In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, DeMoN_LaG says...
>
>>>Red Hat makes money off selling Linux CDs and Linux books, as well as
>>>providing tech support. You can go to their web site and download Linux
>>>for free. The only catch is you get no manuals, and they won't provide
>>>tech support. HAHAHA, why am I telling you this? You are the know all
>>>god of open source, you know all this already
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I do. Thanks for expounding on my very point.
>
>
>You just agreed with me... I'm scared now
>
Good, we're finally getting somewhere.
>
>>>Microsoft can sell software to their hearts content. It's just a shame
>>>that I paid for an operating system and instead got a web browser
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You didn't get an OS with your web browser?
>
>
>Nope. Just IE.
>
I'd bitch if I was you.
>
>>>Um, ok. Mozilla is free. Mozilla is the software people are
>>>developing. You make it sound like someone on the outside works on the
>>>instant messaging code and is then prohibited from using it. Anything
>>>contributed to mozilla.org is free for public use, and free to use in
>>>any commercial product.
>>>
>>
>> Really? So I could take Maozilla, bundle it with my own Instant Messaging
>> utility (supporting both AOL's proprietary IM and non-proprietary,
>> standards-based ones), rework the email reader to read not only regular pop3 and
>> imap email, but also AOL email, and, oh, say MSN email, rename it "Crapzilla",
>> rip out the XUL thereby at least doubling it's speed, give it away (sans source
>> of course), and not expect AOL to be on my ass in a New York minute?
>
>
>You could go ahead and build AOL Email and IM support into it. At that
>point AOL would step in and block your software, because that is their
>PRIVATELY OWNED service.
Right, a user would have to pay AOL to get AOL email, and AOL wouldn't even have
to spend time working on the client, because I'd have Crapzilla and it'd by
default be better than any software to ever be touched by the greasy hands of
AOL. So what's AOL's bitch?
> MSN Email also, would end up being blocked by
>MSN because they OWN and generate a PROFIT from that service.
If I had AOL email and IM in it, I somehow doubt I'd get any flak from MS.
> If you
>were to include support for some web based email somehow, and the
>company didn't have a problem with it, then you could do what you wanted
>with it
>
Right.
>
>>
>>
>>> Are you missing a few brain cells or something?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well, since, as you say, my lips have been stuck to Bill Gates' rectum for so
>> long....
>
>
>So Bill Gates' farts kill brain cells?
>
Well you seem to be the expert of all things lower-GI here, you tell me.
>
>>>Excuse me??? Software involves no labor?
>>>
>>
>> No. When you get to high school, please take "Intro to Economics for the Slow
>> 000.1". Even they'll cover the difference between "fixed" and "variable" costs
>> on the first day.
>>
>> Man.
>
>
>Yes it does.
Once more, slowly: "No, that's not what I said."
[snip]
>
>>
>>
>>> So you mean I just sit down
>>>and type:
>>>Ok computer, I want a W3C complient web browser, and all the source for
>>>it, hit enter and then suddenly a couple hundred million lines of code
>>>pop up and I get a web browser? No, not quite. It takes a very, very
>>>long time to write a web browser.
>>>
>>
>> Fixed cost. How much does it cost to deliver each browser, Mr. Lag? That's
>> variable cost. The class I mentioned above will show you graphs and everything
>> that will hopefully make the difference clear, once you're able to absorb the
>> concepts.
>
>
>We are discussing costs.
I am. I'm not quite sure what you're discussing.
> You said it requires no labor.
I said nothing of the sort. I said software has no variable cost. I also said
you're way out of your league here, and need to take an economics class in order
to look like less of a fool in this discussion.
God, why do I bother.
> It does
>require labor. Not physical labor, but labor indeed. There are people
>working on this project who probably spend 2 or 3 late nights a week, up
>till the wee hours of the morning trying to finish up a snippet of code,
>or fix a bug, or gain some performance. And they aren't doing it for
>money. They are doing it because they believe in the project, and they
>are taking time from their day to sit and fix something because they
>want to.
Do they do this on each individual copy of Mozilla? Or do they do it once, and
then each copy is "produced" without any labor?
> If you don't understand that, go away.
>
Do you at long last understand the difference between "fixed" and "variable"
cost, my dear Mr. Lag? If you don't understand that, shut your word hole.
>>> It's taken MS over 5 years and they
>>>still haven't done it right.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yeah yeah. It's taken Maozilla over three years and they still haven't even
>> gotten the design right.
>
>
>Really? Actually, I believe the design is something that is very right.
> Very sleek interface, well laid out icons and buttons, simple to use
>UI. Hell, my girlfriend can use N6.1 PR1, she's not a nerd.
>
<Pepsi sprays out of nose> Yeah, you keep tellin' yerself that.
>> --
>> JTK
>>
>
>
>Ya know, if you used a real newsreader it would put "-- " instead of
>"--", because then other real newsreaders (like, hey!, Mozilla) could
>strip your signature off automatically
This better? I have to apologize, I am not nearly nerdly enough to have known
that you needed a space after the two minuses. And I'm using a web-based
newsgroup "reader", which Maozilla won't interface to to do such wonderful
things for me.
--
JTK
"He that heareth, let him hear; and he that forbeareth, let him forbear:
for they are a rebellious house" - Ezekiel 3:27
