Linux-Advocacy Digest #370, Volume #25 Thu, 24 Feb 00 05:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: trying to access a dos partition (Terry Porter)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Truckasaurus)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (petilon)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience (petilon)
Re: what exactly is Linux advocacy? (Zio Coglioni)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: trying to access a dos partition
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 24 Feb 2000 15:44:23 +0800
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 03:45:28 GMT, Jim Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi everyone. Here's the problem:
>
>I decided to reinstall Mandrake 7 while working in it one day, so I
>inserted the CDROM, restarted, and off it went without trouble. At
>the time I restarted, I had booted into Linux using Boot Magic, and
>Boot Magic was set to hide the hda1 partition from Linux. (Hda1 is my
>c:\ partition in Windows. The default setting in BM is to hide all
>non-active boot partitions from the active operating system.) As a
>result, the installer didn't make hda1 available to Linux. I have
>sinced changed the visibility setting in BM, but I still can't find
>the partition to mount it. I would expect it to show up in the drop
>down box in the DrakConf/Linuxconf/File Systems/Local File Systems/Add
>screen, but it doesn't.
>
>If you're put off by all the Boot Magic stuff, please consider this:
>If you were to use fdisk or Partition Magic or a like tool to hide a
>partition, then you installed Mandrake, then you un-hid the partition,
>how would you make Linux aware that it could now allow the partition
>to be used?
>
>Thanks for any help.
>
>Jim
I'd add the dos partition to my /etc/fstab like this :-
/dev/"your_dos_partition" /"your_dos_name" msdos defaults 0 0
don't include the "" :)
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 5 hours 46 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:48:19 -0600
I'm sure you could just migrate it to Linux overnight yourself, right?
mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K. Coming soon.
>
> Bawhahahahahahahahaahahahah....................
>
> "They want us to buy this crap, and they won't even migrate to
> it!"
>
> The biggest, richest, and most powerful OS manufacturer in the
> world just released a final version of their new OS and they
> refuse to migrate their busiest website (Hotmail) to their new
> fangled OS.
>
> If Bill Gates and his money can't switch Hotmail to NT or Windows
> 2000, how the fuck is the little guy supposed to migrate to
> Windows 2000?
>
> Microsoft is an old business model enjoying its last peanut.
>
> ---
> The always friendly, always lovable, and highly presentable,
>
> Mr Rupert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> The always friendly, always lovable, and highly presentable,
>
> Mr Rupert
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:14:04 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:32:36 GMT, Mark Christensen wrote:
>> I can agree that scarecity is an issue if you can agree that
>> tangible property rights, like intellectual property rights, are
>> artificial.
>
>If you would just look back a few posts, I have already said something
>remarkably like what you are asking me to say now.
Yep, I was merely drawing attention to this.
>If anything, I think that logic shows us that the universe is not ours.
>It is bigger than any of our pettyclaims at ownership.
I agree.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:16:28 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 07:32:36 GMT, Mark Christensen wrote:
>> I can agree that scarecity is an issue if you can agree that
>> tangible property rights, like intellectual property rights, are
>> artificial.
>
>If you would just look back a few posts, I have already said something
>remarkably like what you are asking me to say now.
Yep, I was merely drawing attention to this.
>If anything, I think that logic shows us that the universe is not ours.
>It is bigger than any of our pettyclaims at ownership.
I agree.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 08:05:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert) wrote:
>
> Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K. Coming soon.
>
> Bawhahahahahahahahaahahahah....................
>
> "They want us to buy this crap, and they won't even migrate to
> it!"
>
> The biggest, richest, and most powerful OS manufacturer in the
> world just released a final version of their new OS and they
> refuse to migrate their busiest website (Hotmail) to their new
> fangled OS.
>
> If Bill Gates and his money can't switch Hotmail to NT or Windows
> 2000, how the fuck is the little guy supposed to migrate to
> Windows 2000?
>
> Microsoft is an old business model enjoying its last peanut.
Let say, hypothetically, that MS migrates Hotmail to W2K in 6-12 months.
Will this convince you that W2K is the OS for you?
If not, why are you trying to make a point out of this then?
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:24:12 GMT
On 23 Feb 2000 23:03:39 -0800, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
>I am going all the way back here, because I think this is the only
>place where progress can be made, or maybe it's just the only place I
>can insert another branch into the discussion so that it won't be
>infected by the assumptions of the other branches from it's start.
>
>> What is the advantage of giving the software away to other companies ? Why
>> give it away when I can make money from it ?
>
>I can think of several advantages:
>
[ snip ]
Your reasoning is sound, but IMO, it does not apply to all types of
software. This is why we are only seeing fairly limited classes of apps
developed by companies under an open source model. We don't see companies
write things like OpenSource word processors, or in general GUI desktop
applications. So while I think corporate OpenSource development has its
place, I don't think it's viable as a company's sole line of business, and
I don't believe it is or will be an adequate replacement for commercial
software.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:28:28 GMT
On 23 Feb 2000 23:03:39 -0800, Craig Brozefsky wrote:
>But luckily, not all the world believes in simple economic
>determinism. Some people consider the philosophical advantages.
>Peter Kropotkin, and others have compelling counter-arguments to the
>Darwinian notion of competition amongst the species and the extension
>of that aspect of evolution to the social field, becoming competition
>between individuals.[1] They suggest that cooperation, not
>competition, is the natural course of evolution.
If you are prepared to presuppose these basic assumptions, then it
would seem that OpenSource most certainly is the "natural course of
evolution" in the software industry.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:38:26 GMT
On 24 Feb 2000 06:54:57 GMT, Mitch Blevins wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
I think the stuff I snipped sums up the discussion pretty well.
I would argue that no, the listed production incentives are not sufficient.
Responding to your examples:
>exist an incentive to produce software... Companies will still pay
>programmers to write software that has use value to them.
This only will bring to daylight software useful for those companies who
have the resources to develop such software. It doesn't help home users
or companies that don't have the resources to hire a bunch of programmers.
> Individuals
>will still write programs to "scratch their itch". Groups will come
>together to create programs that are useful to them, or even just
>for the sake of a good hack.
This isn't much help for people who don't know how to program.
The problem is that there is a very real audience of people who do not
know how to program, but are willing to pay for the right to use a piece
of software. These people are well served by the IP licensing model,
which makes available software that OpenSource developers are unable to
provide answers to ( eg games, multimedia, Office suites ) These people
don't want to wait until some Dow 30 company needs the same piece of
software that they want, or until Joe Hacker decides to throw something
together.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:43:09 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:42:27 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>It is difficult to make a rational argument that there does or doesn't
>>exist a "right to property". Rights are like axioms. It is near impossible
>
> So, one would expect such a corresponding axiom to exist in the
> law or culture in question. Such an axiom doesn't. That' why
A basic assumption in capitalism is that financial incentive is essential
to productivity.
> Yup, and there is specific mention of 'artifical scarcity' in the
> subsequent legal codificatino of those ideas that treats such
> a thing EXPLICITLY differently from life, liberty or real property.
Your so called "real property" is just as artificial as the so-called
"artifical scarcity". Neither is a moral absolute. Both are essential
in a capitalist economy.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:46:41 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:39:43 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 24 Feb 2000 02:12:00 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:46:15 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>This is a diversion. Even in the event that you are not deprived
>>of utility, it is still considered a crime for someone to use
>>your property without authorisation.
>
> That only expresses the rule, it doesn't even start to
> get into the moral or legal theory of the rule.
The finer points of "moral or legal theory" are merely diversions
that you are pulling out of your ass to avoid conceding a point. They
are irrelevant in this case.
As usual, you jump through hoops like a circus animal on crack to avoid
conceding any point.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:50:17 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 06:47:06 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 05:56:20 GMT, Mark Christensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Infact, this is usually NOT the case. Counterexamples include
> computer games, Metallica and The Greatful dead. Quite often
> such replication actually increases the value of the product
> through perpettuation of network effects (msword, msdos).
Assuming that *everyone* can make these copies of the product, it is the
case. The reason why MS Word and MS Dos did OK is that fortune 500 companies
and the government have a hard time getting away with using pirated software.
IOW, outright legalising piracy would make it impossible for developers
of application software to receive any kind of compensation.
> To be really comparable to common theft, such piracy would
> have to have the ability to suddenly take all copies out
> of circulation including the owners copies and all the
> source code.
No it wouldn't. It would only have to cheat a developer out of their income.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 08:58:54 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 05:56:20 GMT, Mark Christensen wrote:
>
>> This is not true if your purpose of creating the intellectual assets is
>> to gain financially. Once the assets are copied, the income stream they
>> are capable of producing ( via contractual agreements ) becomes worthless.
>
>This is simply false for the VAST majority of cases. The fact that I have
>taught several hundred people how to do basic web development does not make
>my knowledge worthless.
Your web development classes are not replicable, since your physical
presence itself is a major part of the value of that course.
>also possible that a wide variety of people would still pay Microsoft to fix
>things (after all they know the code better than anyone else...)
It's not clear that Microsoft would have an enormous advantage over anyone
else. In your example, even though Microsoft wrote the initial code, anyone
can compete with them for the right to maintain their code. What incentive
does this give anyone to write code when you can always leech off someone
else's ?
>Unfortunately it is not at all clear to me. You may be convinced that the
>only way to make money off of a really good idea is to keep others from
>using it, and you may be in the majority when you say that. But you would
You are confusing ideas with copyrighted works. They are very different
things, and indeed are handled by two different aspects of law ( patent
vs copyright law )
>Newton, Leibnitz, Pascal, Einstein, Descartes, and thousands of others have
>produced ideas which were opened up for public consumption, and they
The ideas were opened up, yes. But their main products were ideas / inventions.
This is *NOT* the same as copyrighted works. ( Hint: you can't copyright
an idea )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 09:00:41 GMT
On 24 Feb 2000 05:49:39 GMT, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>That's because there's always a risk of the borrower crashing the car.
This risk is irrelevant. Even if you "borrow" an item in a way that doesn't
pose a risk of damage to property, the crime is the same.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 08:00:18 -0800
"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It only works that way by default if you install W2K to a SCSI
> drive with and ID higher than one AND you have more than two
> SCSI drives active at the time of install. Did you do that?
>
I have SCSI disk drives at id 0 and 6. The jaz drive is at
id 5. The CD-ROM drive is at id 1 and the CD-RW at id 4.
(I don't want the second disk drive at id 1 because I boot
some operating systems from the jaz drive, after turning off
the drive at id 0.) All devices are external except floppy
drive.
Setup should have used the scsi() syntax because I have a SCSI
system. I have no IDE devices. All my drives are SCSI. There is
no reason at all to not use the scsi() syntax.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
From: petilon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 17:59:49 -0800
"Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As has been stated earlier, w2k only uses the scsi syntax if
> you have more than two *fixed* disks AND you install to an ID
> above 1.
Why? This is either a bug or a design flaw, isn't it?
>
> 2k installed exactly as it should have.
Why do you think this is how Windows 2000 should have configured
my system? This is a bug as far as I can see. If you don't agree
please explain the justification for not using the scsi() syntax.
> You're the one who failed to take into consideration the
> changes adding and removing the external device (turning it on
> and off counts) would cause in your system.
But this is a basic expectation I have from a SCSI system. Why
do you think SCSI IDs exist? Turning a SCSI device on or off
did not change the SCSI ID of the drive on which I installed
Windows 2000. So it should have booted fine.
This expectation cannot be lowered, especially since Microsoft
is promoting Windows 2000 as the 'most advanced software
product' ever.
I have been spending a lot of time on Sun machines, so my
expectations from an enterprise OS are apparently a little
higher than yours. You DOS people are so used to rebooting and
reinstalling and reconfiguring that you are apparently willing
to shrug off what seems like major defects to me.
> If you really want to fix it, fine. If you just want to bash
> windows because you don't understand what you're doing, go
> away.
Yes, I want to fix it and have. But I also want to criticize
Windows 2000 for this major defect. Are you saying I shouldn't?
Is this, or is this not an advocacy newsgroup? Hello?
Are you or are you not interested in debating whether Windows
2000 is ready for the enterprise? Do you or do you not consider
the ability to handle SCSI IDs a feature an enterprise OS
should have? Do you or do you not agree that Microsoft's claim
that Windows 2000 is the 'most advanced software product' ever
is hogwash?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: what exactly is Linux advocacy?
From: Zio Coglioni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 19:25:17 -0800
Well, if you liked Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, and Alfred Bulltop
Stormalong, then you're gonna love C.O.L.A! Here in C.O.L.A,
you'll find....
Windows NT systems that never crash!
Linux systems that have been running continuously since
Woodstock!
GUI's that don't shield you from the operating system!
Command Line Interfaces that are intuitively easy to use!
Proof that Bill Gates is the AntiChrist!
Proof that Linus Torvalds is a Communist!
Geeks galore from both sides!
.. and damned little real advocacy from either camp. Read
C.O.L.A like you would read the Sunday funnies. It's strictly
entertainment, with an occasional smidgeon of truth trying to
poke through the comedy.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
