Linux-Advocacy Digest #789, Volume #25 Fri, 24 Mar 00 05:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Richard Steiner)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (Richard Steiner)
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary ("Tim Haynes")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (Daniel O'Nolan)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (David Damerell)
Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary (David Damerell)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 02:42:47 -0600
Here in alt.os.linux, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Kew) spake unto us, saying:
>> Now they think that they
>> have discovered something that could destroy the software industry as
>> we know it.
>
>That wording makes me uneasy. The software industry is quite happy with
>Open Source. Look at IBM, which has successfully defined a new role
>for itself since the big collapse of its old business.
Also keep in mind that a *HUGE* percentage of the software writen today
is custom software for internal use in big businesses, not the classic
shrinkwrapped software market seen by consumers and referenced so often
by magazines.
That market is largely unaffected by open source because software that
is closely tied to a specific company's business rules is often unique
(and hence effectively unusable outside of the original company).
The "software industry" is a lot larger than many people realize.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
"Ethel the Aardvark goes Quantity Surveying." - Monty Python
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 02:51:06 -0600
Here in alt.os.linux, "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>1. Why pay if you can copy (to arrive at an identical product)? Why would
>anybody want to do that, except for laws and morals?
What if I want 24x7 support? Someone on my site *now* to fix the code
if the software fails?
I (and my employer) see that something worth paying for.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
But really, it was EXACTLY the same as before...
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 03:47:38 +0100
Martijn Bruns wrote:
>
> Daniel O'Nolan wrote:
> >
> > Bastian wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:21:43 GMT, Leon Hanson wrote:
> > > >On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:08:43 GMT, "fysg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>> 12. Beos is about to release 5
> > > >
> > > >> I do not know that OS, is it free ?
> > > >
> > > >Beginning with version 5.0, yes.
> > >
> > > Just free or open source?
> > >
> > > Bastian
> > It's just free. It'll be out on the 28th of march. Though I do love
> > linux, I'm aways in the mood to try something new.
>
> I wouldn't try downloading it immediately on the 28th though!
> There are over 100.000 pre-registrations.
> (Major worldwide internet-slowdown expected!)
Cool. It may be fun just to sit back and watch to see what happens.
Kinda like the day DOOM came out, and crashed the server where it was
originally stored.
-Dan
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:34:19 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:25:05 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>> The common perception that OS/2 needed PS/2 hardware wasn't because
>> IBM was pushing OS/2 on their machines. Gee... could it have been as
>> simple as the common '/2' ending for both? Naw... it must have been an
>> MS conspiracy.
>
>So IBM's ruin in the PC OS market was due to the "/2" - my gosh why
>didn't MS explain that to the Judge!?! You guys could have saved MS's ass
>in court! No wonder PC OEMs didn't preload OS/2 - they didn't know it ran
>on their PCs. Hey it was IBM's fault!!
So why do you think there was a common perception that OS/2 ran only
on PS/2 hardware?
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:38:01 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:31:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david
raoul derbes) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The common perception that OS/2 needed PS/2 hardware wasn't because
>>IBM was pushing OS/2 on their machines. Gee... could it have been as
>>simple as the common '/2' ending for both? Naw... it must have been an
>>MS conspiracy.
>
>In 1988 I spent July at Princeton University at a summer school/enrichment
>program run by the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, for high school teachers.
>I was recruited, as one of the more computer capable, to help Edwin F.
>Taylor run a workshop on using some special relativity software he'd
>written. The machines available to us were PS/2's rather like iMacs; they
>were all in one machines with two floppies (and no hard drive.) I think
>the PS/2 line was announced about the same time OS/2 was, and I think
>there was a deliberate attempt on IBM's part to *suggest* that OS/2
>would work best, to be sure, on a PS/2; the idea was (I think) to try
>to reestablish IBM as "different", and indeed, better, than all the
>Intel clones. Thus the MicroChannel, the new keyboards, the adoption of
>the now-standard 720 and 1.44 floppies, and so forth.
That's what I believe as well... IBM wanted, at least for some time,
to foster the belief that OS/2 needed PS/2 hardware.
>Finally, from my time in comp.os.os2.advocacy (and Joseph Coughlan has
>better credentials than I do; ditto Dave Tholen) I can say categorically
>that most people on that newsgroup, and about half were very committed
>Microsoft users, knew very well that OS/2 ran on any Intel machine with
>enough horsepower (486, 8 MB RAM).
I certainly knew it, but I still got questions from friends asking if
it needed a PS/2 machine. They saw both names and thought
there was some required connection.
>The perception that only a PS/2 would run OS/2 was never seriously
>advanced by IBM; they did not wish to restrict the user base. They did,
>in my opinion, hope to link or establish a "brand" with the /2 label.
>It didn't work, obviously.
>
>I miss OS/2, and I'm really sorry that it never caught on. It seemed to
>me very significantly better than any version of Windows I've ever used
>(I have not used NT recently.)
>
>David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:45:07 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>>>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>>>>>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
>>>>>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
>>>>>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
>>>>>> power to maintain their monopoly.
>>>>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
>>>>> their hardware to push OS/2.
>>>> Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
>>>> a PS/2 to run OS/2?
>>> Let me guess... that's Microsoft's fault too.
>> Does your "guess" prove that IBM was unwilling to use their hardware to
>> push OS/2?
> The common perception that OS/2 needed PS/2 hardware wasn't because
> IBM was pushing OS/2 on their machines.
Was IBM actively countering the perception?
> Gee... could it have been as simple as the common '/2' ending for both?
There was a connection between the two, but not a requirement to use
them together.
> Naw... it must have been an MS conspiracy.
The issue is IBM's alleged unwillingness, not any MS conspiracy.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 24 Mar 2000 09:44:26 +0000
Reply-To: "Tim Haynes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (eyez) writes:
> >> The Gimp? I believe mysql?
> >
> >I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Photoshop and its predecessors have
> >been around long before the Gimp was created. The Gimp is merely a
> >clone. As far as SQL goes: "System R is a database system
>
> the GIMP can Run circles around photoshop, for over $600 less. Take a
> filter in Photoshop, and look at it's gimp equivalent. Usually, you'll
> notice that A. The photoshop one is Costly. B. The Gimp one has More
> options, and more control, even if it isn't more User-friendly. C. GIMP
> is Faster.
>
> Once a product Outperforms it's predecessor, it is no longer a Clone,
> but a replacement.
I'd agree with that one, 'outperformance' including features as well as
resource hogging. And more important than "$600 less", I think, is "can add
your /own/ modules" and redistribute the Good Thing around as you like -
Free, not just free.
> >built as a research project at IBM San Jose Research (now IBM Almaden
> >Research Center) in the 1970's. System R introduced the SQL language and
> >also demonstrated that a relational system could provide good
> >transaction processing performance."
>
> That's SQL. MySQL is a totally different, and again, opensourced solution
> which produces the same output.
*Ahem*
(a) Distribution of the Program or any work based on the Program by a
commercial organization to any third party is prohibited if any
payment is made in connection with such distribution, whether
directly (as in payment for a copy of the Program) or indirectly
(as in payment for some service related to the Program, or payment
for some product or service that includes a copy of the Program
"without charge"; these are only examples, and not an exhaustive
enumeration of prohibited activities). However, the following
methods of distribution involving payment shall not in and of
themselves be a violation of this restriction:
That might explain:
Package: mysql-server
Section: non-free/misc
Architecture: i386
Filename: dists/unstable/non-free/binary-i386/misc/mysql-server_3.22.32-1.deb
I'm not happy about calling it open-source (it looks restricted
distribution and Debain consider it non-free). Does anyone have better
judgement to supply?
How's about the emacsen of the world? vim and other editors? mozilla? gnome
and maybe even KDE projects? XFree86?
I think all of those may be seen to shine way over anything equivalent in
the commercial scene, and I'm conscious of leaving out rather a lot...
~Tim
--
| Geek Code: GCS dpu s-:+ a-- C++++ UBLUAVHSC++++ P+++ L++ E--- W+++(--) N++
| w--- O- M-- V-- PS PGP++ t--- X+(-) b D+ G e++(*) h++(*) r--- y-
| The sun is melting over the hills, | http://piglet.is.dreaming.org/
| All our roads are waiting / To be revealed | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:46:14 GMT
George Marengo writes:
> IBM gave up on OS/2, and that's ultimately why it failed.
IBM hasn't given up on OS/2. IBM gave up pushing OS/2 to the
consumer market. OS/2 hasn't failed.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:48:12 GMT
Joe Ragosta writes:
>> Andrew J. Brehm writes:
>>>> George Marengo writes:
>>>>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>>>>>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
>>>>>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
>>>>>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
>>>>>> power to maintain their monopoly.
>>>>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
>>>>> their hardware to push OS/2.
>>>> Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
>>>> a PS/2 to run OS/2?
>>> I have never heard that before.
>> Doesn't change the fact that it was a common perception. It's even
>> been mentioned in this newsgroup on several occasions.
> Really? That's the first time I've heard it, too.
Search the newsgroup archives for "PS/2".
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:48:52 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:05:21 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:40:29 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>>
>> >No crime victim is perfect. Blaming the victim for any possible
>> >imperfections is not a defense but a desperate act.
>>
>> Yeah, poor IBM, hapless Microsoft victim.
>
>Indeed they are.
>
>I'm not asking you to stop your anti-IBM prejudices. I am asking if you
>be biased against IBM more intelligently than you have so far being you
>contradict court discovered facts.
Oooh... now the personals start... I'm really wounded. Really.
>> >What is your argument - that whatever IBM did they could have
>> >done more - well Duh - and they could have done less.
>>
>> They had the opportunity and the means -- all that they lacked
>> was the will to do so.
>
>"to do so" means what? It means you're not sure what the hell you want to
>say. IBM fought MS in software. The court's commentary is specific and
>it showed IBM had the will to fight MS.
That was indeed the courts opinion. My opinion differs, deal with it.
>> I've never said that it would have made a difference. It might have
>> not made any difference, but I'm surprised it didn't upset you at the
>> time that IBM was pushing OS/2 on one hand and pushing Windows
>> with the other.
>
>Of course you implied IBM's actions would make a difference.
Of course I did, but I simply don't know if it would have made any
difference at all.
>Why be so dishonest - below you tell me that IBM's weak support for
>OS/2 had a negative impact on consumers. Which one of you is wrong?
>The guy here or the guy below.
I said that consumers saw IBM selling both products, so if it wasn't
even good enough for IBM to sell to the exclusion of Windows, how
does that convince the consumer that OS/2 was worth investigating?
>> Whoah bucko... I'm not asserting this as fact. To be clear, this is my
>> opinion...
>
>It's a baseless opinion, not rooted in fact.
So you're quite happy with the efforts made by IBM to promote OS/2,
is that correct? Back when it was happening, or now, it doesn't bother
you in the least that IBM sold Windows on their PC's?
>> IBM was sending a mixed message by saying OS/2 was a
>> better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows while they
>> were selling Windows. If they didn't even believe that OS/2 was a
>> better alternative than Windows, why should the consumer believe it
>> enough to try it?
>
>The Judge didn't see any mixed message.
I really don't give a rats ass what the Judge saw. I was an OS/2 user
and I was upset when I see the company that's supposed to be trying
to increase the OS/2 user base selling Windows on their PC's.
>MS didn't defend themselves claiming IBM should have refused to sell
>Windows if IBM were serious about OS/2.
>
>According to the Judge MS got angry at all the negative things IBM said in
>advertisements about Windows in comparison to OS/2 and retaliated against
>IBM. IBM did not waiver and so they suffered econimoc losses by MS's abuse
>of monoply power.
What was the loss they suffered? That's right... they had to pay more
to sell WINDOWS on their PC's.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:53:04 GMT
Jeff Glatt writes:
>> Andrew J. Brehm writes:
>>>> George Marengo writes:
>>>>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>>>>>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
>>>>>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
>>>>>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
>>>>>> power to maintain their monopoly.
>>>>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
>>>>> their hardware to push OS/2.
>>>> Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
>>>> a PS/2 to run OS/2?
>>> I have never heard that before.
>> Doesn't change the fact that it was a common perception. It's even
>> been mentioned in this newsgroup on several occasions.
> It has also been mentioned several times in this newsgroup that you
> abused your employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded for
> doing so
There is a difference between a common perception and a fact. I was
talking about a common perception. You are claiming fact, but you
have yet to present a shred of evidence to support your claim.
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 04:07:13 +0100
Rich Cloutier wrote:
>
> "xxx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I doubt anyone in this group will answer after this comment as it is very
> > clear that you do not understand the DoJ vs M$ case. It is in fact far
> more
> > complicated then just the Browser.
> >
> > .......
> >
> >
> > hot_offer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Everyone complains about Microsoft putting the Internet Explorer icon on
> > the
> > > desktop and including it with the installation of their operating
> system.
> > > Monopolistic and controlling. And they give it away for free.
> > >
> > > Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape
> Navigator
> > icon
> > > on the desktop and it is included with the installation of the Linux
> > operating
> > > system. It is installed by DEFAULT. And they give it away for free.
>
> I don't know much about the DOJ issues, but MY issue is not whether IE is
> supplied for free, or even that it is installed by default. MY issue with it
> is that you CAN'T easily UNINSTALL it, removing any trace of it from your
> system, like you CAN with Netscape on any Linux distribution, even if it IS
> installed by default. MY issue with it is that it purposely interferes with
> any other browser I may decide to use on Windows. They have taken this one
> step further in my opinion, as I have a system that, since upgrading to IE5,
> Netscape won't even INSTALL on.
>
> > >
> > > Hmmm....see the obvious parallel. Amazing similar isn't it? And yet
> > every
>
> Similar, yes, but parallel? Not even close.
>
> > > Linux Lacky will claim this is TOTALLY different. No it's not. Same
> > thing,
> > > same reasons, same way. But denial is far easier to swallow in the
> Linux
> > camp
> > > apparently.
>
> How about swallowing the WHOLE story?
>
> --
> Rich C.
> "Have you supported a new Linux user today?"
> To reply by email, remove the "abc_" from my address.
Actually, you CAN, despite what MicroCrap says, but you have to have the
95 CD so that you can replace the new shell with the old. This just
proves the MS has lied to the public once again. You can read about it
at www.98lte.net
-Dan O'Nolan
------------------------------
From: Daniel O'Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 04:12:23 +0100
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when hot_offer would say:
> >Everyone complains about Microsoft putting the Internet Explorer icon
> >on the desktop and including it with the installation of their
> >operating system. Monopolistic and controlling. And they give it
> >away for free.
> >
> >Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape
> >Navigator icon on the desktop and it is included with the
> >installation of the Linux operating system. It is installed by
> >DEFAULT. And they give it away for free.
> >
> >Hmmm....see the obvious parallel. Amazing similar isn't it? And yet
> >every Linux Lacky will claim this is TOTALLY different. No it's not.
> >Same thing, same reasons, same way. But denial is far easier to
> >swallow in the Linux camp apparently.
>
> Does Netscape sell an operating system? Do they bundle anything with
> it?
>
> No, they do not, which is rather different from the situation with
> MSFT. The lawsuits have centred on the fact that Microsoft is the
> creator vendor of both OS and web browser. (Which ignores the fact
> that both code bases were once purchased from other companies, but
> there has been enough code under the bridge to minimize the importance
> of that...)
>
> In any case, MSFT both:
> a) Produces and sells an operating system, and
> b) Produces and installs a web browser.
>
> Those factors are not true for *ANY* of the vendors of Linux-based
> systems.
>
> And your claims about the "icon on desktop" are outright false.
> Between Christmas and now, I have installed all of:
> - SuSE,
> - Red Hat Linux,
> - TurboLinux,
> - Caldera OpenLinux,
> - Corel Linux, and
> - Debian Linux.
>
> In *none* of the cases was there an "icon" on the desktop to invoke
> Netscape. *Not one.* In the case of Debian, Netscape wasn't even *on
> the CD.*
> --
> Roses are red
> Violets are blue
> Some poems rhyme
> But this one doesn't.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/msprobs.html>
On SuSE scinse at least 6.2 there IS an icon for netscape on KDE, and
GNOME, but only if you install Netscape (which of course you don't have
to.:))
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 24 Mar 2000 09:53:15 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'll be polite and blame it on my rusty English. Let's try again.
>Premise: we want economics (you might not agree, but that's another thing) (1)
>Consequence: we want limited offer (with unlimited offer, there's no economics) (2)
>Premise: unregulated copying leads to unlimited offer (fairly reasonable) (3)
First bogosity. Someone has to _write_ the software.
>From (2) and (3): we don't want unregulated copying
>Consequence: we want laws and morals (regulation)
>Still, we might not want laws and morals if something is really wrong with
>them, hence the question "Now, tell me, are you against laws and morals,
>mr_organic?"
It is not reasonable to phrase that question that way; a straight reading
of that question can only interpret it as 'against all laws and morals'.
If you mean 'Do you have some particular drawbacks of copyright law in
mind?', you should say it.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; | |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down. "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |
------------------------------
From: David Damerell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Introduction to Linux article for commentary
Date: 24 Mar 2000 09:55:50 +0000 (GMT)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Jewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>If you can show me a sophisticated business level system that can be
>>used without referring to some documentation, or support services, I'll
>>buy your argument, but I'm confident you wont find it. It's like saying
>>you can buy a block of wood, a hammer, and a chisel, and instantly be
>>able to make an ornately carved table leg.
>Programs like powerpoint don't count, I guess?
Have you actually considered the quality of the average powerpoint slide?
It's like unto the average DIY table leg - except that the leg is ugly but
functional where the powerpoint slide is just ugly.
--
David/Kirsty Damerell. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| |I hear the fan of a big machine, Two days, I'm in between, break; | |
|---|lost, code fall through, Loop forever then process kill. Hermes is|---|
| | |broken and lyra's down, lyra's down. "Chimaera, my Nameserver"| | |
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:59:03 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 09:45:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo writes:
>> The common perception that OS/2 needed PS/2 hardware wasn't because
>> IBM was pushing OS/2 on their machines.
>
>Was IBM actively countering the perception?
Of course they were.
>> Gee... could it have been as simple as the common '/2' ending for both?
>
>There was a connection between the two, but not a requirement to use
>them together.
I know -- I used OS/2 2.0 and 2.1 on a no-name 386 with 8 megs
of ram. It was faster (after bootup) and much more stable than
Windows on the same hardware.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
