JTK wrote:
> 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.
Not really. I still find you annoying, you still have no idea what you
are arguing about.
>
>
>>>>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.
I do, every time I see "Iexplore.exe caused a General protection
fault..." followed by a blue screen
>
>
>>>>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?
Gee, Outlook nor Outlook Express can access AOL mail either. Go figure,
jackass.
>
>
>> 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.
No, but they would get huge amounts of flak if they put MSN Messanger
and support for hotmail. As would Eudora or any other email client if
it had support for proprietary services
>
>
>> 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.
The reason that everyone can make a POP3 email client is that no one
owns POP3. It's an open standard. Like http and ftp. No one entity
owns them. AOL, on the other hand, has a propriatary system for their
email. They own it. Just as MS owns the system for Hotmail.
>
>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
No one has any clue what you're discussing. As soon as you totally lose
an issue you say "Mozilla sucks" and start ranting about not being able
to check your AOL mail through it or something. You completely avoid
the fact that NO OTHER EMAIL CLIENT IN THE WORLD except for AOL's
proprietary clients can access it either
>
>
>> 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.
I don't know, why do you?
>
>
>> 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?
Mozilla is open source. It is also a web browser. The web is not
static. The web change, and evolves. These people who do so much great
work here, will continue to do so until they quit. There will be new
standards for them to code, performance gains make, and documentation to
write. It's a never ending job
>
>
>> 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.
Fixed: Static. Unchanging
Variable: Dynamic. Changing
>
>
>>>>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.
Thanks, I will
>
>
>>>--
>>>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.
*gasp* You are going to say that Mozilla can't access a web based news
service through the news client??? Oh my god, how has this feature been
left out. I mean, IE has had this for, what, 5, 10 years now? Oh? IE
doesn't have this feature? What is this? No browser/news client
anywhere has this feature? Oh, so you are a jackass too? Wow, I'm
impresssed. You lost the argument for yourself. Genius
