Linux-Advocacy Digest #51, Volume #26 Sun, 9 Apr 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Victor Wagner)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Bloody Viking)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Bloody Viking)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Bob Lyday)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: Rumors ... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Johan Kullstam)
Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious! (matts)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Christopher Browne)
Re: Be vs. Linux (Jim Dabell)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Jim Dabell)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS (Jim Dabell)
Re: Be vs. Linux (Jim Dabell)
Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious! (Ciaran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:21:27 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The reason to move to linux are mainly to save money in the long
: run.
: Get off the upgrade treadmill. This in itself is huge. the
: upgrade treamill is an enormous lie that very few people even
: question. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The savings to business would be enormous. You could keep using the same
old hardware seemingly forever. But the upgrade-go-round is fuelled by the
file formats that are rendered incompatible with old versions of the
office app.
I'm not even a techie and I know about this. What happens is a Dogbert in
a cube farm buys the latest version. He fetches files from the server and
doesn't Save-As them, instead just SAVEs them. Now, when a Dilbert fetches
the file, the old version can no longer read is it's now "corrupted" for
lack of a better term. The result is now the whole office has to upgrade.
This is extortion.
Worse, other sources of problems exist that are also extortion to enforce
upgrading. Consider if I owned a small business. I would use Linux,
throughout. I can save money by doing some of my own coding. But now, you
have the secretaries with Staroffice or Word Perfect. Now, you get a Word
Y2K file from a client. Oops. Guess what. I have to let myself get
assimilated by the MS-Borg(tm).
If I was the judge, one punishment I would move to impose is that all file
formats are made open. This is necessary to prevent the above extortion
whereby a company's files are held hostage until everyone upgrades. With
open formats, anyone can code up an app for it so in my hypothetical
business I could send and receive the files from clients and still use
Linux.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Victor Wagner)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 9 Apr 2000 10:39:23 +0400
Grant Edwards <grant@nowhere.> wrote:
:>Don't get me wrong, X is excellent, and has it's uses,
: The most important of which is to run 8-10 terminal emulators
: on a great big monitor so I can have as many text-based
: programs running (and visible) as I need.
: I'm serious.
Recently I began to feel it somewhat waste of resources and begin
to hack up my own desktop interface, which of cource based on assumption
that user wants programs he is used to, but have ultimate goal to make
xterms as transient as possible - you peek command, program (or xterm
with program) pops up, when you done with it, you just close it.
I don't like to search for "free" xterm on my screen anymore.
--
Besides, it's good to force C programmers to use the toolbox occasionally. :-)
-- Larry Wall in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:26:19 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Upgrade-itus infects mostly home users and yuppie types that have to
: run the latest because it's got to be better.
: Corporations are much more conservative these days.
: Hence the somewhat cool reception Win2k has had.
And the one yuppie type in a cube farm is all that's needed to force an
upgrade as he saves the files in the newest, latest, greatest format,
making them useless to everyone else in the cube farm. It's usually a boss
that causes this chain reaction. This happened at my original postal
workplace. The department head upgraded, "corrupting" a shitload of files
by saving them in the new format.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:36:55 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: give me a break. Why do you think, especially since the Y2K upgrades, so
: much of small business America uses Windows?
Y2K was quite an economic boost all right. All you really needed to do to
make your Y2K-compatible was to just use Linux. Instead, everyone rushed
out to get new hardware and blow $300 a pop on NT Workstation. Little
wonder Win2K is a slow seller. Maybe Y2K will teach everyone about the
upgrade-go-round and the upgrade-go-round will ultimately prove itself not
Y2k_compliant.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 16:43:33 -0700
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : The reason to move to linux are mainly to save money in the long
> : run.
> : Get off the upgrade treadmill. This in itself is huge. the
> : upgrade treamill is an enormous lie that very few people even
> : question. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
> The savings to business would be enormous. You could keep using the same
> old hardware seemingly forever. But the upgrade-go-round is fuelled by the
> file formats that are rendered incompatible with old versions of the
> office app.
Ah, yes, the ever-mutating file format trick! A good one, too!
M$ are magicians!
>
> I'm not even a techie and I know about this. What happens is a Dogbert in
> a cube farm buys the latest version. He fetches files from the server and
> doesn't Save-As them, instead just SAVEs them. Now, when a Dilbert fetches
> the file, the old version can no longer read is it's now "corrupted" for
> lack of a better term. The result is now the whole office has to upgrade.
> This is extortion.
I'll say! Wait, maybe they are just "good businessmen". Isn't
that often the same thing, though?
>
> Worse, other sources of problems exist that are also extortion to enforce
> upgrading. Consider if I owned a small business. I would use Linux,
> throughout. I can save money by doing some of my own coding. But now, you
> have the secretaries with Staroffice or Word Perfect. Now, you get a Word
> Y2K file from a client. Oops. Guess what. I have to let myself get
> assimilated by the MS-Borg(tm).
He he. Smart, aren't they? How do you think they got this
monopoly, anyway? Yes, M$ Orifice definitely does not want to
play with the other boys...
>
> If I was the judge, one punishment I would move to impose is that all file
> formats are made open.
Yes. And the damned video codecs too, while they are at it! I
am sick and tired of downloading some video forever only to be
forced use Borg Media Player, or, even worse, it will not play
in *any* of my *three* movie players! Thanks for wasting my
time! This is insanity! I also do not appreciate the way all
three of these players are always trying to snatch each other's
files! It sux!
And perhaps Borg should be forced to make Windbloze read/write
something other than itself? Wonder why Windows is so afraid to
play with other systems? Is it shy?
This is necessary to prevent the above extortion
> whereby a company's files are held hostage until everyone upgrades. With
> open formats, anyone can code up an app for it so in my hypothetical
> business I could send and receive the files from clients and still use
> Linux.
A better world, huh? Not to mention that file format madness is
harming the productivity of the entire world's business
community! Wait, I thought Borg was "good for the economy".
--
Bob
"We blew it -- too big, too slow..." - Bill Gates talking about
Windows NT during a meeting with Steven McGeady of Intel.
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:52:11 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft John Millington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This is a laugh. I've seen MIS departments come into existance _because_
: of Windoze. MIS departments are one of the biggest barriers to getting
: rid of Windoze, because those people know that once Windoze is gone,
: so are their jobs.
Damn. A good OS would downsize all these Win-Techies. Ang guess who'll get
the jobs. Linux longhairs!
: I rather suspect that one of the consequences of the DoJ case is that
: Microsoft's _deliberate_incompatability_ with standards will be punished.
: It's only a matter of time before everyone starts writing documents in
: an open format that _anyone_ is allowed to write compatable software for.
: Once once that level of competition exists, Microsoft will be toast.
The file formats NEED to be made open. I sure hope this repercussion comes
out. The bullshit file formats is one of the biggest reasons I use Linux.
: The easier Be makes it for people to try BeOS without major risk/hassle,
: the worse Microsoft's position is. It was strongly in Microsoft's interest
: that people had to repartition hard drives to try other OSes. Once someone
: has seen what it is like to use a non-Microsoft OS, Microsoft immediately
: loses mindshare. Ask any "enthusiastic" Microsoft users if they've ever
: tried any other OS, and the answer is always No.
Also, bring up Linux to someone who is an "enthusiastic" Windows user.
It's a good way to get blank stares from people. Or, let someone ask you a
Windows question aster you tell them you own a computer. Then, you say you
use Linux. Half the time they never even heard of it.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:11:03 -0500
Scott E. Regener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:955182579.270985009@localhost...
> Reason #1 to reboot Windows: Installing new software. It is extremely
rare
> that a new program won't insist on being rebooted in order to work.
NT seldom requires a reboot though for this. The software may tell you to,
but I've only found a few cases where it was required.
> Reason #2: A change in configuration, such as changing the TCP/IP address
of a
> network interface, etc.
You've never had to do this with NT, despite that it told you to reboot.
Windows 2000 doesn't even tell you to.
> Reason #3: A program has crashed and will not operate properly until its
> residual parts are flushed from memory. Many "application faults" follow
this
> path, including many that appear to work properly for some length of time
> before exhibiting poor behavior. Thus, while a particular application
*may*
> work properly after being restarted without a reboot, Windows users have
been
> trained to *always* reboot, just in case.
What they are trained to do, and what is required are two different things.
Most Linux users would probably reboot their machine if X crashed or locked
up rather than trying to telnet into it from another machine to kill the
processes.
> Reason #4: Decreased performance. Over time, with heavy use, Windows
systems
> tend to slow down dramatically.
Not if you maintain it properly. These are things you would generally do in
Unix as well. An example would be trimming or deleting log files (the same
as optimizing the registry). Granted that this is often automated by cron
tasks, but there's no reason it can't be automated with windows as well.
One step that you'll want to do with Windows is defragment, which isn't
usually necessary for Linux (unless you run full drives and add and delete
stuff a lot).
Proper maintenance can keep a Win9x machine running as fast as the first day
you installed it.
> Reason #5: Hung programs, especially ones considered critical to the GUI.
> These may even prevent the machine from shutting down properly, and may
not
> respond to "End Task" dialogs, if such things even appear.
This seldom happens under NT. If one hangs, you can kill it from a command
prompt. I've never had it happen with Windows 2000.
> I'll admit that some of the above *may* also require reboots in Linux,
though
> the instances are much more rare. However, it is perfectly reasonable for
an
> active Windows user with one or two incompatible programs (i.e. DLL hell)
to
> see frequent application crashes that require or recommend a reboot before
> continuing.
Something which no longer happens with Windows 2000.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:14:12 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2000 18:47:26 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8cnjqe$k87$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Also, Apple denied Be critical information it needed to continue to
> >> operate
> >> > under Apples hardware, forcing them out of the market.
> >> >
> >
> >> Then I would suggest Be take them to court for anti trust violations,
if
> >> what you say is true. I see no poof offered just your word Franky an
you
> >> have be wong SOOOOOOOOOOO many times before that I don't trust your
> >> word.
> >
> >And every time i've proven you wrong.
> >
> >http://www.be.com/support/faqs/faqs/be_faq-00083.html
> >
> >"Will BeOS support newer Macs? G3s, iMacs, G4s, etc.?
>
> That's more due to their own lack of initiative than any barriers
> put in place by Apple. The Apple-proprietary aspects of Apple's
> current machines are actually rather minor.
And if you read further down the faq, you'll see that Be doesn't want to
open itself up to a reverse engineering lawsuit. Remember, apple is the
most lawsuit happy computer company on the planet. Considering that the
president of the company is an ex-apple employee, chances are he knows
enough inside people to know whether such a lawsuit would happen or not.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:13:16 GMT
"Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> CG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > oh, and linux has no viruses.
>
> YET.
probably not. there have been a couple of viri for linux but they
haven't been successful since linux is not a good host. put simply
the virus doesn't spread fast enough for it to survive.
this doesn't mean that something like the word virus attack couldn't
occur. however, since microsoft is unlikely to port ms-word, linux is
safe from that too. in addition, most linux software does *not*
execute programs embedded in email automatically.
that doesn't mean that linux is immune. linux is succecptible to many
attacks, mostly of the buffer overflow variety (C doesn't really have
a string type).
in light of the strength of linux vis-a-vis virus attack and the
existance of easier, more productive attacks, viri for linux are
unlikely to develop.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious!
Date: 10 Apr 2000 00:22:04 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>
> The day for commerically written OS's has passed into history.
>
> Whether you debate about it or not. Who gives a flip.
>
> Charlie
Sorry. Corporations rule the world. The day when corps cease control is
when Hell has broken loose on Earth. So, in a sense, you should "give a
flip." If you favour "Free" so much, you should be disapointed, shouldn't
you? Oh well.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:35:15 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Bloody Viking would say:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: The reason to move to linux are mainly to save money in the long
>: run.
>: Get off the upgrade treadmill. This in itself is huge. the
>: upgrade treamill is an enormous lie that very few people even
>: question. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
>The savings to business would be enormous. You could keep using the same
>old hardware seemingly forever. But the upgrade-go-round is fuelled by the
>file formats that are rendered incompatible with old versions of the
>office app.
Um. This can be nonsense as easily as not.
StarOffice is bloated, requiring a goodly 32MB (hardly "using the same
old hardware seemingly forever"), and as for file format, there's little
guarantee that it won't change. Ditto for WordPerfect, ApplixWare,
KDE Office, and GNOME's "office" software.
The notion that "going Linux" inherently eliminates the "upgrade-go-round"
is nonsense. Just watch the every-six-months new versions of SuSE and
Red Hat Linux, and the move from LIBC5 to LIBC6.
You can live in a dreamworld where there's no change; that's not the one
we live in...
--
Mail should be at least a mixture of upper and lower case. Devising
your own font (Devanagari, pinhead graphics, etc.) and using it in the
mail is a good entertainment tactic, as is finding some way to use
existing obscure fonts.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 23:44:43 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Opinionated wrote:
>
[snip]
> -BTW: Slackware's first release was in April, 1992. Redhat was founded in
> 1994.....Therefore, your claim that Redhat was the first Linux company to be a
> 'mover' is wrong since Slackware was there 2 years before. I have a feeling
> there was another company/group before Slackware. Again, you didn't do any
> research.
As far as distributions go, Slackware was based on SLS, and there was
also the Manchester Computer Centre (MCC) distribution. As for
companies, Cygnus was around before Linux itself, AFAIK, and they based
their business around free software. They also make a profit :)
> I have been using Linux for the past 2 years.......I intend to stay with it as
> I use it at home and work in primetime. I do my best to support and advocate
> Linux.
Same here.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:42:25 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Keith T. Williams" wrote:
>
[snip]
> > oh, and linux has no viruses.
>
> YET.
Actually, I think there are one or two ELF viruses out there. They just
can't propogate in a sane environment. It would be more accurate to say
that Linux has no virus problems, and it is doubtful any will crop up.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[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
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:42:10 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
fmc wrote:
>
> "Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > fmc wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > > At first their customer support staff has no trouble handling problems with
> > > the new line, but as time goes on the variety of new issues goes up over
> > > time, not down as they expected. They soon discover the reason: their own
> > > customers are creating the problems by changing source sode and
> > > recompiling their GPL'd applications. Some of them are even making changes
> > > to the Linux kernel itself.
> > >
> > > The owner comes up with the solution immediately.
> >
> > Put a clause in the support contract that says they'll only support
> > unmodified software? After all, if they can modify it, they can fix it
> > when they break it.
>
> Yes, they could do that, but that's not what happens in this instance.
A person's stupidity has no bearing on the validity of the GPL.
> Is he free to make his own decision, even though it might be wrong from your
> POV? Sure, the owner could disclaim responsibility , but HE believes it
> will hurt the company's reputation as a builder of quality platforms. It's
> no comfort being right if you lose money on account of customers telling
> other people that you caused their problems.
If somebody used Notepad to edit a DLL under Windows, would this
hypothetical person resort to removing Notepad because it might hurt the
company's reputation? The source-code to GPL software is part of the
package, without it, it is incomplete. A company selling incomplete
systems isn't going to be very sucessful.
> > Then the engineer drops the bombshell; "You can't remove the source
> > code from the distribution. Word will get around that you don't give
> > the customers something that your rival does. The customers will go to
> > your competition."
>
> He said "You can't remove the source code", not "You don't want to remove
> the source". The engineer could raise that issue, but the owner of THIS
> company doesn't think that's going to happen. So he makes another decision,
> even though it might be wrong in the opinion of the engineer.
And how many companies run by halfwits will actually survive long enough
for anybody to *care* what they do?
[snip]
> > IMO, the GPL is there because the BSD/X-style licenses don't take human
> > nature into account.
>
> Let's keep it simple. This is about the GPL.
And related licenses. The problem you have with the GPL license (that
you have to provide source), is directly related to the BSD/X-style
licenses.
> > Here, the owner is limiting what the customers can
> > do with the code. It won't improve the reputation of Linux, because the
> > end-users won't have the degree of flexibility they would have with the
> > source code. It won't improve his business' reputation, because
> > something that can be included for no cost is not being included. It's
> > like shipping half a book. "It'll improve the reputation of the author"
> > won't cut it, because it's an incomplete work.
>
> Let's say the engineer brings those points up. The owner is again free to
> ignore his advice, and decides to ship w/o source code in spite of what the
> engineer says.
As I said, how long would a company like this last, given that the
person around the corner will be offering exactly the same service, but
with source?
> The real challenge is to RS. Will he defend the owner's decision to ship
> GPL'd programs w/o source code, based on his statement that he's "just
> sharing free programs with our customers"? That' equivalent to RS saying
> that piracy is "just sharing information with your neighbors", isn't it?.
I don't really care what RS thinks. The GPL license has as much freedom
as the BSD/X-style licenses. The difference is where that freedom is
applied. The GPL focuses on the *code* being free, the other licenses
focus on the *end-user* rights being free. Whether or not you feel the
GPL pays too high a price is a matter of personal taste, IMHO.
> fmc
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:42:33 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ax wrote:
>
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:03:13 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Will Linus be willing to give up control to allow the DIFFERENCEs?
> >
> > He already did. The GPL says you can modify the code any way you want,
> > and even distribute it, provided you also make the source available. It
> > does not say anything about Linus giving permission.
> >
>
> If that's the case, why those Linux companies don't take the kernel
> with them and make speedy enhancement or cleanup of the
> kernel instead of relying on part time Linus?
>
> I'd rather see companies such as Red Hat and many others to
> take the lead in the kernel development instead of having Linus
> to control when and how the next kernel release will be.
>
> Did I misunderstand anything?
You missed an important point. Linux companies *do* write a lot of code
for the kernel. Witness Redhat employing Alan Cox, other companies
employing various kernel hackers, the "donation" of journalling
filesystem code, and even more activity in userspace. In fact, some
distributions use kernels which *haven't* been OKed by Linus. Since the
kernel is under the GPL, the companies who develop enhancements to the
kernel must make the source code public. Sending patches to Linus (or
whoever) is only a matter of courtesy, they don't have to get his
blessing for their modifications.
Jim
------------------------------
Subject: Re: These OS debates are simply Hillarious!
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2000 17:47:56 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
[...]
> ... Metallica
>vs. The Artist Formerly Known As Prince, etc.
Jeez.. now *there* is a fight Id like to see :)
[...]
Cheers,
Ciaran
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
