Linux-Advocacy Digest #1, Volume #26 Fri, 7 Apr 00 05:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: Programming Languages (Glitch)
Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark (Glitch)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Beable van Polasm)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading (Glitch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07 Apr 2000 07:49:59 GMT
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 07:27:57 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 06:22:32 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > Boy are we going in circles here. I say, intellectual "property"
| > rights are not innate rights. They are privileges granted by our
| > benevolent government to foster progress. In the case of the software
| > industry they have been counter-productive and have hindered progress
| > more than helped it. You say, intellectual "property" rights are
| > innate and for that reason they are protected by the government. I
| > ask, how do you have the innate right to limit what I do with my
| > property, because under copyright laws you can do that. For example,
| > you can prohibit me from distributing CD's (my property) that contain
| > a certain sequence of ones and zeros, because you've copyrighted that
| > sequence of ones and zeros. You say that my distributing CD's with a
| > certain sequence of ones and zeros infringes on your rights. I say
| > how does that infringe on your rights. You say it infringes on your
| > rights because it's not allowed under copyright law. I say, but you
| > said your rights are not 'doled out by the government'. What innate
| > right of yours does my behavior infringe on? You say it infringes on
| > you right as a copyright holder.
| >
| > Have I summed it up pretty well? Do you still hold your position?
|
| I still hold my position. There's no conflict between innate rights (not
| doled out by government), and rights as expressed in the language of
| copyright or patent. They are one and the same. The copyright or patent
| affirm the rights, they do not create them. The rights have to be there in
| the first place (innate) for the copyright/patent to be valid.
Not true. Just because the government makes a law, does not make it
valid.
| If you
| invent a new device, but another company gets a patent after you did so, you
| can take them to court to contest their right to keep the patent. That's
| only possible because you have the innate right to the patent. You would
| not have a case though, if the government had "doled out" that patent right
| by fiat.
That's faulty logic. You have the right to contest those patents on
the basis of the rules that the government has set in place to dole
out patents.
| I've gone to some length to explain this. Now you've said that
| intellectual property rights are not innate rights, but they are privileges
| granted by our benevolent government to foster progress. Can you support
| that position?
Certainly. Copyright laws restrict my ability to do what I want with
my belongings. This is an infringement on my rights. Now the burden
of proof is on you to justify this restriction of my rights.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 07:41:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://bero.exit.de/legal/
Very entertaining. Was this published April First?
(April Fool's Day).
Become a Microsoft Certified Linux Engineer (Can you spell Microsoft?).
Microsoft's competitors include Microsoft DOS and Microsoft Linux?
This is either a very silly joke (incorporating a flagrant violation
of Microsoft's trademarks and copyrights), or the most flagrant
example of contempt of court perpretrated on the net.
The judge has issued a verdict, based on the testimony given in
the trial. Microsoft raised the same argument during the trial,
and on cross-examination and interrogation by the judge it was
clear that Microsoft controlled 95% of the Intel PC desktop computing
platform.
Much of the issue is that Microsoft has used a number of illegal
and/or unethical methods to protect it's monopoly. IBM paid Microsoft
nearly $4 billion for OS/2, and Microsoft caused another $8 billion
in damages by witholding Windows 95 licenses until 15 minutes before
the "Grand Opening". Even this was mainly so that Microsoft could
claim that IBM was backing Windows 95.
If Microsoft can hold the economic equivalent of a "loaded gun" to
the largest computer manufacturer in the industry, then Microsoft
has monopoly control.
Microsoft could be free of the "Monopoly" in a matter of months or
even a few years, by giving OEMs the freedom to decide how much of
each system will be installed - including BOTH Linux and Windows
or perhaps even Linux, BEOS, and Windows.
Linux was being given away free, with over 2000 GUI applications
and over 6000 filters and components. It had the entire legacy
of UNIX behind it, and it STILL couldn't break Microsoft's
"all or nothing" licensing strategy.
> - Donn
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:18:50 GMT
"Lee Sau Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "fmc" == fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> But you do limit my right to do with my property as I see fit.
> >> You make it illegal to put a certain sequence of ones and zeros
> >> on hard disks and CD's that are my property.
>
> fmc> That's right, it's illegal for you to lay down a string of
> fmc> copyrighted bits.
>
> That's an absurd idea.
I notice you didn't find the idea of putting "a certain sequence of ones
and zeros on hard disks and CD's that are my property" to be absurd, only my
rejoinder. Why is that?
>
> So, I'll today write a small program --- a bit-string generator. I'll
> deploy this program on all machines which I own, to increase yield.
> In 1 year, my program should be able to exhaust all bit strings of
> length <= 1Mbytes. So, at that time, I'll start sending out letters
> to all computer (or any digital device) users, telling them to send me
> loyalty fee for every file of size <= 1Mbytes on their storage
> devices. Why? I've produced all bit strings of length <= 1Mbytes,
> for which I own the copyright. So, anyone who has any file <= 1Mbytes
> on their harddisk are "pirates" of some of the bit strings that my
> program has generated. Hahahahahahahahaha.........................
How many of those files are exact copies of other people's copyrighted
material? Well, you've infringed on their copyrights. Don't forget all the
literature you must have reproduced. More copyright infringement. As for
the rest of them, if you expect to sue anyone you'll have to register each
work with the Copyright Office at 20 bucks a pop. You're gonna need some
deeep pockets.
>
>
> For better protection, I'll try to have this idea patented. So, you
> can't enjoy the "independent creation" defense. Haha...
OK, whatever.
>
>
> fmc> MicroSoft holds the copyright on "0", and
> fmc> I believe that Intel and AMD are fighting over who owns the
> fmc> "1".
>
> I'll go to another dimension: try to get the ownership of letter "a"
> in English alphabet. Whoever uses this letter will have to pay me
> loyalty. Haha!
>
>
Very funny. Now please go and turn off the nitrous oxide.
>
>
> fmc> I'm reading the side of a box that contains a copy of OS/2.
> fmc> It states that the box contains copyrighted material, and
> fmc> that "purchase is conditioned on acceptance of the license
> fmc> contained inside".
>
> That's hardly any license or contract. Without the possibility that I
> *negotiate* with the other side about the terms in the "license", it
> doesn't constitute an agreement or contract. The terms in it are
> simply void.
The courts say otherwise.
>
>
> fmc> If you don't agree to the license it says
> fmc> you can return the software and get your money back.
> .............^^^
>
> I "can" or I "must"?
Do you want your money back, or do you want to agree to the license so you
can legally use the product? It's a free country (that needn't be taken
literally), so you decide.
>
>
> fmc> If you don't like bowling on their alley, just turn in your
> fmc> shoes and get a refund. You won't lose a dime,
>
> I wouldn't lose a dime, but dollars! How much is the postage? How
> valuable is my time and energy!? You mean those cost < a dime? I'm
> not cheap labour!
Just submit an expense report, Don't forget to include the miles you drove,
tolls you had to pay, and cost off-street parking. Lunch cannot exceed 10
dollars, and alcohol is not reimbursable. Please include all receipts, but
DO NOT staple them together. It drives the secretary crazy.
>
>
> fmc> you aren't
> fmc> damaged in any way, and life goes on. You can run it, read
> fmc> it, watch it, or listen to it, but you can't copy it.
>
> Can I keep a **backup** copy of it, then, even if the license *says*
> that I do not have the right to do so?
No.
>
>
>
> --
> Lee Sau Dan §õ¦u´°(Big5)
~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
>
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.
> | e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
>
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-'
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:24:16 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:53:58 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 03:28:48 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > Okay, so if they are my files, on my hardware I can do with them
as I
> | > | > please?
> | > |
> | > | Yes, if they are legally yours to do with as you please, in the
sense
> | that a
> | > | story you wrote on your word processor is your file. You could scan
a
> | Tom
> | > | Clancy novel onto your HD, but it would be an illegal copy. If I
had an
> | > | illegal copy of something on my system, the last thing I'd do would
be
> | to go
> | > | around bragging that it was my file
> | >
> | > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
> | > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
> |
> | How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as well as
> | revenue that the publisher lost?
>
> How about my right to the $300 an hour job working from home? I'll
> give you a hint, it doesn't exist.
No matter. The courts will award damages to Clancy and the publisher.
Maybe you can write a best seller from the experienece.
fmc
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 03:36:50 -0500
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That means if it's ok to copy others ideas for Unix, it's ok for
> > Windows to do so as well.
>
> Yes, if they only would do so properly. For instance, they should
> have copied the ISO-8859 character set instead of `inventing' their
> own, they should have copied all of the BSD IP stuff, and not broken
> it later, etc etc.
Unicode isn't a standard character set?
> There was a lot of talk about how the COM model could be used, last
> time I followed the development. (It might have been Gnome, btw).
Mozilla copied the COM model for use in Mozilla and created a cross platform
version of it.
> I don't think Xerox is mentioned all that much, but I think that is
> more due to the ubiquity of those concepts, rather than an
> unwillingness to admit that KDE and Gnome are being based on other
> work.
I think the point is that very little is ever unique in computers. Even if
you had no idea it existed, someone has probably already done it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07 Apr 2000 08:32:56 GMT
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:24:16 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:53:58 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > |
| > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 03:28:48 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > | > | > Okay, so if they are my files, on my hardware I can do with them
| as I
| > | > | > please?
| > | > |
| > | > | Yes, if they are legally yours to do with as you please, in the
| sense
| > | that a
| > | > | story you wrote on your word processor is your file. You could scan
| a
| > | Tom
| > | > | Clancy novel onto your HD, but it would be an illegal copy. If I
| had an
| > | > | illegal copy of something on my system, the last thing I'd do would
| be
| > | to go
| > | > | around bragging that it was my file
| > | >
| > | > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
| > | > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
| > |
| > | How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as well as
| > | revenue that the publisher lost?
| >
| > How about my right to the $300 an hour job working from home? I'll
| > give you a hint, it doesn't exist.
|
| No matter. The courts will award damages to Clancy and the publisher.
| Maybe you can write a best seller from the experienece.
That doesn't support your claim that Clancy and his publisher have an
innate right to those royalties.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:44:07 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Programming Languages
scripts are words (scripts) that only need executable permissions and
are not 'interpreted' but read by the shell
programming languages need to be compiled and translated into machine
code before they can be used
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when abraxas would say:
> >Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when abraxas would say:
> >>>Scripting languages are not programming languages.
> >
> >> I periodically hear this claim; I see enough production systems deployed
> >> using "scripting" languages that I have to call this utter nonsense.
> >
> >The difference between scripting language and programming language has
> >exactly zero to do with the scale or impressiveness of systems deployed
> >using either.
>
> You've provided exactly zero indication of what any differences *do*
> have anything to do with.
>
> Are scripting languages *languages?*
> They tend to have grammar and syntax every bit as much as
> do C, FORTRAN, Ada, and LISP.
>
> Are they used for *programming?*
> ... Every bit as much as C, FORTRAN, Ada, and LISP.
>
> I can't see any reasonable way of characterizing them as *not* being
> programming languages.
> --
> When I die, I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather,
> not screaming in terror like his passengers...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/languages.html>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:49:01 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ha ha...You can't!
>
> The Linux crowd runs and hides ever time the word "benchmark" is
> mentioned.
>
> Oh yea, some German Magazine DID do a benchmark. Linux won by a large
> measure. Surprised?
> Nobody else was.
>
> Another problem is you have to find applications. Linux applications
> that is, real shipping bonafide applications, not promises.
so when is the last time MS released an operating system when they said
they would? When is the last time a bug was NOT a feature? When was the
last time the OS was actually to blame for crashing instead of it being
the user?
by the way, Corel just released their WP2000 suite for Linux as well as
IBM releasing their popular database program. The company who makes
Houdini for NT released the Linux version a while back. If you don't
think its a viable alternative why would it cost $17000? Supposedly in
the MS world the more it costs the better it is, except when dealing
with their OSes that is. The opposite is true in that case.
>
> Good luck....
>
> Steve
>
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 21:55:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Hi --
> >
> >where can I find Linux vs. Windows benchmarks?
> >
> >Specifically, I am looking to compare O/S and application
> >performance on the same Hardware platform.
> >
> >Any hints appreciated.
> >
> >Ulrich
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:46:37 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 07:27:57 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 06:22:32 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | > Boy are we going in circles here. I say, intellectual "property"
> | > rights are not innate rights. They are privileges granted by our
> | > benevolent government to foster progress. In the case of the software
> | > industry they have been counter-productive and have hindered progress
> | > more than helped it. You say, intellectual "property" rights are
> | > innate and for that reason they are protected by the government. I
> | > ask, how do you have the innate right to limit what I do with my
> | > property, because under copyright laws you can do that. For example,
> | > you can prohibit me from distributing CD's (my property) that contain
> | > a certain sequence of ones and zeros, because you've copyrighted that
> | > sequence of ones and zeros. You say that my distributing CD's with a
> | > certain sequence of ones and zeros infringes on your rights. I say
> | > how does that infringe on your rights. You say it infringes on your
> | > rights because it's not allowed under copyright law. I say, but you
> | > said your rights are not 'doled out by the government'. What innate
> | > right of yours does my behavior infringe on? You say it infringes on
> | > you right as a copyright holder.
> | >
> | > Have I summed it up pretty well? Do you still hold your position?
> |
> | I still hold my position. There's no conflict between innate rights
(not
> | doled out by government), and rights as expressed in the language of
> | copyright or patent. They are one and the same. The copyright or
patent
> | affirm the rights, they do not create them. The rights have to be there
in
> | the first place (innate) for the copyright/patent to be valid.
>
> Not true. Just because the government makes a law, does not make it
> valid.
Well then, what WOULD make it valid, your personal approval?
>
> | If you
> | invent a new device, but another company gets a patent after you did so,
you
> | can take them to court to contest their right to keep the patent.
That's
> | only possible because you have the innate right to the patent. You
would
> | not have a case though, if the government had "doled out" that patent
right
> | by fiat.
>
> That's faulty logic. You have the right to contest those patents on
> the basis of the rules that the government has set in place to dole
> out patents.
"Having a case" means having an argument that stands a chance of winning in
court. It does not refer to your ability to go to court. You can sue
anyone for anything, whether you have a case or not. In this case, having
an innate right to the invention makes it possible for you to win. If there
is no innate right, then the case is won by whomever the patent was granted
to. In fact, all patent suits would be won by the patent holder without
exception, because the government had created the rights and bestowed them
on the holder. The fact that someone can go into a courtroom and
successfully challenge a patent disproves that theory and proves that innate
rights exist.
>
> | I've gone to some length to explain this. Now you've said that
> | intellectual property rights are not innate rights, but they are
privileges
> | granted by our benevolent government to foster progress. Can you
support
> | that position?
>
> Certainly. Copyright laws restrict my ability to do what I want with
> my belongings. This is an infringement on my rights. Now the burden
> of proof is on you to justify this restriction of my rights.
So, you don't agree with the law, therefore it must be an infringement on
your rights, and I should have to justify that. Sorry, but you'll have to
make a credible attempt to provide your own argument.
fmc
------------------------------
From: Beable van Polasm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:39:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> example:
>
> gnus/emacs
>
> * does news *and* mail.
> * has offline agent mode.
> * works in linux and windows.
> * handles attachments.
> * good text editor already built-in.
>
> now i don't know about you, but every windows mail tool seems to come
> with the *worst* text editor. i mean lamer than notepad. plus, there
> is no escaping it and chosing your own editor.
Huh? I think you're making it up. I know of a Windows mail tool
that comes with an EXCELLENT editor! WAY better than notepad.
And it runs on Windows NT, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 3.11,
and MSDOS. It also does spell checking, offline news reading, and
lots more. It's called "Emacs". Please check your facts before
you post nonsense. I always do.
cheers
Beable van Polasm
--
http://members.xoom.com/_______/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:53:10 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:24:16 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 04:53:58 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 03:28:48 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > | > Okay, so if they are my files, on my hardware I can do with
them
> | as I
> | > | > | > please?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Yes, if they are legally yours to do with as you please, in the
> | sense
> | > | that a
> | > | > | story you wrote on your word processor is your file. You could
scan
> | a
> | > | Tom
> | > | > | Clancy novel onto your HD, but it would be an illegal copy. If
I
> | had an
> | > | > | illegal copy of something on my system, the last thing I'd do
would
> | be
> | > | to go
> | > | > | around bragging that it was my file
> | > | >
> | > | > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
> | > | > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
> | > |
> | > | How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as
well as
> | > | revenue that the publisher lost?
> | >
> | > How about my right to the $300 an hour job working from home? I'll
> | > give you a hint, it doesn't exist.
> |
> | No matter. The courts will award damages to Clancy and the publisher.
> | Maybe you can write a best seller from the experienece.
>
> That doesn't support your claim that Clancy and his publisher have an
> innate right to those royalties.
Look up the meaning of the word innate if you want to understand where all
innate rights come from.
What innate rights do you think YOU have?
fmc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 05:01:49 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
I don't see any sense of Linux failing. I work for a multi million
dollar company who has their whole business backbone running Linux. We
are only 4 years old, growing at 300% and the clients don't seem to stop
coming and yet, woah, what do you know, we use Linux and the clients
don't even know it unless they really get into their server. One copy
of RH that was probably bought for $50 is isntalled on every server and
we have well over 500 servers each running mysql, usually 10 instances
of apache, DNS, sendmail, etc. The computers that I have *noticed* the
numbers for have been up for well over a month basically only needing
rebooted when a client tries to 'fix' something and ends up making it
worse. We are able to customize to fit our needs, have our own process
monitors running to catch spam/rogue processes, and make our own
software which interfaces with the scripts that come with Linux.
I agree with you 100% Kim.
josco wrote:
>
> -- joseph
>
> On 6 Apr 2000, Kim A. Sommer wrote:
>
> > SAS Institute announced last month that it would be porting the SAS system
> > to Linux. And that's not because they are an open source bazaar type free
> > loving community. It's because their customers demanded it. It also
> > leverages smaller shops that couldn't afford the bigger iron and the
> > overhead of the system service contracts. And FYI, SAS is probably the
> > largest *privately* held software company around. THey'd be well within
> > in the S&P500 if they were public.
>
> SAS has also complained publically that MS is adding expensive features
> into MS SQL for W2K. The complaint is that OS profits are financing R&D
> into SQL features. IMHO There are also competitive reasons for SAS to try
> to offer PC users an alternative to Windows.
>
> Anyway, the suggestion that W2K has somehow scaled past LINUX as a
> compute/server OS is plain nuts. MS has only released the dummy edition of
> W2K for PCs, the enterise edition isn't ready and meanwhile the LINUX
> kernel 2.4 is due this summer. LINUX/FreeBSD are very popular OSs for R&D
> and as for compute clusters. I can get Oracle8i or IBM DB2 for LINUX for
> less than HALF the cost of W2K.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
