Linux-Advocacy Digest #375, Volume #25 Thu, 24 Feb 00 11:13:12 EST
Contents:
Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience) ("Eddie Dubourg")
Re: Giving up on NT (Dr Yassam)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
Re: C2 Conformance not considered a big deal ("Drestin Black")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience) ("Drestin Black")
Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience) ("Drestin Black")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Eddie Dubourg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:13:02 -0000
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >
> What? You Win32 power users don't have network access
> to scanner hardware yet... <snicker>
>
Our HP Scanjet has been networked for years (WinNT)
It's just the users that aren't, and putting pages on a scanner 2 floors
down and 3 buildings along, running back to a desk, pressing the scan
button, running back, changing pages, running back, pressing scan, running
back, changing pages...........
It's a bugger.
E
------------------------------
From: Dr Yassam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:14:50 GMT
> > <snip>...
> > You're welcome to lay of the smug remarks, let your content show
> > the extant of your vaunted education.
>
> I wasn't addressing you and I did not appreciate the smug remarks
> that addressed me in the prior post. That the Mac OS multitasks in
> the multimedia example I gave is NOT proof it is a better over all OS
> at multitasking. Someone posting with a Dr in his SIG thought to
> make that inference.
Oh dear, if thou hast offended thee then thou...or is it thee...never
mind...if you felt offended by my post then my apologies, but as I said,
I'm as technology fan who's interested in getting facts correct, and my
PC copes with your QT test ABSOLUTELY perfectly, perhaps even better
than your Mac, or at worse as good as your Mac! (see my post to the QT
test).
There are a few G3 Macs here in my university, and I may find your QT
test runs poorly on the machine I try. But that wouldn't lead me to
believing you must be lying or exaggerating the performance of your Mac
or that the Mac's OS is not as good as some claim. Instead I would
initially assume that there was either a) A problem with that particular
Mac or b) a problem with the network connection itself.
<snip>
Ok, back to the trailers...
Dr Yassam
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 15:24:01 GMT
On 24 Feb 2000 14:25:03 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
> I didnt suggest that this was a good thing. Personally I can't
>get terribly upset about M$ or many of the large companies getting
>screwed over.
How do you feel about the little guys, like shareware authors and small
time font designers getting screwed over ? MS's software is on every
fortune 500 desktop, they are *not* really screwed just because Joe Pirate
makes an illegitimate copy. However, Jane smalltime font designer really
does get screwed when her typefaces end up on those
1-zillion-fonts-for-20-dollars warez CDs, because she doesn't have slick
lawyers and she doesn't have fortune 500 companies paying out the nose
for her typefaces.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:23:36 -0500
"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!"
who says they won't?
>
> 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.
It's not their busiest or most profitable or highest profile website.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 15:24:56 GMT
On 24 Feb 2000 13:51:17 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
> I think that neo-marxists would say that property rights
>to the software they produce are a very poor way of providing for the
>needs to the software developer, and also a very poor way of ensuring
>the supply of software to fit the needs of others in
>society. Something I would agree with.
So what alternative do you propose ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:24:56 -0500
put another way:
When MS does migrate hotmail to W2K - will you suddenly decide that that was
the only critieria you needed satisified to prove how powerful and wonderful
W2K is? Suddenly you will drop your false pretenses and rush to embrace it?
If not, what other than trolling is the point of your post?
"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: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:28:03 -0500
What I see here is nothing but denies and rerouting and backpedeling. People
are asking you to prove ANY of your assersions. Where is your mystical ping
attack? Where is proof that MS didnt' modify the solaris stack for hotmail?
Where is any knowledge of SCSI other than throwing the word "differential"
around and being suprised that you could have more than 7 devices per
"chain"
Others in this thread are asking, all over people are wondering why you
exist solely to try to annoy me. That's pretty pathetic even for a minor.
I'm not going to bother quoting deja url's (someone else already did) and
I'm not going to quote you again. Your posts are there for everyone to see,
my questions are tacked on as replies directly to your claims.
Again, you come up shooting blanks.
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:893599$1jih$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > You say you can prove that the stack wasn't modified? that solaris
wasn't
> > modified for hotmail? That's your claim.
>
> That isnt my claim, liar. You are not comprehending what im typing.
>
> > You claim you can prove this.
>
> No, I never claimed that either, liar.
>
> > Go
> > ahead, prove it. We're waiting.
>
> YOU'RE waiting, liar.
>
> > Can you also prove your W2K ultimate ping
> > attack while you are at it?
>
> Wheres your little C webserver, liar?
>
> > You might even figure out how to run more than 7
> > devices on a single "chain" - when you get to 16, I'll just point down
> > kilometers of cable at 127 devices and say: ok, child, what comes after
> > fibre?
>
> You know nothing about SCSI, liar, and you refuse to answer questions
about
> it, liar.
>
> > Of course, YOU don't know anyone involved in the project and that much I
> > know factually.
>
> You know nothing, liar.
>
> > When you figure out just how I got that gem,
>
> You pulled it out of your ass, liar.
>
> > you'll suddenly
> > have the suprise you've been flirting around but just keep missing. I
would
> > pay to see your face when (if) you find out.
>
> Theres nothing to find out, liar.
>
> > hotmail.com -> w2K: Y2K - bet on it.
>
> I'm not doubting it, liar.
>
>
>
>
> p0ok
>
> --
> 1 divided by 0 = 0
>
> --drestin black
>
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 Conformance not considered a big deal
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:30:33 -0500
"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
> >"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would say:
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> I'll answer for you: Microsoft paid them.
> >> >
> >> >You cannot possibly be more uninformed and mistaken.
> >>
> >> More uninformed and mistaken than whom? Chad Myers? I could go with
> >> that.
> >>
> >> The TPEP certification process is paid for by the vendor; that's part
> >> of the FAQ at the NSA.
> >>
> >> Interesting reading; you could perhaps discover just who is the *most*
> >> mistaken and uninformed of them all...
> >
> >see my previous reply for a clarification. My reply does not include what
I
> >replied to: someone was implying MS paid for the certification as in
bought
> >it - ie, undeservedly.
>
> I don't think there is any "misunderstanding" here; both you and "Chad
> Myers" have made clear statements that the DoD paid for the
> certification process. And are shown to be incorrect.
>
> Microsoft pays for the certification process. Period.
MS pays for the costs of the certification process - but they have NO
influence over it's outcome in any way. They are submitting a system and are
given a bill at the end as well as a result. They can't pay more or less.
They aren't there during testing and it doesn't take place near anything MS.
The implication that I was replying to was that paying for it = buying it.
You can't buy a C2 level evaluation - you can only pay for the testing to
take place. That's to keep low life free-os never-pay-for-anything types
from getting a free ride at the cost of the taxpayers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 15:34:24 GMT
On 24 Feb 2000 13:47:11 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
> The key difference between patent and copyright though is
>reasonable restrictions. If I write something and want to charge a
>insane sum for it, then tough there is nothing that you can do. Its my
>copyright.
Yes, but the copyright is considerably more narrow than the patent. There
is definitely such a thing as a bogus patent. On the other hand, the only
"bogus copyright" is one that constitutes a violation of someone else's
copyright.
Because of the narrow scope of a copyright, if you write something and charge
an insane sum for it, there is no legal obstruction to someone else writing
something that has the same functionality and selling it for less. And
given the assumption of a competitive market this will always happen.
OTOH, if someone has a patent, you *cannot* in general write something else
that does the same thing as the patented "thing". What's worse is the fact
that you are not even allowed to come up with the same idea independently.
> This is not true with patents. A nice example I heard for
>instance is if I invented a fantastic new door bell, and then decided
>that you could not buy the bell without also purchasing the house
>attached to it, this would be legally challengable.
On what grounds would it be challengeable assuming that there is no prior
art ?
The problem is that you can sell the doorbell for any price. The price you
set is not open to legal challenge. Further, you can extract enormous licensing
fees from anyone else who wants to manufactur a similar doorbell.
> What I am saying is that the theoretical distinction between
>copyright and patent, as well as the initial justification for both of
>these falls far short of the reality.
There is an enormous difference between a copyright and a patent. A patent
gives a far reaching monopoly on an idea. "Ownership" of an idea is certainly
a very questionable thing. On the other hand, "ownership" of a copyrighted
work is much narrower in scope.
Your argument that you can sell your copyrighted works for arbitrary prices
is flawed -- you can also put your house on the market for 3 million dollars
if you choose to do so. You are ignoring the fact that in a competitive market,
the prices are kept in check by market forces.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:33:42 -0500
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:23:05 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Drestin Black wrote:
> >>
> >> > the results of just playing with a few here and there. I prefer SCSI
for
> >a
> >> > scanner because the PPT interface spues interrupts like no ones
> >business.
> >>
> >> With PPT, I think you can use polling instead of interrupts.
> >
> >you can but performances takes a further dump :(
>
> You're not going to get that data any faster than that
> scanning element is physically moving across the page...
True, but if the interface is slower than the scanning element ?
Ever have a scanner that would pause, backup and start again during the scan
process? I've seen that too, on parallel port scanners, never USB or SCSI
scanners. (or on really slow computers)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:36:28 -0500
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 00:49:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 22 Feb 2000 17:23:32 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>> > For this discussion here, PPT = parallel port...
> >>> >
> >>> <snip>
> >>> > So, how much faster exactly is a SCSI over a PPT scanner? I'm
> >>> > guessing not by much.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> Exactly? I do not know, but anecdotally I'd say at least 3 times based
on
> >>> the results of just playing with a few here and there.
> >>
> >>At least.
> >>
> >>SCSI is also *much* faster than USB scanners, in my experience.
> >
> >ISA is a shitload faster than USB. My ISA pcmcia reader is easily twenty
times
> >faster than USB. Most scsi cards have to go w/ PCI to keep up with
scsi-2.
>
> USB is about one tenth the speed of SCSI2.
About:
serial port: 115kbits/s (.115Mbits/s)
standard parallel port: 115kBYTES/s (.115MBYTES/s)
USB: 12Mbits/s (1.5MBYTES/s)
ECP/EPP parallel port: 3MBYTES/s
IDE: 3.3-16.7MBYTES/s
SCSI-1: 5MBYTES/s
SCSI-2 (Fast SCSI, Fast Narrow SCSI): 10MBYTES/s
Fast Wide SCSI (Wide SCSI): 20MBYTES/s
Ultra SCSI (SCSI-3, Fast-20, Ultra Narrow): 20MBYTES/s
UltraIDE: 33MBYTES/s
Wide Ultra SCSI (Fast Wide 20): 40MBYTES/s
Ultra2 SCSI: 40MBYTES/s
IEEE-1394: 100-400Mbits/s (12.5--50MBYTES/s)
Wide Ultra2 SCSI: 80MBYTES/s
Ultra3 SCSI: 80MBYTES/s
Wide Ultra3 SCSI: 160MBYTES/s
FC-AL Fiber Channel: 100-400MBYTES/s
excepts apply of course... but, to the best of my memory this is it...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:40:41 -0500
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:17:37 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Rob Hughes wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > <mondo delete job>
> >> >
> >> > > > > This is clearly wrong. SCSI is designed to work a specific way.
> >EVERY
> >> > > > > hardware controller, EVERY SCSI device, EVERY OS that uses SCSI
> >treats
> >> > > > > the SCSI ID as the information that identifies a device. That
is
> >what
> >> > > > > the SCSI ID is for. This is the "expected" behavior of a SCSI
> >> > compliant
> >> > > > > implementation.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yes, it does identify the device. But such ID's are transient,
> >since
> >> > they
> >> > > > can change. They do not *PERMANENTLY* identify a device.
> >> > >
> >> > > SCSI ID's are NOT transient. One has to assign or reassign a SCSI
ID.
> >> > > SCSI does not enumerate the bus and assign IDs dynamically.
> >> >
> >> > Ever hear of SCAM?
> >>
> >> Geez, I have forgotten all about SCAM. Adaptec tried to support that
> >> back in '96 right? Did that ever get put in the SCSI-3 spec? Now that I
> >> remember, they were planning that for SCSI-3. It was ghastly
unreliable.
> >
> >...sigh...
> >
> >> I know it was intended for plug&play peripherals like digital cameras
> >> and scanners, but I have never noticed a drive offering that on the
> >> selection options.
> >
> >seriously? How many did you look at?
>
> Apparently more than you have...
>
> [deletia]
>
> Yet another Shill response completely devoid of even the
> singular example...
did you want me to list the entire seagate SCSI family line?
Maybe I should remind him that SCSI-3 is not only "planned" but currently in
use and has been? and, really, what for? I mean, he'll just find a way to
turn it around. sigh... what's it worth, banging a head against a wall would
be about the same.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 15:46:14 +0000
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donovan> On 24 Feb 2000 14:25:03 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>> I didnt suggest that this was a good thing. Personally I can't
>> get terribly upset about M$ or many of the large companies
>> getting screwed over.
Donovan> How do you feel about the little guys, like shareware
Donovan> authors and small time font designers getting screwed over
As I said I didnt suggest that warez are a particularly
good thing, just that the existence of it can have beneficial (as well
as negative) effects.
I feel sad that the little guys get screwed over by warez
naturally enough.
Donovan> However, Jane smalltime font designer really does get
Donovan> screwed when her typefaces end up on those
Donovan> 1-zillion-fonts-for-20-dollars warez CDs, because she
Donovan> doesn't have slick lawyers and she doesn't have fortune 500
Donovan> companies paying out the nose for her typefaces.
Which is where the problem is. Copyright doesnt actually
protect the authors of software, it works for those with enough cash
to support the legal processes. In other words it works for M$ but not
"Jane smalltime". I also feel sorry for Jane smalltime having to pay
lots of cash for shit software because M$ can control the market. To
me it seems that the little guy gets screwed over by the "free" market
full stop. It doesnt seem to make a lot of difference whether this is
a legal or an illegal free market.
Phil
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:46:47 -0500
"Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > And HOT! We fried 4 cheetas before we started using drive coolers. Since
> > then only 1. Since Generation 2, none. And Generation 3 is very quiet.
> > Seagate takes it's time to get it right but... their drives do kick ass.
> > There are others but consistantly Seagate has been pretty solid.
>
> Ah, the irony of this news story today:
> http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20000223S0007
>
> BTW, heat's not been an issue with drives in Suns. Well, I should say
newer
> suns (Ultra class and higher). They do the cooling right in their boxes
(Well
> the U1 and it's CPU fan kinda sucked).
>
> One thing I've noticed in SUN (and HP) vs PC hardware: The proprietary
boys tend
> to design very well for cooling, with drive cables and such included in
the
> airway design. PCs on the other hand tend to have poor cooling due to
drive
> cables interrupting the flow. Then again PC cases are a dime a dozen for
tons
> of mobos and such. HPs have some serious heat sinks in them too. We have
a
> test J2000 (I think) right now and it's putting out more heat (and way
more
> noise) then 4 Sun U80s did!
Well, you are right about one thing. Generic PC cases SUCK for cooling
(although they HAVE much improved). I typically build systems using Intel or
Asus board. The intel SC450NZ is a great board. Quad Xeon support and 10
drive bays. What's really cool is how they used styafoam channels to control
the flow of the dozen 60mm fans all of which are hardware monitored. the
Asus board only supports 3 monitored fans and 1 temperature sensors (2 on
the dual CPU versions) but they DO read the on-board thermistor on newer
model PIII's that include that feature. But, choosing the right case can
make all the difference. I've seen people use these cheap drive cooler
drawers when all they really need to do is used a grilled front end and
start blowing air out from the back to the front of the case (or center
dispersed if you a big case). It's very effective. But, if I'm using a
little consumer case, #1 thing to do is open up the power supply and turn
the fan over so that it pulls air out instead of pushing it in - I can't
believe how many power supplies still do this. Everyone is trying to get air
blowing IN the case, when that is completely wrong. They want hot air out,
cold air will find it's way in cause not many are building airtight cases
eh? :) You just have to remember to compare apples to apples when talking
about Sun or HP hardware - a generic consumer PC doesn't get too hot so
there isn't much attention to detail there - a server box with half a dozen
drives and a pair of xeons - yep, if you ain't moving 100 times the cu.ft.
of the case interior a minute yer too hot.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 15:54:00 +0000
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donovan> On 24 Feb 2000 13:51:17 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>> I think that neo-marxists would say that property rights to the
>> software they produce are a very poor way of providing for the
>> needs to the software developer, and also a very poor way of
>> ensuring the supply of software to fit the needs of others in
>> society. Something I would agree with.
Donovan> So what alternative do you propose ?
There are many alternatives to the current free market, from
the custom driven pricing of pre-industrial revolution, to allocation
by local democratically based community councils, to the libertarian
"small capitalism". I have no particular wish to support my own view
point here (which comes very much from a Marxist viewpoint) because a)
I have done so many times before and sometimes get bored of doing so,
and b) I have done so before on this group and as some people pointed
out it invariably ends with a discussion which is so far off topic
that it is untrue.
The point of my post was to say that a Marxist view point
would not involve attacking property ownership of the small scale
software producer, as in this society its one way in which people can
survive. It would however involve attacking the class system which
requires people to act in this way. I would not support or advocate
any system which would criticism people for trying to keep a roof over
their head, and food in their stomach.
Phil
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:54:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, one would expect such a corresponding axiom to exist in the
> law or culture in question. Such an axiom doesn't. That' why
> piracy is such a problem. Intellectual property is contradictory
> to long established notions of value.
Actually, I think this is an educational problem, and/or a result of too
many concrete thinkers.
Most people find it too difficult to explain abstract harm to children, so,
when explaining why theft is bad, they point to concrete problems - Bobby no
longer has his toy. If that's your model for understanding the wrongness
of theft, you will not see harm in a whole class of actions.
The key is that Bobby didn't just lose the toy, he lost *control* of the toy.
Bobby no longer has the option of sharing that toy. Bobby can no longer hide
it somewhere and remember that he, and he alone, can find that toy. Bobby has
lost an *abstract* thing, and if you think of it that way, the reason for
which "piracy" is bad is obvious.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
