Linux-Advocacy Digest #43, Volume #26 Sun, 9 Apr 00 08:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do
you?) ("doc rogers")
Re: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do
you?) ("doc rogers")
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 12:33:23 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
8colgf$nfo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <8ckh1f$j2o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> > Good for you. Unfortunately, your UberOSes apparently don't cut
> > it for your boss.
>
> Now that I'm back home and on my Solaris machine:
>
> True, and that's their problem. They have inisisted that the
> corp. "standardise" on Micro$ux Exchange for e-mail, and have
> the server a thousand miles away. I have pointed out the folly
> in relying on others far away to resolve e-mail problems, and
> when they have occurred, I thank my good sense of keeping my mail
> on the local network under Solaris as well, so that I'm not
> totally cut off from the outside world. So far, this has not
> convinced the big-wigs, but I note that the MIS manager here
> _also_ keeps his local mail service for the same reason. Stupidity,
> IMHO.
I didn't say anything about him being right or wrong, if you remember.
> I also retain the ability to do my work (outside e-mail) on my
> Solaris box (despite their original expressed desire to move
> everyone to X86/Windoze platforms.). I have a fine X-windows
> environment, Netscape, Acroread, Framemaker, etc., along with
> the standard Solaris utilities. And I don't have to worry about
> my system freezing up (unless I've loaded new driver code, and
> made a booboo somewhere, but that is under _my_ control). And
> there is an emulation package that allows Micro$ux applications
> to be run as a task as well, but I don't use it, having little
> use for running such.
Good, but you realize that you're not exactly a typical consumer level user,
don't you ?
> I've considered putting Solaris on the laptop as well, and may
> do so if the Windoze freezing behaviour becomes too bothersome;
You realize that many people don't necessarily suffer weird lock-ups while
running Windows.
> I can still access my Micro$ux Exchange mail form Solaris Netscape.
Good. I see also that you are a fan of "creative" naming.
> One of my compatriots has Linux on his laptop and does OK as well.
Many of my acquaintances have Windows ontheir laptops and are happy too.
What does that tell us ?
> > > that freezes up (not even the courtesy of the Blue Screen of
> > > Death [for which I hear Micro$usx is soliciting for advertising
> > > space on]) at least once a day.
> >
> > Actually, Win9x doesn't have a BSOD, it's an NT "feature". :)
>
> No matter. Windows 3.1 had it, and if NT does as well, it just
> goes to show that things aren't improving much at all in the
> MIcro$ux world.
Nope, Win technically doesn't have the BSOD. But that's just hair-splitting
over a joke I made about the NT only "feature", let's forget it.
> > Listen, i don't want to argue this to death. You want a powerful
> > UNIX type OS, by all means use powerful UNIX type OS.*
>
> It isn't the power so much as the reliability. Micro$ux thinks
> that people _will_ tolerate the occasional requirement for a
> <CTRL><ALT><DEL> (or in my case, removing AC input amd taking
> the battery out), but that is true only as long as they think
> they have no choice in the matter. As I previously stated,
> their standard "support" consists of asking you to remove all
> third party software, closing all windows (if you _can_), and
> then rebooting the machine, to "fix" things (all the while
> _charging_ you for the call). The idea that they should actually
> _solve_ these probelms and issue fixes seems to be a foreign one.
Heh.
But, what you are forgetting is that what is true in your experience, isn't
necessarily true for anybody else. Many people use Windows and it does what
they expect. No I don't mean occasional system crashes and lockups.
> > Now, consumers, the bulk of the computer using populace have
> > little to no use for a powerful UNIX type OS *at the moment*.
>
> A platform that stays up for a few days might be a neat trick,
> though.
>
> Check this out:
>
> selbu{arne}51: uptime
> 8:16pm up 54 day(s), 2:47, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.07, 0.12
> selbu{arne}52:
Sure, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the bulk of the consumer
level users, are more interested in a computer that allow them to do their
stuff, than in a box that doesn't do much for them but is able to stay up
50+ days, and go bragging about it on USENET, since generally they turn it
down after use.
> The last time I rebooted was to install different hardware (we're
> constantly checking our software here on a number of different
> communications boards).
Good, good.
> > All they want is an appliance that fulfill their needs, with the
> > minimum of hassles. They boot it, they do their stuff, and when
> > they're done, the shut the thing done.
>
> _If_ it doesn't die before then. If it does, they just do their
> stuff _over_ again.
Sure, you are telling me that there are no application crashes under Linux
or Solaris ? Because, when the application crashes, there goes their stuff
also. And many people, when an application crash, think of it of a system
crash.
I.e. "This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down"
for example and they go, oh shoot, Windows has crapped again !
> > That's the type of users that are better off using Windows9x or
> > MacOS.
>
> Why? I can run word processing, e-mail, net surfimg (as I'm
> doing now), just as well here. People have come up to me and
Yes, but some people do more than that.
> said "_how_ did you _do_ that" for some of the Solaris tricks.
> I really don't miss having a PC; they gave me a Windoze laptop
> for the road which is why I have to endure Windoze.
You are not, I repeat myself, necessarily the target audience of Win9x.
> > I want to watch a Sorenson encoded *.mov and I have a Yamaha
> > DS-XG sound card, and then convert it on Cinepak. How do I do
> > that on Solaris or Linux. [On Windows9x or MacOS 8.x, it's
> > easy.]
>
> I'll agree that MacOS is easy. Windoze is easy too, providing
> you're a nitwit, and you don't mind the occasional crash. But
Listen, it's really difficult for me to argue with someone who apparently
has problems writing without introducing name-calling, "creative" or not.
But FYI, IMO, MacOS isn't more reliable than Windows [IME it's even less].
If people experience occasional crashes [application or system BTW ?] on one
platfom, they could very well experience the same on the other.
I know that in my office, we use Macs an Windows PC, if cyou could come and
visit you would see why I say *IME*, Macs are not more reliable than Windows
based PCs.
> Solaris isn't really any different. CDE suits a lot of people
> and is pretty much like Windoze in terms of usability. But
> OpenWindows is better yet, and has some neat features that the
> Windoze people haven't even begun to figure out. About the
> _only_ thing missing there that I've come across is the
> ability to resize in one direction only (which should be
> easily fixable if they took the time).
>
> > The most stable and powerful OS in the world does zilch for
> > me if it can't run my software on my hardware.
>
> If all you're looking for is multimedia, well and fine. (Our
> tech writers -- as do most I know of -- use Macs for any serious
Yeah, our graphists too. But you should hear them curse, foaming at the
mouth, when their MacOS has gone from under themm while working on something
important. And they are very much a Mac persons, not bigoted though, I must
hand it to them. Different experiences for different folks.
> stuff). But that's just fun and games for most people. Which
> may be why they don't complain when their Windoze crashes.
> Which goes to show that the hobbyist's OS which became
> Micro$ux is _still_ just a hobbyist's OS. Albeit one for
> dummies now.
Yessir, whatever you say.sir. The biggest majority of users are computer
illiterate [which doesn't make them dummies because there a great many
people which prefer to put their intelligence to other uses than learning
much about computers], you'll understand why Microsoft and Apple target
their OSes to them.
BTW, MacOS up to 9.0.4 is no more a professional OS than Windows up to 98SE.
> > . . . What pieces of shit ! See, I can talk as
> > silly as you.
>
> I'm not talking silly. Not that you'd understand, I guess.
Hey, I'm a Micro$ux Windoze using nitwit, what did you expect ? Oh man, it
sure must feel great to judge a person by the OS they use, and feeling
impotant because you use an UberOS, doesn't it ?
> > Windows9x wasn't designed to run websites or FTP download sites
> > with 99.999999999% availability, but to bridge the cap from
> > DOS/Win16/cooperaitve multitasking/no memeory protection/so-so
> > GUI to Win32/preemptive multitasking/memory protection/P-n-P...
>
> "P-n-P"? LOL. You know that there are many newer definitions
> for that acronym, not all Micro$ux endorsed. My housemate in
Of course, the bash Microsoft bandwagon is shock full. Of course, many of
those people still use Windows as their primary OS, but that's besides the
point. Many of those people are found here: http://www.l33t.com/
> Oakland ends up reinstalling Windoze every month because every
> bit of hardware or software he tries adding screws up his system
> completely. I keep telling him to _leave it alone_, but he still
Too bad for him. Not me, what does that tell us ? Different experiences for
different folks.
> is under the silly impression that the things are supposed to
> work. And they have written huge _books_ _just_ about how you can
> recover your system from a foobar registry. . . . So much for
> Windoze being "easy" to use.
If it's just recovering for a foo-bar registry, it's not that difficult
[then again for the non-technical oriented user] it is, provided you have
back-ups. AFAICT
Of course, they only write flyers about Linux, Solaris and MacOS. No big
books, never, ever, just figments of my imagination..
> Windoze wasn't "designed" to do anything but to imitate what
> Apple had already done well. Without it, MS-DOS was dead and
> Jobs and Woz would be laughing their heads off. . . .
Sure, but apparently they aren't. What the f*ck went wrong ?
> > Due to hardware constraints at the time,
>
> Windoze:
>
> A 32-bit adaptation of a 16-bit extension of a 8-bit OS
> written for a 4-bit processor by a 2-bit company that isn't
> worth 1 bit. . . .
Surely, you must feel clever writting stuff like that.
> Microsoft and Intel have long played the game of trying to
> "adapt" things; to do things incrementally. As such, the
> sad vestiges of their prior architecture has persisted and
> hampered them ove and over again, not to mention making
> virtually _every_ attempt to do so a kludge that was error
> prone and balky. Motorola bit the bullet and immediately
> went from 8 bits to 32 bits (at least internally). Sun
> bit the bullet, and jumped to the SPARC. IBM, Apple, and
> Motorola took the plunge and went for the PowerPC. And
> you're still on x86, daughter to the 8085, 8008, and 4004.
>
> The limitations were _entirely_ of their own manufacture.
Nevertheless, Intel is kicking Motorola's butt at the moment.
> > . . . the guys who developped it had to
> > make a few compromises here and there [the thing had to
> > sport all those features and boot in 4 Megs].
>
> No, it didn't. See above.
In your opinion. Mine differs. So what ?
> > Windows9x is far from perfect, . . .
>
> The first sensible thing I've heard you say.
Gee, you'll make me blush.
> > . . . and should be gone now IMO, . . .
>
> The second.
Oh thank you father/master/deity [you take your pick]. You really are full
of yourself, aren't you ?
> > . . . he paved the way for ubiquituous Win32 apps, which
> > was it's goal.
>
> Who the hell _wants_ Win32 apps? In the absence of Micro$ux/IBM/Intel
People who use them. You ask some really bizarre questions sometimes.
> hegemony, we would have had plenty of fine apps for other machines.
I'm sure ISVs would be delighted to target their software to a myriad of
smaller different platforms.
> That's basically what this lawsuit is all about.
Don't know, didn't really followed the case.
> > But the market, apparently doesn't still want to do away with it.
>
> Because the competition has been stifled by the "standarisation"
> on Micro$ux products.
Which competion ? OS ? Applications ? Harwdare ? Please be specific.
> > Win9x may not work for you, but it works for a great many people
> > as a consumer OS.
>
> As does MacOS. As could basically any Windows system that was
Sure. The MacOS reaches it's target audience quite well. I'm under the
impression that you think that Windows is superior to other OSes. I'm not.
It's better for some types at doing certain things.
> properly designed. Micro$ux Windoze has no patent on usability,
Neither has the MacOS, FWIW. And I never implied such.
> nor will it prevail in the long run, with all its warts, in
I don't know about you but I live in the present.
> the face of open competition. But Windoze _wasn't_ properly
> designed. They tied everything together too much (particularly
> the graphics stuff) and stuffed it into the kernel, where now
> any application that mishandles the graphics or does anything
> out of the ordinary can bring the system screeching down. Compare
And of course, it never happens on X or on the MacOS.
> with the window managers in the UNIX environment, where at worst,
> you might manage to cause your windows manager to core (although
> I have never seen that on the Solaris box; it seems pretty
> much impervious to application misbehaviour), but usually lets
> you off with simply an application error or core.
So much for your work then ? Aw man, this really suck !
> > Have it occured to you that it was not targeted at people like
> > you ? . . .
>
> Yes. I'm not going to say who I think it _was_ "targeted at".
Why ? Outta insults ?
> I'm sure you'll figure that one out.
Let me guess. <Paul uses his nitwit Micro$ux Windoze user excuse for a
brain>. Consumer level people which don't want a Mac ?
> > . . . Does that make it a piece of shit ?
>
> No. The fact that it crashes all the time makes it a piece
> of shit. I thought I made that clear.
Mine doesn't. I've been ripped. :( I see that you are still living under the
delusion that your experience is universal.
Solaris can't encode some sorenson encoded *.mov into Cinepak and doesn't
support my soundcard. That fact makes it a piece of shit. I thought I made
that clear.
> > Well, there are many consumers that would rate Linux or Solaris
> > a piece of shit to, because it wasn't targetted at them, and
> > that just as silly.
>
> Les than you'd suppose. Have you used either extensively?
Nope. I dabble a little with FreeBSD, BeOS and played a little with OS/2,
and I use Windows 9x/NT/2K and MacOS daily. Must come as a shock to you
doesn't it ?
But we are not taking about me, we are talking about consumer level users..
> > A Mack truck can haul a shitload of freight, but the compact
> > city car will be a *much* better choice, if all you do using
> > your car in a city. Of course, YMMV. . . .
>
> If your city car needs to be restarted three times on the
> way to the grocery store (and sometime you have to resume
> your journey from all the way back home), you'd be screaming
> bloody murder.
Of course. But it still beats the Mac Truck cruising the city, let alone
parking.
> > . . . And since you're the abitrator of OS excellence, you're
> > probably right.
>
> I'm just a _very_ experienced user. In fact, I'm a bit surprised
Now, try get off your experienced user POV and try to envision things from a
litterally computer illiterate user.
> that the Windoze NT people screwed up as bad as they did; their
> previous opus was actually pretty good (I've used it). THe
> problem probably came from the legacy stuff they had to deal
> with, thanks to Micro$ux/Intel. . . .
Heh. That's what makes Microsft of apple what they are, they take great
pains to support their legacy [or they could lose many consumers, which is
definite corporate no-no]
> FWIW, my Mico$ux Outlook is currently foobar, after doing an
> upgrade of my Mindspring software. Sez something about my
> MAPI32.DLL being corrupt or the wrong version. Gotta love
> that "compatibility". . . . Fortunately, my Netscape (on
> _both_ x86 and Solaris machines is working just fine, thank
> you. . . .
Of course, there are never any lib or extensions conflict on Linux, Solaris
or MacOS. Nope, never, ever any horror story, must be figments of my
imagination.
> Are you starting to get the picture?
Yep, Windows senses your hatred and pays you back in kind. :)
> Cheers,
>
> -- Arne Langsetmo
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get
it, do you?)
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 07:25:43 -0400
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > Copyright laws are a
> | > government-regulated form of suppression of freedom of speech, that
> | > restrict the information you are allowed to communicate to others.
> | Well, it roughly prohibits you from "saying" the exact same thing that
> | someone else said and not giving them credit for it. I agree that you
> | shouldn't be able to make a dub of a composition that I wrote, played
and
> | recorded for example then sell it to Sony as if it was yours, because it
is
> | my intellectual property. You can make similar stuff, though.
> You can't own information.
Well, ownership is just a concept, right? So it depends on how we look at
the concept, whether we're talking about ownership of a stereo, a cat, or
creative constructions.
> Once you let it out, it spreads like air
Once you let it out, it hopefully spreads, yeah--unless no one cares or
buys, etc. I wouldn't say that "it spreads like air" is a very useful
analogy, though.
> and very quickly become a part of all of mankind.
Most people who create stuff wish that was the case. But that's
quibbling--lots of creative stuff is known by lots of people, yes. The idea
you're aiming for here is something like, "You only own x if x is either
only in your possession or only you know about it." That doesn't have to be
the case, necessarily, and it focuses on the stuff instead of the
arrangement of the stuff. What I would say you own in copyright law is
coming up with that particular arrangement of stuff. When someone else
learns about that arrangement, say through reading a book you wrote, they
own an instantiation of stuff arranged as you devised, and the actual stuff
is theirs to do with as they please--put it on their bookshelf, use it for
toilet paper, etc. but they didn't come up with the arrangement and they're
prohibited from copying and propagating the arrangement beyond personal use.
> To try and control
> it after that is futile.
Yeah, it would be pretty hard to control every violation of copyright law.
I don't think anyone expects to. That's the case with most laws.
> | > In
> | > its natural state information "wants" to be free.
> | Everything is natural--I do agree with Mill on this even if I don't
agree
> | about utilitarianism. So all "states of information" are natural.
> | Secondly, information doesn't _want_ anything. That's just an
> | anthropomorphism that you hope will rally emotional support for your
side of
> | the argument.
> An anthropomorphism that's useful and accurate because of the
> qualities of information I listed above.
It's useful and "accurate" to you because you agree with it and it helps
make your point. That's usefulness as in instrumentalism. Pointing out
that that it's simply an anthropomorphism that someone hopes will rally
emotional support is useful to someone who doesn't agree with the point.
Further, all anthropomorphisms aren't _accurate_. The term itself refers to
equating some stuff with some other kind of stuff that the first stuff
isn't. I wouldn't call that accuracy.
> | > if I share information with you I still possess it.
> | Your ownership is of a particular arrangement, that you designed, of
> | physical stuff. It took you a lot of work to create that arrangement of
> | stuff, and protecting you from someone else selling an identical or
nearly
> | identical arrangement of stuff is a way that you can make money making
those
> | arrangements of stuff.
> Who says I should be able make money selling a arrangement of stuff
> that anyone can make?
The people who agree that there should be copyright law. You don't have to
agree. All ethics and moral judgments are opinions. I like pizza, you like
falafels. I like copyright law, you don't. There's no objectively correct
view here.
> If something is as easy and cheap to produce as
> a CD, the free market will generally put little value on it.
Well, the free market isn't a thinking entity itself. It's composed of a
bunch of individuals who think and interact, etc. Value is subjective and
not dependent on how expensive materials are (which is another subjective
valuation, by the way) or how easy it is to make something. I'm sure you
put little value on information on CDs. Other people don't. It's not
objectively right or wrong to assign value to stuff like that.
> | On the other hand, if we realize that there aren't such things as
"innate
> | rights" then we probably won't think that's a good basis for laws and
we'll
> | have to approach law creation some other way.
> Like utilitarianism.
That's one possibility, sure. Certainly not the only one.
> | > Since IP monolopy (and MS's use of it) is an artificial privilege
> | > created by government regulation,
> | Again, there is no real difference between "right" and "privilege"
> | > presumably for the public benefit,
> | I don't get the constant utilitarian assumption in this newsgroup.
> He's right. Copyright laws originated from utilitarian reasoning. At
> least in the US.
That could be. That doesn't mean that that has to have any bearing on
whether you disagree or agree with them, though.
> | > Another matter that should concern you as a libertarian who presumably
> | > values individual privacy
> | I don't agree that any laws are needed for individual privacy beyond the
two
> | things I want to prohibit. (And by the way, just as a trivial note, my
two
> | biggest disagreements with other Libertarians were always (1) that I
don't
> | agree with laws prohibiting contractual fraud, and (2) it always seemed
to
> | me, although I could never figure out a way to support it so I agree my
view
> | was problematic, that there should be _some_ government owned roads and
> | lands.)
> Because toll road suck. A free road costs less is more useful.
"such and such sucks" doesn't strike me as the best means of support,
although I know most of it amounts to little more on analysis.
> (Yes, doc is utilitarian.)
lol. Okay, if you say so. I don't know how you're going to reconcile that
in most situations, though. For instance, I don't care if my abolition
(assuming my dictatorship, here) of all drug laws helps anyone or is a
catalyst in turning everyone into smack junkies. Drug laws should be
abolished in my opinion regardless.
> | > what you do in your own home is your own
> | > business - is that IP laws are in conflict with this concept.
> | I don't support anyone coming into your home because you're making
copies of
> | software, no. That shouldn't be covered in copyright law, and in fact,
in
> | most instantiations of copyright law, it is specified that you can make
> | copies for personal use.
> Of course the DMCA disagrees.
Then I disagree with the DMCA. I haven't read much about it yet. It
certainly won't be the first time I disagree with a government's laws, as
you could guess.
> | > Suppose you have 2
> | > computers, yours and your wife's, and purchased one copy of the
> | > software.
> | All my computers have multiple installations of software that were
loaded
> | from one copy.
> How very illegal.
Probably, yeah.
> Do you think you should be able to do this without
> incurring the wrath of the government?
At home. Yes. That's personal use.
> | > Unlike physical property,
> | All property is physical, in my view. The distinction here is that not
all
> | property has to be in your immediate posession, and I agree.
> How is a copyright physical?
I'm what's called a physicalist on this issue in philosophical circles.
There's isn't _anything_ in my view that isn't physical. Mind included (the
view is mostly concerned with mind).
> | interested), I would say that I also don't think that you'd have to
never
> | behave in a way that you think should be prohibited in order to advocate
> | prohibiting what you advocate.
> I think if you do not actively practice what you profess to believe,
> you must not believe it very much. (Although I've done the same, I
> still hold this view.)
I don't think that's necessarily true. I think belief and behavior are both
very complicated.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: We need a new subject was (Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get
it, do you?)
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 07:40:30 -0400
> > | > Since IP monolopy (and MS's use of it) is an artificial privilege
> > | > created by government regulation,
> > | Again, there is no real difference between "right" and "privilege"
> > | > presumably for the public benefit,
> > | I don't get the constant utilitarian assumption in this newsgroup.
> > He's right. Copyright laws originated from utilitarian reasoning. At
> > least in the US.
> That could be. That doesn't mean that that has to have any bearing on
> whether you disagree or agree with them, though.
Another angle on this that you might be interested in is one from a
different philosophical doctrine, pragmatism. It may result in a positive
or negative utilitarian impact for you depending on how you look at this.
That is that the people who create stuff will more readily create, and
create more quantity-wise, if they make a living from it. That's certainly
true from my own perspective.
I don't care to spend a huge chunk of my time creating code, or music, or
painting, etc. just to have (this is a negative utilitarian view) everyone
use and benefit from the stuff I create while I have to continue working in
a factory or something just to pay my rent and eat. I know lots of other
programmers and artists who feel the same way.
The positive utilitarian view of this pragmatic fact would be that, if these
creations benefit anyone else in society, that benefit will be maximized by
providing an incentive for the creators to do their thing.
I have some other problems with that view, though, in that I don't think
that creations necessarily have benefits for others. That is, I don't agree
with the "no socially redeeming values" arguments against art. Art doesn't
have to have socially redeeming values.
--doc
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven
guilty
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 21:56:58 +1000
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ccii6$r8e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tim Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) writes:
> >
> >> Microsoft is guilty, Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!
> >>
> >> The only think that remains to be decided is what sentence the judge
will
> >> pass.
>
> >Would the open-source community be interested in hacking Windoze code,
> >should (for example) IE5 be open-sourced?
>
> Rex Ballard has described how Microsoft uses non-disclosure
> agreements to prevent competitors like Linux from obtaining
> the details of various essential hardware and software
> interfaces. MS should be required to stop this practice,
> and the current NDAs should be rescinded.
Yes, but Rex has a somewhat loose grip on reality. Why anyone would
consider him a source of even remotely reliable information is beyond
comprehension.
His stories are usually entertaining though.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
