Linux-Advocacy Digest #465, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: Giving up on NT (Joseph)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Christopher Browne)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Christopher Browne)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks] (pac4854)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto (Michael C. Vergallen)
Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux (mlw)
Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Ron House)
Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux (Andreas Rottmann)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:17:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am not clear what you are talking about. The user interface to wordpad
>is simpler than word, so for users who just need the functionality of
>wordpad, it really is a better choice.
Ahh, but the functionality of wordpad is different from the functionality of
word in ways other than the differences between .doc and .rtf.
-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
------------------------------
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:18:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 2-29-00, 4:26:17 AM, "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re:=
=20
Giving up on NT:
> "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=20=
makes a
> PC a PC, you are going to be spending more money on that system than a=
=20
PC!
> And, you can still do other things with a PC as well...
Not in the context of entertainment. PCs are really limited.
You can do more with a PSX II than play games. It's a trojan horse=20
device that is a DVD/CD player and web access device for obtaining=20
digital content. =20
Microsoft is going to announce a Game Console based on Win9x/DirectX. =20=
The fat lady is singing and PC gaming is emulate/copy the titles in=20
the more profitable console market. =20
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 03:18:14 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:29:33 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Actually, no. It would indicate that people are getting docs saved by Word
>because someone's company bought Office.
But somebody in the company decided to purchase word. Presumably, someone
in the company is using those features, though I'd agree that it's not
always true that each word user uses more than Wordpad functionality.
In any case, there's not even an OpenSource app that can do the same
as wordpad.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:21:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* WYSIWYG printing.
I have yet to see this on any platform, unless you allow for pretty good
approximations, in which case, I'm willing to give Lyx credit for matching
my expectations.
>* Any word processor
Lyx?
>* A decent web browser ( Mozilla doesn't count until it's out of alpha )
Lynx. It may not have all the features some people want, but it is
demonstrably decent and functional. (And before you say it's not good enough,
find a blind user and ask whether Lynx is better or worse than Netscape.)
>* A decent 3D game. Just one.
Quake is now available in source, no?
>* Professional quality music applications.
Wouldn't mind some of these.
>You get the picture. If we were stuck only with OpenSource software , we'd
>still be living in caves.
I think you've missed a key point: If there were no copyright law, that
doesn't mean all software not currently opensource would never have been
written, it means everything would have happened at different times in
different ways. We might well have, say, professional quality music
applications. They'd have been organized and funded differently, but we
might have them.
>OpenSource software is wonderful and all that,
>but to suggest that we should desroy the copyright system is simply absurd.
I tend to agree, but I don't think your arguments lead to your conclusion.
-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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:22:57 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Chad Myers would say:
>"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
>>
>> There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any plans to
>> put W2K on.
>
>It's not shipping, but Microsoft is going for the Itanium IA-64 ISA.
>
>I assume that AMD's not far behind, and they'll have a processor also.
>
>However, they'll both use the IA-64 (I believe, AMD wouldn't be foolish
>enough to try to pass their own 64-bit architecture, would they?) ISA.
I think you don't understand the warfare between Intel and "everybody
else."
One of the major "design features" of IA-64 is that it involves
significant chunks of Intel-patented technology, which means that AMD
can't build IA-64 hardware without licensing the whole horde of
IA-64-related patents and other design licenses.
In short, anybody wanting to build IA-64's has to toe Intel's line.
And the *real* point to this is to actively discourage anyone from
trying to compete with Intel.
In short, AMD likely *doesn't* have an IA-64 "clone," as it would
infringe on Intel patents, and Intel would be entirely happy being the
SOLE vendor of IA-64 products, as this means that AMD and others fade
into irrelevance.
--
"Objects keep things tidy, but don't accelerate growth: inheritance
does." -- James A. Crippen (after Alan Perlis)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:22:59 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Gregory Neil Bastow would say:
>In comp.os.linux.development.system Mario Klebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Harris) writes:
>:>Mario Klebsch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>:>: When writing a Program for e.g. Linux 2.2.13, I cannot rely on
>:>You are writing code to a kernel version?
>: The kernel is the thing called linux, so 2.2.13 is a linux version.
>
>It's taken this long to be sure, but now I _know_ he's a troll.
It would seem so.
>:>Sorry, the OS is bigger than just the kernel.
>: I know, bit Linux isn't. :-( That is what I am arguing the last
>: days. And IMHO Linux better becomes an OS.
>
>It's the astral projection of Richard Stallman in Mario's form...
>Just make sure you say GNU/Linux when you mean more than the kernel, boys
>and girls.
The observation that "Linux, the kernel" != "Linux, the system" was,
and is, a useful observation.
The observation that "Linux, the system" depends on a lot of software
that the FSF had some part in producing was also a relevant
observation.
Had "intent" stopped there, that might have been well and fine.
Much of the "politicalization" (is there a good word for that?) of the
issue has been "less clearly good." It looks more like RMS is begging
for recognition, and if he had been a bit more gracious about this,
there wouldn't have been the flame wars.
I think I'd prefer it if the attempt to control naming had been more
straightforward, with either:
RMS/Linux
or
FSF/Linux
After all, there's surprising ambiguity between "GNU," "FSF," and
"RMS."
--
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:23:04 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when George Marengo would say:
>On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 16:25:08 -0500, "Drestin Black"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Marengo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:10:38 -0500, "Drestin Black"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> >I think you would be wrong. Again, as the TPC benchmarks show,
>>> >using less processors and less machines, the Compaq/MS solution
>>> >smoked various Sun solutions.
>>>
>>> You're right, but that's a single benchmark.
>>
>>No, more than one. Many more, but it just happens that both of the two most
>>recent submissions BOTH beat every other machine ever submitted. And I do
>>see every other OS/hardware represented.
>
>Yes, there are several TPC-C entries, but the point is that TPC-C
>isn't the be-all, end-all benchmark --- it's only one of several.
This sort of thing happens fairly often; it was not so many years ago
that C compilers were written to detect ByteMark benchmark programs,
and generate code that essentially precomputed the answers at compile
time, so that the compilers generated spuriously high benchmark
numbers.
What the Compaq/MS solution most likely displays is *not* that
they've got better software or hardware, but rather that they found
the "trick" that decomposes TPC-C such that it is no longer a useful
(e.g. - realistic) measure of performance on large transaction sets.
This is why the TPC council has a sizable set of TPC benchmarks, and
is why nobody cares anymore about the older TPC-A or TPC-B
benchmarks. Presumably once it is established that everybody can
"cheat" on TPC-C, it will be discontinued as well.
--
Is the surface of a planet the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:24:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You know what I meant. In the absence of the copyright system, the copyright
>model of development would collapse in no time. The result would be that
>users would have to make do with whatever the other models of software
>development were capablae of producig.
True - but we don't have any evidence that there are any things that have been
produced by any development model that *can't* be produced by open source.
I have done projects under non-open licenses at one time or another. If I
didn't have the option, I would probably have done them. Some of them I would
have slightly *preferred* to do under an open license, but it was important to
a customer not to be sharing code (I don't get it, myself), and he wanted this
"feature" enough to pay extra for it. Fine by me.
If the people who make the sequencer I use for MIDI stuff were unable to use
copyright to protect their work, there are a few possibilities:
1. They would never release anything but binaries, and they would make a
living selling hardware keys for specific versions of their software for
specific platforms. This is very close to their business model right now.
2. They would try to find some alternative funding scheme. If they were
successful, they might, for instance, get into the business of selling support
contracts (a model that has been shown to work for some kinds of
"professional-use software") and continue to develop the software.
Keep in mind, people don't get into the music or game software industries for
the money; the pay is awful (except for the two or three game software people
a year who "make it big").
-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
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Phreaker/Hacker/Cracker [was: Re: Recent denial of service attacks]
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.networking
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:27:10 -0800
Phreaking (the "ph" comes from "phone") was the "cracking" of
phone switches. Had a friend back in the seventies who had one
of those marvelous "blue boxes" (I think that's what they were
called) that generated the extra DTMF tones that would let him
trunk anywhere for free. He used to like calling the nextdoor
neighbor on the phone by routing through as many continents as he
could....
"Hacking" didn't used to be exclusively a computer term. I
recall on occasion seeing the term "clever hack" used to describe
an ingenious solution to a difficult problem that wasn't computer
related. Search the MIT webpages; I think you'll find some
examples.
"Cracking" is "hacking" with malicious intent. Nice to see that
Computerworld got it right on their front page this week
("Cracker Nabbed", Feb 28 2000, Vol 34, No 9, Pg 4).
Might wanna look at
http://www.jargon.org
for the etymologies of these terms.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:27:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 01:29:33 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Actually, no. It would indicate that people are getting docs saved by Word
>>because someone's company bought Office.
>But somebody in the company decided to purchase word.
Most often, no, they decided to purchase Office, and Word just came bundled.
There are apps in Office other than Word.
>Presumably, someone
>in the company is using those features, though I'd agree that it's not
>always true that each word user uses more than Wordpad functionality.
This is quite possibly the case.
>In any case, there's not even an OpenSource app that can do the same
>as wordpad.
Hmm. I don't really use WordPad either, but as I recall, it's pretty
comparable to Ted. Maybe a bit more advanced in some way, but I never
really noticed the difference.
I did some technical reviewing recently, and, while the default was '.doc'
format, it turns out that everything they're doing is fine in '.rtf', and Ted
(open source, I'd point out) was quite up to the task of viewing a few
chapters of a technical book correctly, and allowing me to add comments in the
required format, save the result, and send it back.
Rule 1: If I can get a check for something I did using a piece of software,
it's clearly professional-grade software.
-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
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael C. Vergallen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: 64-Bit Linux On Intel Itanium (was: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: 2 Mar 2000 03:44:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Buy MSFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
If I would get anything else then Linux any MS product would come last on my
list ... if at all.
>Free yourself from that stinky Linux.
This shows how scared and paranoid you are ... Linux is a good OS that also
works on some of the world's supercomputers... Windows couldn't.
Michael
--
Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
------------------------------
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 22:49:47 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> if it's resident within the core unix system utilities - why does the
> product exist for Linux? who'd ever want it if it's entirely redundant?
>
A very good question.
SPLIT(1) FSF SPLIT(1)
NAME
split - split a file into pieces
SYNOPSIS
split [OPTION] [INPUT [PREFIX]]
DESCRIPTION
Output fixed-size pieces of INPUT to PREFIXaa, PREFIXab,
...; default PREFIX is `x'. With no INPUT, or when INPUT
is -, read standard input.
-b, --bytes=SIZE
put SIZE bytes per output file
-C, --line-bytes=SIZE
put at most SIZE bytes of lines per output file
-l, --lines=NUMBER
put NUMBER lines per output file
-NUMBER
same as -l NUMBER
--verbose
print a diagnostic to standard error just
before each output file is opened
--help display this help and exit
--version
output version information and exit
SIZE may have a multiplier suffix: b for 512, k for 1K, m
for 1 Meg.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:57:35 +0000
If Linux has an Achilles heel, it has now becomne clear what it is:
binary incompatibilities.
Can anyone explain what was so very important about glibc that required
incompatibility with the previous calling convention? Or why, just a few
months later, another incompatible change was made? Perhaps there is a
very good reason, or perhaps it is a misguided quest for efficiency, but
either way there are thousands of Linux systems out there failing to run
Linux programs. Add to that the efforts of RedHat, who bung the latest
stuff in their distributions before it has been tested adequately, and
we have a recipe for snatching failure from the jaws of victory.
Work, serious work, is needed on overcoming the problems caused by these
sorts of changes, or the potential user base will go elsewhere.
--
Ron House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Never fear the truth.
------------------------------
From: Andreas Rottmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: at.linux,aus.computers.linux,comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: ProSplitter 2000 is released FREE for Linux
Date: 02 Mar 2000 04:58:40 +0100
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if it's resident within the core unix system utilities - why does the
> product exist for Linux? who'd ever want it if it's entirely redundant?
>
Okay lets see what the 'UNIX core utils' have for us...
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > 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
Nope, but probably easy to write using TK or Glade or something else...
> > > - Fast 32 bit splitting / joining of very large files or DIRECTORIES !
Linux is 3bit isn't it... *ggg*
> > > - Recursive archiving of directories
tar -czf file dir
> > > - File Compression
cat somefile | { gzip | bzip2 } > compressed_file
> > > - DES (Data Encryption Standard) Encryption
Is there some utility for this out there? Anyway, PGP/GPG has much
stronger encryption...
> > > - Robustness and Reliability guaranteed via CRC data checks
md5sum?
> > > - Self-joining executable allows files to be joined without ProSplitter
shell archives
> > > - Attachment of comments to pieces
Just put a short README to each piece (there may be some better solution
than this, but it's 5 am now ;-)
> > > - Drag-and-Drop of files, directories and links (Win 95/98/NT only)
May be working, depends on file manager, however...
> > > - Support for splitting via the Windows Explorer Context-Menu (Win
> 95/98/NT
> > > only)
Thank goodness, Linux does not have a Windows Explorer Context-Menu...
> > >
> > > 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
> >
No need to download it... it's right on yor UNIX box...
Summary:
IMHO the functionality of this piece of software can be 'simulated'
with a few *simple* shell scripts - except for the UI things, which
are tagged as 'Windoze only' anyway...
Long Live The Shell!
Andy
--
Andreas Rottmann (Dru@ICQ, 54523380@ICQ)
Pfeilgasse 4-6/725, A-1080 Wien, Austria, Europe
http://www.altern.org/arot/
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
