Linux-Advocacy Digest #396, Volume #25 Fri, 25 Feb 00 23:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ? (Barry Margolin)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet Censorship
("Boris")
Re: Giving up on NT (Jim Frost)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Russell Senior)
Re: Can I do this with Linux? (david parsons)
Re: C vs C++ (david parsons)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: IE on UNIX (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Jim Richardson)
Re: Want to work with OSS for a living? (MA) (Jim Richardson)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is it OK to re-release a GPL app as binary-only ?
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:09:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 23:52:08 GMT, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Aaron M. Renn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:19:59 GMT, Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In fact it should. In a world without silly copyrights, we would not need the
>>>>GPL. There would be no basis for it, because the GPL is rooted in copyright
>>>>law.
>>>
>>>Actually, the GPL is rooted in contract law. Even in a world with no
>>>copyright, people could still distribute binary only software or force
>>>people to sign restrictive licenses in order to get a copy. The GPL is
>>>very useful here.
>>
>>But I wonder if they would bother. The GPL currently prohibits people from
>>giving up their redistribution rights. I believe this is because of RMS's
>
>The GPL does not grant any exclusive distribution rights to the licensees, so
>there are no such rights to speak of. Certain rights are granted provided that
>the conditions are met. To distribute outside of these conditions means going
>*beyond* the granted rights, in effect asserting more rights than you have been
>granted.
I never said anything about "exclusive" rights. The GPL grants the right
to redistribute, as long as you meet its conditions. Those conditions
include not adding additional restrictions to a recipient. That means you
can't demand that someone give up the redistribution rights that the GPL
grants in return for receiving the software from you. The only way you can
prevent them from redistributing it is to not distribute it to them in the
first place. It doesn't allow for any middle ground, even if the recipient
is totally willing to give up some of their rights. As a result, some
distribution might not take place because the GPL prohibits negotiating
a mutually agreeable compromise.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 26 Feb 2000 01:16:50 GMT
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 22:56:44 GMT, Barry Margolin wrote:
>>To put it bluntly, if your model is so darned good, should it not
>>be able to replace the traditional model without dismanteling the traditional
>>mdel entirely ?
>
>Isn't that what the free software movement is doing?
Yes, it is. Moreover, there are many developers in the free software
movement who are in favour of this approach, including Linus Torvalds
and Eric Raymond ( he says a lot of interesting things here :
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/
>proprietary model works best for specialty software, while free software
>works better for general-purpose software.
I'd tend to agree with this too. It certainly seems that this is the case at
least at present.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft, MS-Spammers, Gay Bashing, Right-wing Politics, Usenet
Censorship
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:16:59 GMT
Mark,
You again. Forgot to take your Proziac today?
Boris
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:894cjb$1si$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Drestin Black wrote:
> >> Mark S. Bilk ... Go screw yourself OK?
> >
> >I'm certain he has,,, many times. With light bulbs, po-go sticks,
> >plungers, gerbils and other devices.
> >
> >Take a look at :
>
>http://x42.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=493570751&CONTEXT=951347144.1067122696&hitnum
=0
> >for details.
> >
> >Steve
>
> That URL goes to an article I posted about a PBS documentary
> on kids being taught not to hate gay people. This is the
> correct URL, found by using the DejaNews power search
> and clicking on "view for bookmarking":
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=493570751
>
> Imagine what sort of mind Steve must have, to read about
> teaching children kindness, tolerance, and civil rights, and
> to associate that with the bizarre, bigoted, sadistic sexual
> fantasies that he posted.
>
> He also assumes that anyone who feels that homosexual people
> shouldn't be persecuted, and should have the same civil rights
> as everyone else, must themselves be homosexual. In other
> words, Steve hates gay people so much that he takes it for
> granted that all other non-gay people hate them too.
>
> Steve is one of a gang of spammers* who's been flooding the
> comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup for most of a year with
> thousands of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda articles
> (and he's used a lot of fake names to do it -- teknite77,
> steveno, sewer_rat99, skagg71, time2leave, theman, etc.).
>
> It may be relevant that about a year ago, an article in the
> San Jose Mercury noted that "Microsoft execs spend time at
> the Heritage Foundation." That's one of the largest Right-
> wing propaganda organizations in the US. Of course, it is
> opposed to civil rights for homosexual people.
>
> Did "Steve" (or whatever his real name is) learn to hate
> homosexual people, or to spout the particular kind of venom
> quoted above, at the Heritage Foundation? Probably not.
> But since Bill Gates is sending his executives there for
> political/cultural/economic indoctrination (that's what they
> do there), it wouldn't be surprising that some bigot in Micro-
> soft's PR department would employ a bigot like Steve to fill
> the c.o.l.a newsgroup with Microsoft's anti-Linux propaganda
> and thousands of garbage posts, to intimidate people so they
> drop the newsgroup and don't learn about Linux. It's a ques-
> tion of what type of political culture exists among Microsoft
> executives, and training at the Heritage Foundation pretty
> much guarantees the type that it's going to be.
>
> It's interesting to think of the pro-Microsoft spammers like
> Steve and "Drestin Black" madly searching through every arti-
> cle I've ever posted to Usenet, looking for something they
> think would embarrass me; maybe they'll learn a thing or two
> if they actually read them. Apparently it hasn't occurred to
> these creatures that if I had written something I was ashamed
> of, I probably wouldn't have published it in a place where
> millions of people all over the world could see it, forever!
> Oh well, nobody ever accused these guys of being overly bright.
>
> I'm beginning to think that something I previously wrote
> has touched a nerve; probably it was this:
>
> ] "Drestin Black", one of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propa-
> ] ganda spammers, has been posting dozens of articles to
> ] c.o.l.a yapping that some Linux folks here don't know much
> ] about SCSI. Presumably he's doing it because he's been
> ] instructed to trash up the newsgroup with as many useless
> ] posts as possible every day, so that people who come here to
> ] find out about Linux, and who don't use a threaded news-
> ] reader or put him in the killfile, will get frustrated and
> ] go away without learning about Linux and so will stay with
> ] Microsoft Windows.
>
> It's pretty clear that this is one of the spammer gang's major
> tactics; certainly it's one of the most obvious characteristics
> of what they do. "Drestin Black", Stephen Edwards, "Sponge",
> "S", "Steve"/"teknite"/etc., "Chad Mulligan" -- all of them
> have posted thousands of articles containing no real content
> whatsoever -- often followups quoting an entire previous arti-
> cle and adding one vicious insult. A casual reader encounter-
> ing this flood of garbage and nastiness might easily reject the
> entire newsgroup, and thus not be exposed to Linux advocacy.
> Of course, this is exactly what Microsoft wants to happen.
>
> Incidentally, Microsoft has just adopted another strategy to
> deal with the huge amount of criticism it's getting in Usenet:
> It's eliminating Usenet access for all the customers of its
> MSN division -- a major Internet service provider.
>
> Power corrupts, and Microsoft has far too much of it.
>
>
> * The list of pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda spammers
> operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and past (includ-
> ing multiple fake names used by the same person). Some of
> them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month, each:
>
> "Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Stephen Edwards, Jeff Szarka,
> Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/etc., "Sarek",
> "mcswain", Erik Funkenbusch, "Chad Mulligan", "S", "Sponge",
> Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies, Boris, "Cuor di Mela",
> "ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "boobaabaa",
> "[EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com)", etc.
>
> Is Microsoft behind most of this high-volume pro-Microsoft/
> anti-Linux propaganda barrage? There are good reasons to
> think so:
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-121243.html?tag=st.cn..
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/991018-000017.html
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween
>
>
------------------------------
From: Jim Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 01:25:37 GMT
Todd wrote:
> So, 20 million polygons per second.
>
> Now, take this into account: The *slowest* new Voodoo product (the voodoo4)
> will do 333 *mega* pixels per second. That's the slowest. I'm not even
> going to mention their other products capable of performing *over* the
> *giga* pixel limit.
This is an apples/oranges comparison. You're comparing polygons to the fill
rate. I haven't been able to find polygon rates for the Voodoo4, perhaps
because it would not compare well to the GeForce (which has a 15M polygon
rate, still well below that of the PS2 although it's doing that rate with T&L
functionality too).
jim
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: Russell Senior <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Feb 2000 17:28:23 -0800
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> Consider why you fear the squating bum. Suppose the bum left
Russell> your vacation home in better condition than when he arrived
Russell> and did not interfere with your use of it. Would you still
Russell> object? Why?
Donovan> I'd object because they used my property without permission.
Consider the implications of the word `used' here. Implicit is at
least the risk of degradation or interference. I am suggesting a
situation where the `use' is invisible and possibly beneficial. I
don't think I would object in that sort of situation.
--
Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
extremely unusual.' ''
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Can I do this with Linux?
Date: 25 Feb 2000 17:51:06 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ken Kinder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't do it. MS SQL Server is a step up from Access, but shouldn't be used in
>any serious projects.
Oh? I don't have much respect for the company that wrote SQL Server
(Sybase) but the database itself is a pretty respectable piece of
software. MS has had their hands on their port for close to a decade
now, so it's probably diverged a bit, but I'd not be at all surprised
if 99% of the work they'd done to it was cleaning up the (appalling)
user interface and making it prettily integrate with the Windows of
the moment.
The platform SQL Server lives on has traditionally been the weak
point for it being used on Really Big databases, and Microsoft may
have figured out a way to talk to disk in finite time by now.
(When MS got their license and started using SQL server in their
traditional way -- to bludgen the original authors to death -- they
were selling it for basically nothing ($400-$500 is what I recall;
it's Big Money for a college student, but when you had to put down
about $10k to get Sybase's attention for a Unix version, that's
pretty much free) and I suspect a lot of dbas figured that losing
30% performance was worth saving 95% on the cost of the platform
and software.
____
david parsons \bi/ Windows machines do make pretty good terminals to
\/ talk to relational databases, but that's because
Microsoft is smarter than all the Unix vendors
combined.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: C vs C++
Date: 25 Feb 2000 17:56:13 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 20 Feb 2000 02:10:00 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Use C++ as "C where I can declare variables in the logical places"? ;-)
>>
>>That's one of the things I hate most about C -- you have to declare
>>_all_ your variables at the _beginning_ of a block. :) For example, if
>
>You can relax. This has already changed in the new C99 standard.
>The C language now supports variable length arrays, complex numbers,
>declarations anywhere, designated initializers, and other goodies
>not found in C++. Not yet, anyway.
Shudder.
"Nobody's actually using C anymore, so lets start shovelling all
the bells and whistles that we can find into the language!" It's
either criminal stupidity or terminal Java envy; both of those
excuses are reasons to commit the standards committee to the
Indian Hill Home for the Criminally Insane.
____
david parsons \bi/ Coming soon, 40 different versions of the C programming
\/ language, all incompatable and all being the Standard!
I can hardly wait.
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:58:23 -0800
Mitch Blevins wrote:
> Under a pure capitalist free enterprise system, there would be no
> copyright laws to restrict the distribution of software copies.
> But, you would also see a lot of software released with technical
> solutions designed to prevent the use of software unless payment is
> made to the developer. Binary-only software that requires a dongle
> or a ping to the developers licensing computer would be much more
> prevalent.
Hard to say really. Since there would be no legal barrier to circumventing
such restrictions, there would be widespread availability of tools to do so,
and availability of "unlocked" versions of the software from third parties.
Publishers would lose the benefits of direct contact with users who choose an
unlocked third party version instead of the original.
Software publishers might well conclude (as many frequently do in the real
world) that such copy protection is not worth the cost.
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:23:24 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Before we proceed, I should clarify my viewpoint. What I am trying to
> argue is *not* that free software has no place, not even that I consider
> free software "invalid". The debate here is about whether authors should
> be able to profiteer from the licensing model. I am *not* advocating the
> traditional licensing model to the exclusion of all other models. On the
> contrary, I believe that a grants system like the NSF, whereby funding
> would be available for free software would be a good thing. But I don't
> think that this means that commercial software developers should be forced
> to give up their copyrights.
OK, in fairness to you I will also clarify your position, so you know what you
are attempting to argue against.
I am not arguing that commercial software developers should be forced to give
up their copyrights. I am simply arguing that free software as an
organizational model can conceivably satisfy society's needs for good
software, perhaps better than a strong-copyright model.
I reject your notion that copyrights are an inherent or natural right.
Copyrights granted by society to authors in order to achieve some social
purpose believed to be beneficial. But we will just have to agree to disagree
on this basic premise. However, when you argue with my conclusions, remember
that our axioms differ. To the extent your arguments amount to a restatement
of, or a logical extension of, the difference between your axioms and mine,
they are not particularly interesting. Again, we'll just have to agree to
disagree.
> Excuse me, but free software implies no such thing. The fact that I choose
> ( and actually, I do ) to *voluntarily* give up the fruits of my
> labor does not mean that I am morally obliged to.
I don't believe that you are entitled to profit from your labor simply because
you labored. Consider artists. Many labor away producing art which nobody
buys, perhaps because it is not distinctive enough. (What do you is the
market for second-rate photographs of the Golden Gate Bridge?). Are they
entitled to fruits simply because they labored? No.
When you labor, you must decide whether you believe such labor to be
profitable. If you assume a free software model, then you may well conclude
that it is not profitable to develop software on the basis of expectation of
license revenues. So you must find some more profitable way to direct your
effort, or resign yourself to being a poor artist.
To conclude that removing the ability to extract monopoly rents via legal
copyright protection is forcing someone to give up the fruits of their labor
is a logical extension of your axiom that authors and artists are entitled to
such protection in the first place.
> >Under a pure capitalist free enterprise system, all software is free software.
>
> No, it isn't. Under a captalist system, enterprises are free to capitalise
> on their intellectual assets. Property rights are essential to capitalism.
> You can not have capitalism without property rights.
Copyrights are not property. If they were, they would never expire.
Copyrights are collections of exclusive rights granted by society in order
achieve what society believes to be a useful purpose (promoting the sciences
and useful arts). This is my axiom. You disagree. Fine.
> Don't pretend you're advocating capitalism when you are in fact speaking
> out against the rights of developers to capitalise on the fruits of their
> labor.
I'm doing no such thing. I simply do not share your belief that copyrights
are a "right" of developers.
> Don't pretend you're advocating capitalism when you say that software
> should be a "public good" and that software development should be funded
> by tax payers.
I never said it should be funded by tax payers. That is one way of funding
it. There are plenty of others. In fact, relatively little of existing free
software has been directly funded by tax payers.
> >Go read ESR, would you? It is boring to rehash these things here.
>
> ESR says that free software is *voluntary* among other things. He doesn't
> advocate free software to the exclusion of eveything else.
You missed the point entirely. You asked "Where is the economic incentive to
develop such software under your model?" ESR answers this question in at
least a dozen different ways, maybe more. Perhaps you don't agree with him.
Fine. But don't ask "where are" the incentives. I told you where to find
them.
> >> Why insist that your model be practiced to the exclusion of other models ?
> >
> >I don't,
>
> Then why are you bent on proving that it is not legitimate to profit from
> copyrighted works ?
I'm not. I think copyright is legitimate as a useful trade off made by
society. But I also think it would be legitimate for society to not make that
tradeoff, if that alternative appeared to be more useful. You apparently
don't. We're back to axioms here.
> That's naive. The thread has changed somewhat. The current debate is about
> whether or not it's fair to allow developers to use the traditional licensing
> model for profit.
Maybe that's what you imagine the current debate to be. But I have responded
primarily to questions about whether free software provides sufficient
incentives to development of good software, whether it is a useful model, and
whether it is a viable business model. I don't remember writing anything
about copyright being unfair. So if that's what you want to debate, you're
responding to the wrong author/posts.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 18:42:58 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:08:58 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >My argument is that Microsoft has not been "holding back" the development
>of
>> >the computer industry, as some people have suggested, it's this
>duplication
>> >of effort that has.
>>
>> How are you going to progress? Obviously you're going to have
>> to build on what has already been done. Allowing for a diverse
>> collection of different ways to approach a particular problem
>> is far more likely to yield progress than a 'one true way'.
>
>Then why hasn't Unix progressed beyond what it has?
It's been improving for 20+ years...
>
>> Microsoft has had effective control over consumer computing
>> technology for over 10 years. They could have chosen to do
>> great things with that power but chose not to. Instead they
>> would rather wait for others to come up with good ideas and
>> then swipe those ideas and then run the inventor out of
>> business.
>
>That's a non-sequiter. We're not talking about just consumer computing
>here. We're talking about the computer industry.
>
>> HELL, they haven't even completely gotten rid of XT DOS yet
>> and it's been 15 years since the introduction of the 386.
>> They've even go so far as to actively discourage users from
>> switching to their own relatively clean alternative.
>
>Microsoft has been pushing NT, which has 0% of DOS in it for 7 years. The
>consumer populace has not accepted it.
M$ has pushed NT for the server/workstation market, and W9X/Dos
for the home market.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:09:36 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 16:56:59 -0500,
Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Wolfgang Weisselberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:07:29 -0500,
>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Oh really? Think again. MOST banks use windows in their branches almost
>> > exclusively. Do you consider Prudential a small "banking" operation?
>60,000
>> > copies of W2K pro going on-line during these first 6 months (10,000
>> > laptops). I think it's time you visit your banks again.
>>
>> My bank (Deutsche Bank) changed from terminals to NT a couple of
>> years ago. I had a few lines with their people, saying that these
>> machines (just workplace ones were NTs, not the ATMs) crashed
>> often. I got an enthusiastic "yes, you should have told that to
>> our management before they changed". Guess the terminals were
>> more stable.
>>
<Snip a bunch of German banks, few of which use NT or IIS>
>>
>> as they say, the ball is on your side now ...
>
>German banks - not US. I will grant you that there are more German banks
>using some form of unix for their external website than IIS. I can't address
>the topic of German OS choices very well. I was speaking of US banks. Also,
>consider the important transactions happen on SSL - take a look at your
>netcraft survey regarding SSL servers - overwhelming majority are IIS and
>growing.
>
>
>
Bank Of America, www.bofa.com SSL on Netscape-Enterprise
Couldn't find an SSL server on www.wellsfargo.com, but the http
was running on Netscape-Enterprise.
www.chase.com is also running SSL on Netscape-Enterprise
www.bankamerica.com um, Netscape-Enterprise for SSL
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Want to work with OSS for a living? (MA)
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:22:48 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 02:22:04 -0500,
Greystoke, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
<snipped post to focus on sig>
>
>#!/usr/bin/perl
>@a=(Lbzjoftt,Inqbujfodf, Hvcsjt); $b="Lbssz Wbmm" ; $b =~ y/b-z/a-z/ ; $c = " Tif ".
>@a ." hsfbu wj" ."suvft pg b qsphsbnnfs" . ":\n"; $c =~y/b-y/a-z/; print"\n\n$c ";
>for($i=0; $i<@a; $i++) { $a[$i] =~ y/b-y/a-z/; if($a[$i]eq$a [-1]) {print"and
>$a[$i]." ; }else{ print"$a[$i], "; }}print"\n\t\t--$b\n\n";
>
This sig is diabolical :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:24:57 -0800
David Masterson wrote:
> Even in the packaged software realm, there is a trust factor. Few
> people will buy an off-the-shelf product that they cannot return
> unless they've built up a trust that they're getting something good.
> This might be a trust of the selling company, a prior experience with
> the product, a recommendation from friend, newspaper, etc.
Exactly, and this is why a lot of people would sponsor John Commack (sp?) to
develop Quake IV as a free software product if he wanted to do it that way.
Do you doubt it?
As I said, reputational incentives....
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:39:19 -0800
Barry Margolin wrote:
> The problem is that this is really only going to work for important
> applications. Apple could hardly be expected to pay for the entire
> Macintosh software industry.
Actually there is ample precident for doing something similar. When IBM
wanted to get into the Unix workstation and server business with their
RS/6000, they went around the entire Unix software industry and paid just
about everyone to port to AIX. Many people I knew who worked in that industry
at the time reported that their company had received some sort of porting fee,
prepaid license sale, or similar incentive payment (along with free hardware)
from IBM.
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
