Linux-Advocacy Digest #204, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
I'm "Giving Back": Free Distro Sets! ("Gregory Keith Day")
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source (Dave Martel)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Jerry Coffin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Terry Porter)
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Terry Porter)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Terry Porter)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Dave Martel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:42:06 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > http://www2.usermagnet.com/cox/index.html
> > > > >
> > > > > 'nuff said.
> > > >
> > > > Not really. I think Alan made a critical error in mentioning the
> > > > internet. The Internet was funded by the government, and all of
> > > > it's development and code was made available as either public domain
> > > > or business friendly licensing (such as the BSDL).
> > >
> > > But imagine what it would look like if Microsoft developed it (or any
> > > other commercial softare company).
> > >
> > > You don't need to imagine; just remember the old MSN that Microsoft
> > > used before they went to TCP/IP. It was horrible.
> >
> > You, and most other people are confusing GPL and Open Source. Mundies
> > comments are particularly against the GPL, not Open Source.
> >
> > While MS made comments about Open Source having a difficult business
model
> > to sustain, its primary beef was with the GPL. Notice that they are
only
> > questioning the business model of Open Source, but are attacking the
GPL's
> > effect on business directly.
> >
> > Don't make the mistake of trying to claim MS is against Open Source.
They
> > could care less if someone gives their code away. What they care about
is
> > that the GPL prevents businesses from taking advantage of code paid for
by
> > taxpayer dollars.
>
> No, I'm not confusing anything. You're trying to back-peddle on your
> claim that proprietary intellectual property was the *real* motivating
> force behind the internet.
Indeed it was. Without proprietary IP, the companies involved in growing
and commercializing the internet would have never done it. The Internet was
founded on completely open and public domain information, which is what
allowed companies to make their own proprietary versions.
We would not have the internet as we know it, and probably would have never
even had Linux, had it not been for the fact that the protocols and code
were made publicly available for unrestricted use.
> I agree 100% with your statements above, but that is not what I was
> addressing.
You seemed to be saying that MS is against open protocols and open source.
Well, any company is. Even so called "open" companies like Sun. They use
openness as a tool to gain more marketshare, and would just as soon close
everything up as soon as they gained a majority share.
> > > > In fact, most of the Internet pioneers only did so because they
> > > > could make money off selling their proprietary implemenations (DEC,
> > > > Sun, IBM, etc..). If the original Internet code had been released
> > > > GPL, we'd probably all be running DECNET or something similar today.
> > >
> > > What's your reasoning behind this? The only internet I remember is
> > > the one where everyone was trying to be BSD-compatible in their TCP
> > > stack.
> >
> > The original internet wasn't even developed on Unix. My point is that,
if
> > the government had released the original DARPANET code under a license
like
> > the GPL, companies like DEC, IBM, and Sun would have never adopted it.
>
> Code != Protocol
While it's possible to build implementations on protocol specifications
alone, something as complex as a TCP/IP stack needs reference
implementations.
> Many (all?) TCP/IP stacks were developed to be BSD-compliant. The
> internet wasn't developed on UNIX, but UNIX made it what it is today
> (you're splitting hairs). Any way you look at it, Microsoft would
> have done everything *worse* than it is now (see SMB, ntrpc, ActiveX
> -- all communication technologies specifically designed to make people
> dependent on Windows).
ntrpc is DCE/RPC.
In any event, My argument has nothing to do with how MS would have done it.
My argument is against Alan's comment, which seems to have confused Mundie's
comments on GPL with Open Source in general. His comment insinuates that
The internet was built on the GPL, which it wasn't.
> > > > And he's CERTAINLY making a critical error when over exagerates the
> > > > forking of Windows (claiming that 98 and ME are seperate forks,
> > > > rather than simply next versions) and claiming that NT, 2000 and the
> > > > different editions are seperate forks as well. If that were the
> > > > case, then there are literally thousands of Linux forks, maybe
> > > > millions. There are three forks in Windows. 3.x/9x based systems,
> > > > NT based systems, and CE based systems. 3.x/9x based OS's are going
> > > > away this year, REDUCING the amount of forking in Windows (this is
> > > > something MS has been working to do for quite some time).
> > >
> > > Here's the comment in question:
> > >
> > > "...with Microsoft you must pick a prepackaged fork and live with it
> > > - 98, ME, NT, 2000 (all three versions), CE ... They do at least
> > > have a fair range of forks to choose from."
> > >
> > > I don't see the exaggeration that you do. He's saying: You CAN'T
> > > fork Windows, so you're stuck with what Microsoft decides is a good
> > > fork. Why is NT 4 build 1391 (or whatever)? What's to say that build
> > > 1345 or 1452 wasn't better; we'll never know.
> >
> > He's saying that 98, ME, NT, Three versions of 2000 and CE are all
seperate
> > forks. If they are, then Red Hat 7 is a fork, so is 7.1, so is 6.2.
That's
> > not the traditional definition of a fork.
>
> Okay, I'll bite: What is the "traditional definition" of a fork then?
A fork is when you take a single code base and seperate it into two code
bases with seperate development "tips". Most often, with different
political and/or technical objectives.
Linux kernel 2.4 is not a seperate fork from 2.2, it's a branch. A fork is
when the projects diverge (as in a fork in the road). An example of forking
would be BSD Light forking into OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD. Three
completely seperate projects or Emacs/XEmacs.
Technically, 16 bit based Windows (9x/ME) and NT are two entirely different
code bases without a common ancestor, but we can call them effective forks
since they both implement the majority of the same API's.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:44:34 -0500
"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cvmv3$l6n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >3.x/9x based systems, NT based systems, and CE based systems. 3.x/9x
based
> >OS's are going away this year, REDUCING the amount of forking in Windows
> >(this is something MS has been working to do for quite some time).
>
> 3.x/9x based OS's are going away this year.
>
> In your dreams. 3.x/9x based OS's aren't going anywhere, in fact they
pretty
> much are *going* to be the *LAST* Microsoft OS a huge number of people are
> going to be running on their various machines. For instance I'm NEVER
going
> to install a version of XP on any machine I own now or in the future. I
have
> an OEM cdrom containing WIN98 and I'll install windows from that if I need
a
> Windows partition.
People said the same thing about Windows 95, that they'd stay on Windows
3.1. Many companies, such as Lotus, Corel, WordPerfect, all believed this
so much that they never bothered to start development of a 9x version until
their customers started demanding one.
You're making the classic error of underestimating your enemy. (and also
making the classic mistake of "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a
mistake" if you truly believe what you believe).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:47:44 -0500
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 4 May 2001 18:31:23 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Not only that, but the cost for entry into Windows development is too
> >> high now as well. It used to be that companies could charge $1000 (or
> >> more) from their developers, but those days are gone now; I just
> >> recieved my copy of MacOS X and it includes all the developer tools on
> >> a separate CD *with* the OS.
> >
> >I guess that explains why Borlands new flagship Linux development tool is
> >$999.
>
> They're also saying they're going to release a free version of kylix
> for non-profit software development. Nyaaaaah! :-P
No they're not. They're releasing a Free version for GPL'd code. GPL'd
code can be 'for profit'.
But what you may not know is that their license forbids you from, say,
developing your code in the free version, then buying the pay version to
release your product as non-GPL'd. Anything you develop with the GPL'd
version (whether you release it with that version or not) must still be
GPL'd. (This was stated quite specifically in their newsgroups by a borland
spokesperson).
------------------------------
From: "Gregory Keith Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I'm "Giving Back": Free Distro Sets!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 23:02:01 +0000
I'm so thankful to the countless people who've helped me install, use,
admin, and eventually develop Linux that I'm giving back in a small but
hopefully helpful way. If you want a distro, just mail me! Reply to me,
not the group, and we can have a few email exchanges. I realize it
sounds rather shady, but I'm willing to mail a complete bootable CD-R set
of Redhat 7.1, Mandrake 8.0, or Debian Potato 2.2r3, for $5 a set. That
covers media and shipping.
Just reply back if you are interested, or know someone who might be.
This is just my way of giving back to all who've helped me. You guys
ROCK!
Greg Day
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:53:38 -0500
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Ny7I6.22197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > I guess it depends on what you mean by "secure". If someone doesn't
know
> > the decode algorithm, 4-bit encryption could be quite secure
>
> What crap. If you don't understand something don't make pathetic
> attempts to show that you do. ANY 4-bit encryption algorithm could be
> cracked by brute force in less time than it took you to write such
> rubbish. The best known encryption algorithms are known and open to
> peer review. If you invent a new encryption algorithm but won't make
> it open to peer review then it just will not be accepted. Security
> through obscurity just doesn't cut it at any time.
What's crap is your understanding.
You can only brute force it if you know the decode algorithm. You can
guess, and analyze and do lots of things, but it could be things like XORing
the data against a pets name, while rotating 3 bits and compressing it using
10 different compression algorithms. The number of possible combinations of
decode algorithms is limitless.
Yes, if you had the software that encoded the data, you could probably
reverse engineer it and figure it out, but if you only have encrypted data
and know that a key is 4 bits, then you could spend eternity looking for the
right algorithm.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 22:54:13 -0600
<http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/05/03/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/torvalds.htm>
"I'd rather listen to Newton than to Mundie. He may have been dead for
almost three hundred years, but despite that he stinks up the room
less."
He he!
That's just the wrap-up. The rest is a little nicer.
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:07:54 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> The pdp10 (and probably the earlier pdp6) had 8 bit bytes
> (as an option). Actually on that machine a byte was defined as
> a contiguous group of bits within a word (word was 36 bits).
> Thus 8 bit bytes could be done...or many other sizes.
Yes, it could be done. I've never heard of anybody who really did it
though -- the vast majority of the time people used 7 bits per
character. Sometimes they used nine. Eight was rare at best.
> However
> the IBM 360 came out about the same time as the pdp10 (1964 I
> believe) and at that point people started moving to 8 bit
> units rather than submultiples of 36 bits.
The 360 was released in 1964, but the PDP-8 wasn't released until
1965, so even if some people did decide to use 8-bit characters on
the PDP-8, IBM was doing it first.
Some people resisted the change for a LONG time though: CDC's
mainframes still used their own oddball 6-bit character set until at
least the Cyber 18x series of the early '80s. I believe the Cyber
20x series (all three they ever built <G>) may have used ASCII, but I
don't know of any others.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:58:10 -0500
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
> > http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-053.html
> >
> > What exactly is your point?
>
> Point 1. Microsoft, in spite of its immense revenues,
> big teams, beta programs, and testing, still
> produces some amazing problems at regular and
> frequent intervals. (Against which the problems
> you quote above are essentially trivial.)
Trivial? Considering that MS produces BILLIONS of lines of code every year,
it's not surprising there are bugs.
A typical Linux distribution has billions of dollars worth of volunteer time
put into it, and more people looking at it than MS, yet it still gets very
major problems.
> Point 2. Microsoft exhibits arrogant grandstanding and a
> contempt for the user's intelligence, honesty,
> and freedom to choose.
Much like you are exhibiting here.
> Point 3. I wouldn't trust Microsoft for security or fair
> behavior.
No, that wasn't your original point. Your original point was to say "Look,
MS is insecure because they have bugs". Well, people that live in glass
houses...
> Point 4. Free software is a good answer to Microsoft.
Perhaps. We'll see.
>
> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60173,00.html
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60163,00.html
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60115,00.html
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59982,00.html
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59697,00.html
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59121,00.html
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59065,00.html
> > > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO58036,00.html
>
> --
> Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 05 May 2001 05:08:06 GMT
On Fri, 4 May 2001 23:44:34 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cvmv3$l6n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >3.x/9x based systems, NT based systems, and CE based systems. 3.x/9x
> based
>> >OS's are going away this year, REDUCING the amount of forking in Windows
>> >(this is something MS has been working to do for quite some time).
>>
>> 3.x/9x based OS's are going away this year.
>>
>> In your dreams. 3.x/9x based OS's aren't going anywhere, in fact they
> pretty
>> much are *going* to be the *LAST* Microsoft OS a huge number of people are
>> going to be running on their various machines. For instance I'm NEVER
> going
>> to install a version of XP on any machine I own now or in the future. I
> have
>> an OEM cdrom containing WIN98 and I'll install windows from that if I need
> a
>> Windows partition.
>
> People said the same thing about Windows 95, that they'd stay on Windows
> 3.1. Many companies, such as Lotus, Corel, WordPerfect, all believed this
> so much that they never bothered to start development of a 9x version until
> their customers started demanding one.
Thats true, so they did, but I think it was Windos3.11.
I wonder how many Windows3.11 install remain ?
Another interesting thing, about a year ago I installed Win3.1 on my 686/300
just to see how it went, and it went *dam* fast!
>
> You're making the classic error of underestimating your enemy.
I don't know that Microsoft is Chris Lee's enemy, but Eric is right.
> (and also
> making the classic mistake of "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a
> mistake" if you truly believe what you believe).
Hahahah, you'd make a serious adversary Eric.
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:01:35 -0500
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <v_CI6.22359$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, if Open Source software is so thoroughly tested, how come programs
> > like BIND have had the same bugs for 10+ years without being found?
>
> And how long before a fix was available once found? Also, Microsoft
> must be reasonably confident with BIND since their own DNS has been
> farmed out to a company that uses Linux/BIND following their recent
> DNS embarrassment.
Fixes to issues appear quickly from MS. There is quite a large list of
hotfixes.
You're trying to deflect your embarassment over being called on this. It
doesn't matter what MS's confidence in BIND is, the fact of the matter is
that bugs exist, and they sometimes exist for a decade or more with people
looking at them every day. Yet bugs are also found without the source code,
just as easily it would seem.
> > Fact is, bugs exist. MS has fixed the problem in Windows 2000, which is
> > what all their new OS's are based on.
>
> So you are saying that Microsoft have already stopped supporting NT4.
> Shouldn't they inform the millions of NT4 users to 'upgrade' to W2K
> immediately because their NT4 IP is basically insecure?
Does Red Hat inform all their 5.0 users that they should upgrade because
they have tons of problems?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 05 May 2001 05:18:09 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:01:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would
> use her real name in a advocacy group.
Except you're not a she, you're a him.
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>
>
> flatfish
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:12:26 -0500
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > People said the same thing about Windows 95, that they'd stay on Windows
> > 3.1. Many companies, such as Lotus, Corel, WordPerfect, all believed
this
> > so much that they never bothered to start development of a 9x version
until
> > their customers started demanding one.
> Thats true, so they did, but I think it was Windos3.11.
>
> I wonder how many Windows3.11 install remain ?
Not many. Certainly almost none on the internet (according to the varisou
browser counting services). They do still remain in small offices that
still have old 286's, but as that hardware dies, they have to replace it
with something.
Corel actually thought they had a nice strategy a few years ago. Noticing
that MS and just about everyone else had abandonded the 3.1 market, they
decided to port CorelOffice to 3.1, figuring they'd reap huge amounts of
dollars. The problem, people that haven't upgraded their 3.1 machines yet
are probably so cheap they'd never buy new software. They had warehouses
full of unsold inventory.
> Another interesting thing, about a year ago I installed Win3.1 on my
686/300
> just to see how it went, and it went *dam* fast!
Yes, of course. It's quite small.
> > You're making the classic error of underestimating your enemy.
> I don't know that Microsoft is Chris Lee's enemy, but Eric is right.
Enemy is a loose term.
> > (and also
> > making the classic mistake of "Never interrupt your enemy when he's
making a
> > mistake" if you truly believe what you believe).
> Hahahah, you'd make a serious adversary Eric.
That's just Sun Tsu, something anyone should be familiar with.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 05 May 2001 05:20:25 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:02:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 04 May 2001 00:57:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
> wrote:
>
>
>>For fear of discovery no doubt.
>
> Hmmm 15 msessages and not one segment of useful material.
Still afraid of discovery I see.
>
> Stick to coding because the Linux users are doing better without you.
Still afraid of discovery I see.
>
> Flatfish aka:-
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:18:19 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Not only that, but the cost for entry into Windows development is
> >> too high now as well. It used to be that companies could charge
> >> $1000 (or more) from their developers, but those days are gone now;
> >> I just recieved my copy of MacOS X and it includes all the
> >> developer tools on a separate CD *with* the OS.
> >
> > I guess that explains why Borlands new flagship Linux development
> > tool is $999.
>
> And my logo interpretter cost money for my Apple //c -- I still had
> standard development tools included with the system (assembler,
> debugger and BASIC).
And "debug" still ships with Windows, even NT. You can assemble and debug
in it.
> > > Microsoft will bundle *some* software with Windows when it is
> > > convenient (Word, Explorer, Media Player, etc.), but not their
> > > development software -- even though they claim that their new goal is
> > > "openness". One cannot look into the scheduler for Windows 2000
> > > without some serious red tape being cut; OTOH, one *can* grab up
> > > Darwin, BSD or Linux and tweak the hell out of the scheduler to their
> > > heart's content.
> >
> > Something that so few people will ever do as to make it all but
> > insignificant.
>
> That is why you will fail. You don't get it.
No, you don't get it. You don't succeed by focusing on 1% to the detriment
of the 99%.
> > There are plenty of free products, such as GCC available for Win32.
> > Nobody needs to resort to piracy.
>
> I didn't realize that you got the debug libraries, header files,
> profiling support, manual pages and everything else required for
> development with gcc/win32.
All of which are freely downloadable (and have been for years).
http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/setuplauncher.asp
> > You should really stop exagerating your points.
>
> Ditto.
I'm not exagerating anything.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 23:35:59 -0600
On Fri, 4 May 2001 23:47:44 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 4 May 2001 18:31:23 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Not only that, but the cost for entry into Windows development is too
>> >> high now as well. It used to be that companies could charge $1000 (or
>> >> more) from their developers, but those days are gone now; I just
>> >> recieved my copy of MacOS X and it includes all the developer tools on
>> >> a separate CD *with* the OS.
>> >
>> >I guess that explains why Borlands new flagship Linux development tool is
>> >$999.
>>
>> They're also saying they're going to release a free version of kylix
>> for non-profit software development. Nyaaaaah! :-P
>
>No they're not. They're releasing a Free version for GPL'd code. GPL'd
>code can be 'for profit'.
Not according to Mundie. :)
>But what you may not know is that their license forbids you from, say,
>developing your code in the free version, then buying the pay version to
>release your product as non-GPL'd. Anything you develop with the GPL'd
>version (whether you release it with that version or not) must still be
>GPL'd. (This was stated quite specifically in their newsgroups by a borland
>spokesperson).
Makes sense, considering how the GPL is written.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
