Linux-Advocacy Digest #461, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 20:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K) ("Chad Myers")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Michael Totschnig)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: JDK1.2.2 performance, Linux -vs- NT (Terry Sikes)
Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux (mlw)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("LP")
Re: Giving up on NT ("LP")
Re: Giving up on NT ("LP")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("LP")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:42:57 -0600
On 28 Feb 2000 22:12:09 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2000 12:48:26 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>In gnu.misc.discuss, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>Speeding laws in the United States, at least for highways, are not based
>>on safety. Widely published studies of the highway system show that both
>>our roads and our vehicles are just as safe at maximum speeds 10-20 mph
>>above the current speed limits. The speed limits were chosen for fuel
>>conservation.
>
>Saying that your vehicles are safe at 10-20mph over the speed limit is
>*not* the same thing as saying that it is safe to raise the speed limit.
>The problem is that you need to assume that people will drive slightly
>faster than whatever speed limit is in place.
Strict enforcement of reasonable speed limits (possibly variable
depending on day or night) would be far preferable to poor, selective
enforcement of artificially low speed limits.
It would be a great improvement over strict enforcement of
artificially low speed limits, as is the case in a community between my
work and my home :-).
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
============================================
It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to
resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by
change of circumstances, become his own. -- Thomas Jefferson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kenneth P. Turvey)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:47:25 -0600
On 29 Feb 2000 02:41:00 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 28 Feb 2000 14:17:28 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>In gnu.misc.discuss, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Saying that your vehicles are safe at 10-20mph over the speed limit is
>>> *not* the same thing as saying that it is safe to raise the speed limit.
>>> The problem is that you need to assume that people will drive slightly
>>> faster than whatever speed limit is in place.
>>
>>> However, I disagree with using speed limits to constrain fuel
>>> consumption. A 57 Chevy burns more fuel at 60mph than a Mazda 323 at
>>> 80mph. The obvious way to discourage excessive fuel consumption would be
>>> via a fuel consupmtion tax (duh!)
>>
>>I'll take the conclusions of well-publicized studies by actual highway
>>safety engineers and automobile manufacturers over the conclusions of
>>random people in gnu.misc.discuss. No offense.
>
>I wasn't disputing the studies you claim to have seen. I was merely pointing
>out that you need to set speed limits slightly beneath maximum safe distances.
I don't buy this for an instant. If someone is driving at a safe speed
under normal conditions they should not be in violation of the law. If
a community is not willing to pay for good enforcement of good laws then
they have only themselves to blame for the consequences.
--
Kenneth P. Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
============================================
Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
-- John Stuart Mill
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K)
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 17:13:31 -0600
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> absolutely moot. MS is runnig UNIX at their hotmail site.
> >-- because that's what it was running when they bought it.
> >
> Why doesn't matter.
Of course it does. Maybe not to you, because it helps your
FUD argument, but large organizations aren't quick to change
huge operations like Hotmail, even if there are benefits
involved.
Let me explain common sense and logic to you, since you
guys seem to be completely void of it...
MS hasn't ported it yet, because it's going to be a major
project, and when they do it, they better do it right
because many people depend on them for email.
MS isn't going to migrate to NT 4.0, just to migrate
again to Windows2000, just to migrate again to Windows2000
Datacenter Win64.
It would be the most wise for them to port it to
Win2K-64 when it is released (perhaps even before).
> >>That speaks volumes for NT and W2K. End of story!
> >It says that MS wasn't stupid enough to try to pick up a
> >half-way working system to move it to NT, only to move it
> >to Win2K again in a few months.
> >
> It says one or more of several possible things.
> Is it that MS deemed it too expensive to port?
That's certainly a possibility, but I can't imagine
the money they're spending right now to keep that hacked
system and globbed-together technology running under
that kind of load.
> Is it that MS realized that is wasn't possible?
That's certainly not the case.
> Did they test and NT couldn't handle the load?
It's possible NT 4.0 couldn't have, but highly unlikely.
Even if NT 4.0 could handle it, Win2K is an obviously
better choice, so why waste the time porting to NT 4
only to have to move it again to Win2K?
> The questions are many but MS (maybe wisely) keeps their mouth shut.
>
> Either way, it's bad PR to run a site with competitor's OSes, because
> whatever the exponation might be it gives the impression that their
> OS can't handle it.
It gives that impression, but it's certainly not the case.
There are sites that handle much higher load and use NT 4.0,
even.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Michael Totschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:16:01 GMT
Hello,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> A better example is today's software market. If you want to see where we'd
> be without copyright protection of any sort, you only need to look at what
> free software has produced. Take note of this -- todays' free software
> word processors are behind those that were available 15 years ago ( on
> the Mac ) Forcing all software to be free would not help the software
> industry. Forcing users to use Emacs and Latex might make the GNU-zealots
> happy, but it won't help the users.
today's free software word processors are "behind" commercial ones only in
the respect of WYSIWYG (What you see is what you get) interfaces. In
respect of document preparation as an organized task no commercial word
processor can, at least for an affordable price, rival with LaTeX. The
absence of WYSIWYG in the open source world is not incapacity, but design,
since professional document preparation is better done with a logical
markup than a visual one. That does not mean that there is no need for a
more intuitive, "user-friendly" interface to LaTeX, but Lyx/Klyx has gone
far in that direction.
That is my experience with word processing.
Regards,
Michael
--
Michael Totschnig, 5341 rue St.Urbain, Montréal (Qc) H2T 2W8, Canada
PGP/GPG-Public-Key: http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/d364101/pgp.shtml
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:19:53 -0500
thanks Chad.
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89hksh$4iv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, in an Intranet situation, where you are the administrator,
> you could deploy IE with the IE Administrators Kit and fully
> customize it. You can set it up so that it will only run
> ActiveX controls and run scripting from "Trusted domains".
>
> You can specify IP addresses or hostnames, or a whole
> "*.intranet.mycompany.com"
>
> When they visit a site with unauthorized scripting or
> ActiveX controls, it will alert the end user that they
> are not permitted to download that script/control.
> --
> Chad Myers
>
>
> "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yyYu4.943$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And that would be fine if you could limit it to Intranet activities.
> >
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:89f1ep$13a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> > > news:WxDu4.425$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > But elaborate client side activities are exactly where the security
> > problems
> > > > show up... because they include screwing with your hard drive.
> > >
> > > I wholeheartedly agree. However, in an intranet-type environment,
where
> > > security can be more easily controlled, client-side activities are
> > > very helpful, if not vital to a functioning intranet application.
> > >
> > > -Chad
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Sikes)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: JDK1.2.2 performance, Linux -vs- NT
Date: 1 Mar 2000 23:16:14 GMT
In article <89j8md$l2q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Harlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm using the Sun JDK (1.2.2) in two environments. Both environments
>run at the same time, on the same system (Dell Latitude, p3-450, 512
>mRam.)
>
>The primary environment is RH 6.1 (2.2.14) kernel with XIG commercial X
>drivers. The second is NT4SP5 running in a virtual machine (VMWARE 2)
>under linux. So it is sharing the memory, processor, X drivers, etc..
>as a task under linux.
>
>The curious thing is that the performance of java (running apps) is
>significantly better in the Virtual NT session, than it is native to
>linux. The obvious conclusion here is that the JDK for NT is more
>efficient than the linux release.
>
>My question is whether or not the difference is HotSpot? Does the
>latest NT release have it. I know that the linux release does not.
I believe the NT VM has HotSpot, but a more important point is that
the current Linux JDK doesn't even ship with a JIT. You can get one
from www.inprise.com.
HotSpot is coming in the Linux 1.3 release (due pretty soon I think),
and IBM is supposed to ship a 1.3 VM by 2Q.
HTH,
Terry
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: at.linux,aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:18:18 -0500
A fine example of something one must buy for Windows a capability
resident within the core UNIX system utilities.
Oscar Agra wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> ProSplitter 2000 is finally released....
>
> ProSplitter 2000 is available FREE for Linux and also available for
> Windows 95/98/NT
>
> ProSplitter 2000 is a fast and powerful file splitting utility.
>
> ProSplitter 2000 makes it possible to transfer manageable sized files
> through any medium and for any purpose. It offers via its
> straightforward graphical interface a wealth of features which provide
> a complete solution to your needs.
>
> Features include :
>
> - Easy to use graphical user interface
> - Fast 32 bit splitting / joining of very large files or DIRECTORIES !
> - Recursive archiving of directories
> - File Compression
> - DES (Data Encryption Standard) Encryption
> - Robustness and Reliability guaranteed via CRC data checks
> - Self-joining executable allows files to be joined without ProSplitter
> - Attachment of comments to pieces
> - Drag-and-Drop of files, directories and links (Win 95/98/NT only)
> - Support for splitting via the Windows Explorer Context-Menu (Win 95/98/NT
> only)
>
> Download it directly from ;
> For Win95/98/NT - http://www.prosplitter.co.uk/zips/psplit21.exe
> Linux -
> http://www.prosplitter.co.uk/zips/psplit21.tar.gz
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 1 Mar 2000 23:01:08 GMT
On 1 Mar 2000 19:12:45 GMT, Alan Morgan wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 01:27:27 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> The maxim "compete always" may be due for some revision.
>>
>>My suggestion is this -- let everyone license the software as they choose,
>>and let the best software win. If OpenSource is really "the right way", the
>>market will choose it. I don't believe that it is right to ram OpenSource
>>software down everyone's throat.
>
>How, exactly, is it possible to do that?
perhaps you should read the thread before actuing like a smart-ass.
We are discussing the implications of abolishing copyrights. If we didn't
have copyrights, users wouldn't be able to choose to purchase software
that uses the copyright licensing model of payment/distribution.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: 1 Mar 2000 23:07:40 GMT
On 01 Mar 2000 18:59:54 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On 29 Feb 2000 15:55:33 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>So MS published the document formats, then removed them, but it was
>too late because there are in some archive CD,
Not just "some archive CD", but a CD which happens to be distributed by MS.
> but it doesn't matter
>because they are based on non-documented, non-standards. . . Is this
>the concensus? What was the point of this discussion?
This is my point. It only helps so much that their formats are documented.
> That MS uses
>incompatibilities in document formats to create vendor lock and
>promote continous and costly upgrading?
That sounds like a "conspiracy theory". It might have some truth in it but
not as much as you think. Most other vendors of office suites also use
their own documentt format which is no more "standard" than the one that MS
use. The lack of standards is the one thing that makes writing *any*
filter a PITA. Most so called filters do little more than convert the
document to rtf then import it. Any logical markup and embedding/linking
is typically lost.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:10:53 GMT
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <89eske$sjh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "void" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:13:23 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Is it Microsoft's fault that 3rd party vendors didn't support the
> > > >other platforms?
> > >
> > > Probably. When Microsoft says "jump", developers ask "how high?"
> >
> > heh, you guys just don't quit. I suppose that Microsoft kill Jon Bene
> > <sp?>
> > too, huh?
> >
> > Even with that false logic, why didn't they jump on Alpha, Microsoft had
> > pretty decent support for Alpha. If any ISVs started porting to it,
> > Microsoft
> > would've upped it's already good support for Alpha.
> >
> > All the service packs, hotfixes, BackOffice products, and many of the
> > little add ons and features that you can download from Microsoft.com
> > are available for Alpha.
> >
> > The fact is, no one wanted alpha. MS hung in there for a long time, and
> > then finally dropped it.
> >
> > Microsoft is a corporation, they have to make money. If there was money
> > to be made in Alpha, they would've kept it.
>
> Really?
>
> Then perhaps you can explain why they gave MSIE away when their costs
> were very, very real. They obviously didn't care whether they made money
> on MSIE or not.
As MS, as any finantially sound company looks at the global picture. You can't simply
look at the cost of an individual item
without taking the whole picture into account. For example, AOL is dumping a shitload
of CD's.. Millions upon ten's of millions.
Do they care that they don't make money in given those CD's away? Of ocurse they do,
but they are looking at the larger
picture. Buy giving away a free product.. it entices people to try their product. AOL
doesn't look at the net cost of the CDroms
to determine if its a good idea to give them away. They look at the total bottom
line.. if it gets more customers to sign up...
then it's a sound practice.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[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: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:10:54 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yCFu4.17915$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> LP writes:
>
> > ZnU wrote:
>
> >> HDTV is 1920x1080.
>
> > And looks great sitting 1' infront of the screen?
>
> Irrelevant, given that HDTV isn't designed to be viewed from 1' in
> front of the screen. Why do you think television screens are so
> much larger than computer monitors? Do you sit 1' in front of a
> 42" computer monitor?
I see you deleted the context.
Whether or not they are "designed" to be viewed in the nearfield is not relevent to
determining whether or not they offer the
same resolution and image quality as a computer monitor. It is *because* the designers
did not care about that issue.. that they
don't offer the same picture quality and sharpness.
The largest computer monitor that I find personally acceptable is the Sony or Mitsu
24" units.
The apparent size of either of those at a viewing distance that allows a clear and
non-fuzzy image is far far larger than any
"big screen" tv can hope to offer.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[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: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:11:04 GMT
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89fhci$7af$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > HDTV+Playstation3 will be the thing to beat for PC's and Macs. That
> > combo will be sooooo fast and gorgeous.
>
> By the time the PS3 + HDTV + network connects + everything else that makes a
> PC a PC, you are going to be spending more money on that system than a PC!
Indeed. Compare the cost of a good Sony FD trinitron monitor to a HDTV!!!
------------------------------
Reply-To: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 00:11:06 GMT
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Hobbyist
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >
> > > > Of course, the thing is, they didn't need to charge for IE, because
> > > > they
> > > > use IE in many different applications for many different things.
> > > > Having
> > > > a robust application like IE allows them to get many miles out it.
> > > > They
> > > > save so much time by using what IE already has, or by only having to
> > > > make
> > > > minor modifications (as opposed to designing a whole new type of
> > > > interface)
> > > > that they save time and money. IE pays for itself several times
> > > > over.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nonsense.
> > >
> > > Total, unadulterated nonsense.
> >
> > That's myopic. Stop thinking of direct charges for services.
> > In a corporation as large as Microsoft where the success of a product
> > depends so much on that of many other factors, it doesn't take a
> > genius to fathom how the money spent to develop IE is easily covered
> > by the benefits accrued through giving it away for 'free'.
> >
> > This isn't more commonly done simply because not many
> > companies have the sort of capital it takes to pump money into such a
> > venture to reap indirect rewards.
> >
> > Giving free licenses for personal non-profit use of software
> > is a less costly way of incurring the same sort of benefits that
> > Microsoft is aiming for with IE. PUBLICITY. Increased USERSHIP.
> > Expanding the USERBASE. Everyone is using the damn thing. Think of the
> > power MS has. The lovers of free stuff don't even realise they're
> > caught. The problem is that MS is such a wealthy company that they're
> > able to give away quality for free. There's no doubt that IE is
> > quality software.
> >
> > > MSIE cost Microsoft a lot. It seems to be a major factor in
> > > introducing
> > > instabilities into the system. Yet they give it away.
> >
> > Myopic, myopic. Are you a businessman. I'm not and even I
> > can see the sensibility in it.
>
>
> Of course I'm a business man. My current business is returning about
> 100% return on capital and record profit levels. More money than you'll
> ever dream about, anyway.
>
> As for your "sense", you're completely ignoring the thread. MSIE costs
> MS money. Even a dolt ought to see that. Yet they give it away for free.
> So, the poster who I was responding to (who claimed that MS only did
> things that generated profit) was clearly wrong.
How so? If the end result is greater sales of other MS products.. or greater cross
licensing agreements for
MS and Office integration..
Then they are doing it entirely for greater profits. Again, not necessarily for the
narrow picture.. but in the larger, more
global
picture.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
