
>wrote:
>
>>Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001
>
>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>>> Nope, sorry, can't blame hardware. Not unless you can point to
>
>>>I can't. Watch me: I've seen different behaviours on various systems with
>>>different versions of
>
>>And made assumptions about the variables that are entirely unsupported,
>>and in fact ridiculous, no doubt. Like my old buddy Roger, who had to
>>replace his video *hardware* to get *IE* to work, and acted as if it was
>>a hardware failure.
>
>1. Not now, nor never was your buddy
>
>2. Never made such a claim.
Yup, all happened, just like I said. We even reprised the discussion a
couple times over the last year or so. You posted the whole story
yourself, to illustrate why Windows failures can be blamed on
"hardware". You got IE5, and installed it, and your computer crashed,
so you got a new video card, and that "fixed" the "problem".
>Of course, what can you expect from a person with so much Internet
>experience that he once berated another poster for using his
>postmaster's IP address. Said address being 127.0.01.
No, that's 127.0.0.1, and it is not "his postmaster's IP address".
>Or that MS had a monopoly on OS before the IBM PC.
Depending on whether you consider a monopoly "successful" at less than
100%. The vast majority of all microcomputers developed in the early
80s used Microsoft's ROM BASIC, largely "successful" because of the same
kind of business strategies they later used with DOS, and now Windows.
>Or...
>
> ... but you get the idea.
Yea, I think they do. Thank you *very* much for your time, Roger.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:44:28 GMT
Said Dave Martel in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:10:36
>On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:48:51 GMT, "Michael Allen"
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
><http://www.toad.com/gnu/whatswrong.html>
>What's Wrong With Copy Protection
>John Gilmore, 16 February 2001
[...]
>What is wrong is that we have invented the technology to eliminate
>scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those
>who profit from scarcity. [...]
Unethically profiting from scarcity, there's a term for that, isn't
there?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:44:30 GMT
Said Andy S. (AJS) in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:44:51
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> If only they'd be content with 'every way legally possible', not that
>> purposeful gaining of market share isn't the epitome of
>> "monopolization", outlawed by the Sherman Act more than a hundred years
>> ago.
>
>Actually an organization being a Monopoly is not illegal. Only when the
>organization uses it's Monopolistic powers to force out competition is when
>the Sherman Act comes into play.
Section 2 of the sherman act states specifically (and I'm not even
paraphrasing) that it is a felony to monopolize or attempt to
monopolize. The relationship between that an "being a monopoly" is a
grammatical, not a legal, distinction.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:44:31 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001
15:05:10 +0200;
>
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le
>message news: 99upqv$7r9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> I don't care what some benchmarks say - I am interested in using computers
>> rather than just looking at some artificial numbers. The fact is that NT
>is
>
>Then again Winstone benchmarks are using the actual applications, even if
>those are benchmarks.
>
>> significantly faster for a "power user" than Win9x. I have NT on a 300
>MHz
>
>Microsoft agrees to the 30% figure.
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/performance/overview.asp
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/performance/reports/zdla
>bs.asp
>
>Remeber that they sell the all those systems.
>
>> machine at work, and 98SE on an 800 MHz machine at home, and I know which
>
>I know nothing about the memory of the two systems, speed of the disks,
>quality of the interface, wether UDMA is enabled or no, a whole slew of
>variables. So your point doesn't carry much weight.
>
>> one is faster for real work (web development stuff, programming, database
>> serving, Delphi, text file editing, Python, PHP, etc. all at much the same
>
>Text file editing ? :)
>
>> time). Win9x can stop up entirely while waiting for some operations. NT
>
>For heavy I/O access ?
>
>> (mostly) keeps on going, and if something does go wrong, it is (normally)
>> easy to kill rogue processes without restarting the whole machine, and it
>is
>> easy to change priorities of processes. As for floppy disk access, NT
>does
>
>That's true. I never argued that WinNT wasn't a better OS for 'power users",
>I argued that it's multitasking abilities weren't *that* inferior with
>regards to speed.
>
>What kills Win98
>
>Limited amound of so called resources (Win16 compatibility requirement for
>the GDI)
>So so Memory management (I have no idea why).
>The need to thunk between 16/32 bits mode (some speed is lost here).
>Partial memory protection (apps can still write in the system memory space,
>Win16 compatibilty requirement).
>
>All that makes for the inferior scalability and robustness of Win98.
>
>> it happily in the background, while Win98SE takes a break. In fact, my
>> Win98 machine often hangs while copying back and forth on an IDE ZIP
>drive.
>
>It would be interesting if you could dual boot each system and observe the
>floppy access. Dollars to doonuts that Win98 on your work machine woudn't
>have problem accessing the floppy.
Other than my natural instinct to rant, I can't really disagree with
anything you've said. But just because the odds are good, doesn't mean
I like gambling, that's all I'm saying.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:48:36 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le
>message news: 99vght$n06$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> >Remeber that they [Microsoft] sell the all those systems.
>>
>> Remember also that they earn significantly more profit on NT/W2k than on
>> W9x, so they are not unbiased.
>
>That's exactly my point, they should be then extolling the virtues of NT/2K
>and hype it's superiority over Win9x, don't you think ?
No, they should be "fixing" WinDOS, or lowering the price of an
acceptable to system to the acceptable market value. IOW, the only
reason MS could possibly charge more for the replacement is if they're
monopolizing. And indeed, they are. And so its not an issue of
compatibility or superiority or costs, its simply a matter of monopoly
pricing. Microsoft finds, ironically, that even if you *have* a
monopoly, people don't *like* paying monopoly prices.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:50:22 GMT
Said Bob G in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:10:12 GMT;
[...]
>I love my country ! It's the politicians I don't
>like or trust.
So does that make you patriotic, or idealistic?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Michael Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:53:50 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Michael Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001 03:48:51
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said HIM in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 12:51:40 -0500;
> >> >
> >> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good. The
> >> >> more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
> >> >
> >> >MS never bet the farm on anything. And probably never will.
> >>
> >> Other than the monopoly, we presume you mean. Watch what happens when
> >> the stock hits $30.
> >>
> >> >And as far as
> >> >content protection goes they could care less.Why would they?
> >>
> >> Because Bill Gates has always dreamed of being able to charge people
for
> >> using intellectual property.
> >
> >It is not a dream, it happens every day across multiple industries.
Books,
> >movies, music, software, etc. etc.
>
> BZZZZ. Sorry, only software belongs in that category, and then only
> speculatively. You obviously misunderstood the concept. You pay for a
> *book* or a *performance* or what have you, not any "use of intellectual
> property". Only producers do that. As for software, we're not talking
> about charging for "licenses to use" (which aren't, by the way, licenses
> to use, but trade secret agreements pretending to be licenses to copy),
> we're talking about charging for actual use.
IP encompasses patents, trademarks and copyrights. Individuals and
corporations charge millions of dollars every day for the use of their
patented, trademarked and copyrighted IP. You are demonstrating your
ignorance of this topic and the law.
>
> >The owner of intellectual property has
> >every right, supported by existing law on the books today, to charge
people
> >for the use of their property.
>
> BZZZZ. This is, again, a misconception. The *only* right the owner of
> intellectual property has is the ability to determine (and charge for
> such consideration) who can *produce* his works. Copyright gives no
> power whatsoever to charge for use of IP. You have been duped by the
> trade secret licenses, and you are not alone.
Here's the code (you are wrong again). Note that the copyright owner has
the "exclusinve rights to do and to authorize any of the following", and
note the words "sale", "rental", "lease" and "lending" in subsection 3.
(and this is only one small piece of Title 17).
US Code, Title 17 COPYRIGHTS; Chapter 1 SUBJECT MATTER AND SCOPE OF
COPYRIGHT; Section 106: Exclusive rights in copyrighted works.
Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title
has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1)
to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or
phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted
work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic
works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to
perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical,
dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or
sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or
other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in
the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by
means of a digital audio transmission. "
>
> >I've always been amazed by people (such as
> >some Napster users) who don't believe the IP owner has the right to
charge
> >for his own property. Max, do you believe people have the right to
download
> >music (IP) they have not paid for without the artist's (owner's)
approval?
> >I'd like to know where you stand on this.
>
> Who's "they"?
"they" can be anyone, you or me. And I'll ask the question again: Do you
believe an individual has the right to download a copy of a song they have
not paid for? Yes or No. I say No.
> I believe copyright law (and, more importantly, popular
> misconceptions about copyright law) needs to be modified to become
> reasonable. It may have been rational before, when it could be assumed
> that distribution required production. But since the costs of these
> things have dropped, and the prices haven't, there is every reason to
> believe that rather than exercising any "right to profit", corporate
> media owners are under the impression they have a right to profiteer.
Production and distribution *costs* do not impact rights granted under
copyright law. Just becasue those costs have tended to zero when the
Internet is the distribution channel does not mean the value of the IP has
changed in any way, shape or form. Using your logic, a Rolling Stones song
should sell for the same amount as the crap I could compose (or more
accurately, couldn't compose) as long as the distribution channel was the
Internet. That is absurd! The Stones have every right to charge
exponentially more for their IP than I do, and to earn exponentially more
profit from their IP than I can.
>
> >> He's described it clearly and directly, if
> >> you've been paying attention. (Start with "The Road Ahead", if you're
> >> catching up. A painful read, but with some very interesting parts.)
> >> "Content protection" is just like "software piracy"; a rubric with
which
> >> IP use becomes IP licensing, and thus IP rental.
> >>
> >Regarding IP rental, it will work in any industry with any product if it
is
> >convienient for users and provides value.
>
> Well, it hasn't worked in any industry ever. Customers literally won't
> put up with it. And did you notice that your statement was a tautology?
> "It will work if it works." Its a false statement, though, because "IP
> rental" (per-use charges) doesn't provide convenience or value. It is
> literally only attractive to people who think they can use it as a sub
> rosa method of increasing prices by orders of magnitude while decreasing
> both the convenience and the value to the customer.
>
> >If it doesn't, it will die.
>
> Stillborn, more commonly.
>
> >Look
> >at DIVX (per use, rental charge for DVDs) for example. It wasn't
convenient
> >for users, was confusing in it's implementation, didn't provide value
(i.e.
> >was too expensive) and thus, it died a natural death in the marketplace.
>
> Stillborn, just like all such attempts, as I said. There's nothing
> natural about such schemes; they're attempts at monopolization, not free
> marketplace behavior.
>
We agree here - if it isn't natural or convienient or doesn't provide value,
it will not fly or will be stillborn. But the IP owner still has the right
to charge whatever they want for their IP. Spielberg has every right to
charge $100 per ticket for his next movie, and $500 for every copy sold on
DVD or VHS. If consumers don't want to pay that much, they will vote with
their feet and wallets. But that doesn't mean Spielberg can't try it, and
it doesn't mean an individual has the right to make a copy of the movie.
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All your PCI slot are belong to Microsoft.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:55:34 -0000
Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Try swapping two PCI cards between slots sometime and booting Windows.
>Don't know about later versions of Windows, but under Win98SE there's
>a very good chance that you'll have to reinstall drivers for both
>cards. It would be a _major_ tech-support headache if consumers who
>didn't realize this, decided to reposition cards just to arrange the
>connectors to suit their tastes.
Yes, I've observed this effect. I've observed it with USB devices
for that matter. It would make more sense to fix Windoze, but that
would require Microsoft to actually give a damn.
>Actually I think the whole sh*tty Intel-platform monstrosity needs to
>be thrown out. That's one more reason I'm excited about linux - it
>breaks would-be platform designers out of the applications catch-22.
>As linux spreads we should begin to see some more sensible computing
>platforms.
Yes, it'd be nice if there were a Mac with PC-like expandability. Or
if I could scrape together enough $$$$$$$$$$ for an Alpha.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
