Linux-Advocacy Digest #54, Volume #26 Mon, 10 Apr 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Copyrights etc. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Bill Gates on T.V. (matts)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (abraxas)
Re: Bill Gates on T.V. (abraxas)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (Steve White)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640 (tholenbot)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (Jim Richardson)
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (David Steinberg)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X (Rex Riley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Copyrights etc.
Date: 10 Apr 2000 00:29:46 -0400
On 10 Apr 2000 02:25:17 GMT, Damien wrote:
>That's understandable. But it is my belief that the increased
>usefulness of the software that is written, plus the efficiency gained
>from not re-inventing the wheel any more, will more then make up for
>the lack of code written because it doesn't pay as well anymore.
I'd argue that if there exists another model that is more efficient than
the traditional copyright model, then that model will win on it's own merits,
whether or not copyright law is dismantled. However, there are those who
advocate dismantling copyright law because they are unwilling to let the
copyright model coexist with other development models.
IMO, we won't see anything completely replace the copyright model. There are
other licensing models that have proved succesful for *certain types* of
software, but it is simply not true that one size fits all. IMO, the people
that say (free|nonfree) software is inherently superior are just being
narrow minded.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 10 Apr 2000 00:31:11 -0400
On 10 Apr 2000 02:20:35 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On 9 Apr 2000 18:15:11 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm not forcing you to do anything. You are not involved. Just me,
>my property (arranged in a certain way) and the people to whom I
>distribute it to. How am I forcing you to do anything?
You are making the fruits of my labor available to others against my will.
You don't have the right to decide who my software should be shared with.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 10 Apr 2000 00:32:15 -0400
On 10 Apr 2000 02:09:00 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On 9 Apr 2000 18:17:43 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| You've completely avoided the question. What, he'd have a "hissy fit"
>| because the law is broken, even though he believes that the law in question
>| is unjust ?
>
>Yes. He want's the same legal protection as everyone else, even if
>it's unjust for people to have these legal protections. =)
I'd say he's a hypocrite if he enforces laws that he considers unjust.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: matts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates on T.V.
Date: 10 Apr 2000 04:34:46 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Just billions will go to him and their
> OS will not
> work any better than 98 did for them. That's what current 2000 users
> are saying.
>
Eh? I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but current win2k
users don't have ANY problems with the os what so ever.. My college dorm
buddies and I have been using it for weeks since it came out.. Running
nice and smooth, no problems. And we get it for free too, because it's
free software. =)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 10 Apr 2000 00:51:56 -0400
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:42:10 +0100, Jim Dabell wrote:
>fmc wrote:
>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
I guess the code's rights outweigh the user's ?
RS always talks about "freeing the software", but what about freeing the
users ? Hmmmm ...
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: 10 Apr 2000 04:50:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was recently conversing with a person that I know well, who happens to work in
> computer security at the NSA.
> According to this individual, he was present in a meeting where "backdoors" into the
> Windows 2000 OS were discussed.
> I can not personally vouch for hte accuracy of this information, but thought that it
>might deserve
> some public scrutiny.
> At this meeting, it was explained that Microsoft had installed two "backdoor"
>protocols in the
> TCP/IP stack of Windows 2000.
> The first was put in place to allow the FBI and other federal agencies to
>surreptitiously log in
> to
> any Win2000 machine connected to the internet and passively examine files looking
>for evidence of
> terrorism or criminal enterprise.
> The second was installed by Microsoft for its own use, in the event of passage of
>the UCITA or
> "Shrink-wrap law". Should this law be enacted, MS will periodically log on to all
>Win 2000 servers
> on the internet looking for unlicensed software and deleting anything that it finds.
> Can anyone confirm this?
There was a backdoor on WinNT that was supposedly an NSA project. There's a
patch for it out (deactivates it) and tells you all about where it was, how it
worked, and how the patch removed it. I cant remember the url off the top of my
head, but im sure a bit of dilligence will find it for just about anyone.
I am aware of no other backdoor in any other current operating system. Anyone
know?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Bill Gates on T.V.
Date: 10 Apr 2000 04:51:52 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He's got his sweater on. Can't see his feet to see if he's got his
> tennis shoes on though.
> He's telling us the BEST IS YET TO COME!
> I think even he's admitted that Windows 2000 didn't come out right.
It sure didnt. Explorer quits every time I close Hummingbird FTP
Neighborhood. It restarts promptly though. Its disconcerting none
the less....
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
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: 10 Apr 2000 01:05:59 -0400
In article <XT5I4.9651$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Keith T. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What a load of Horse Pucky. If I express an IDEA and you take the IDEA and
>do something with it, more power to you. BUT if I take that Idea and
>produce something of value with it , whether it is a book or a computer
>program, a song or an algorithm, then that something is mine...
You express an idea. I can take the idea and do something with it. The
more power to me. No problem for you. But if you take the idea to
produce another idea "of value" then I can't do something with it,
even though (presumably) you also express the 2nd idea to me.
Didn't you just contradict yourself?
>And for your information Walt Disney, the inventor of Mickey Mouse,
>hasn't been dead for 50 years yet.
>From the page http://www.reason.com/0003/fe.jw.copy.html I referenced:
"Before the Bono Act, new or recent works copyrighted by individuals were
protected for life plus 50 years. Afterward, protection lasted for life
plus 70 years. Corporate-owned copyrights were also extended by two
decades, to 95 years, as were all copyrights for works produced before
1978. The push for the new law was spearheaded by Disney, whose most
famous character, Mickey Mouse, was scheduled to enter the public domain
in 2004..."
>It is the Idea that is free, not the way to use the idea which is free.
This statement makes no sense to me. So any software program is free,
but the way I use it is not?
--Norm
------------------------------
From: Steve White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:08:57 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, anon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Can anyone confirm this?
How 'bout you identify yourself and your sources first?
steve
reply to: steve[no space]white at mediaone dot net
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451640
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 01:22:13 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > >
> > > > Evidence, please.
> > >
> > > Haven't you been paying attention?
> >
> > Haven't you been paying attention?
>
> See what I mean?
Typical failure to answer the question. Meanwhile, where is your answer
to the question?
> > Meanwhile, where is your evidence?
>
> Haven't you been paying attention?
That is not evidence, Marty. Meanwhile, where is your evidence?
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > tholenbot wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> >Today's Haakmat digest:
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> I'm so happy to see you're digesting me again. I was
> > > > > > > > > >> beginning to think you had become oblivious to all
> > > > > > > > > >> that
> > > > > > > > > >> is wonderful about our relationship.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Your entertainment is irrelevant, Pascal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Careful tholenbot, I'm going to crack you up ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What you are going to to is irrelevant. What you do is
> > > > > > > > relevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Non sequitur, as no one has mentioned what he is going to to.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > You are erroneously presupposing previous reading comprehension
> > > > > problems on my part, Bennett (little bot).
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > Liar.
> >
> > Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous invective.
>
> How ironic.
Illogical. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > Your presupposition can plainly be seen.
> >
> > Irrelevant to your above claim,
>
> Incorrect.
Your claim is indeed incorrect. Why did it take you so long to
recognize that fact? And meanwhile, where is your correct claim?
> > given that there is nothing erroneous about it.
>
> Glad you agree.
Your entertainment is irrelevant. Meanwhile, where is your in-context
argument?
> > > > > > Typical, coming from someone who fails to local the
> > > > > > grasshopper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Bennett (little
> > > > > bot).
> > > >
> > > > See what I mean?
> > >
> > > Don't you know?
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> See what I mean?
Illogical. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > > > > I see you've failed to answer the question, Bennett (little bot).
> > > > > No
> > > > > surprise there, Bennett (little bot).
> > > >
> > > > You erroneously presuppose the existence of "the question".
> > >
> > > Incorrect. There was nothing erroneous about my presupposition of
> > > "the
> > > question".
> >
> > Prove it, if you think you can.
>
> Unnecessary. You are the one who made the claim, hence the burden of
> proof
> rests on your shoulders.
Incorrect. Meanwhile, where is the proof of your claim?
> > > > > > > > > >> >> fl. 10 or fl. 15 if you star in it.
> > > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > > >> >And how many others would be willing to pay the same?
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> Just you and me, Dave.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Evidence, please. Did you ask all others?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ... and hack you to pieces!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also illogical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also pontification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Of what relevance is that remark?
> > > > >
> > > > > Weren't you paying attention, Bennett (little bot)?
> > > >
> > > > I see you failed to answer the question.
> > >
> > > On what basis do you make this claim?
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> No; why else would I have asked?
See what I mean? Meanwhile, where is your answer to the question?
> > > Witness my response to your question above.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> How ironic.
Balderdash, Marty.
> > Your response did not answer the question, Marty.
>
> How much libel do you think you can get away with?
Non sequitur. Typical.
> > Of course, it takes decent reading comprehension skills to recognize
> > that fact.
>
> Non sequitur.
How much libel do you think you can get away with, Marty?
> > > > How predictable, coming from someone who lacks asteroid
> > > > comprehension
> > > > skills.
> > >
> > > Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> How ironic.
Incorrect.
> > > > > > > > Meanwhile, you fail to answer the question. Typical.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How ironic, coming from someone who typically fails to answer
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Who is that, Marty?
> > > > >
> > > > > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems, Bennett
> > > > > (little
> > > > > bot).
> > > >
> > > > How ironic, coming from someone who erroneously claimed that I
> > > > erroneously presupposed reading comprehension problems on your
> > > > part.
> > >
> > > Incorrect.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> Illogical.
Incorrect.
> > > > > > > > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't you know?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Don't you know?
> > > > >
> > > > > I see you've failed to answer the question, Bennett (little bot).
> > > > > No
> > > > > surprise there, Bennett (little bot).
> > > >
> > > > How ironic, coming from someone who failed to answer the question.
> > >
> > > What alleged "question"?
> >
> > Typical.
>
> I see you've failed to answer the question. No surprise there.
Incorrect. Incorrect.
> > Meanwhile, you still fail to answer whether or not there are
> > any kooks in the theatre tonight.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who has failed to answer whether or not
> there
> are any kooks in the theatre tonight.
Illogical. Nobody asked me, Marty.
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > The infinite wisdom of Bob Osborn:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is allegedly "infinite" about it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Still having reading comprehension problems, Bennett (little
> > > > > bot)?
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > "Above" does not answer my question, Eric.
> >
> > Balderdash, Marty.
>
> Still too busy tending your dirty glasses to form a logical Balderdash,
> Eric?
Illogical.
> > You simply failed to read the above properly.
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Incorrect.
> > > > > > > So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps you should try asking that question in a post made in
> > > > > > response to Bobo, Marty.
> > > > >
> > > > > Aren't you sure, Bennett (little bot)?
> > > >
> > > > Don't you know?
> > >
> > > Ask your sex life.
> >
> > You erroneously presuppose that I have a sex life.
>
> Incorrect.
Incorrect.
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've already addressed this issue above, Bennett (little bot).
> > > >
> > > > Reading comprehension problems again, Marty?
> > >
> > > See what I mean?
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> Don't you know?
Balderdash, Marty. You continue to stroll down irrelevancy lane,
failing to answer the question. Reading comprehension problems again,
Marty? See what I mean? Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
What is your quest? What is your favorite color?
> > > > > [Editorial: So if we accept this, it's safe to assume that his
> > > > > usage
> > > > > of the words "moron" and "idiot" are also consistent, hence they
> > > > > are
> > > > > derogatory terms.]
> > > >
> > > > What alleged "we"?
> > >
> > > Don't you know, Eric? It's your "we".
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> Incorrect.
How ironic.
> > Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
>
> On your part.
Illogical.
> > > > --
> > > > The Dave Tholen Show Theme (feel free
> > >
> > > How free is "free", Eric?
> >
> > Can't you tell?
>
> Irrelevant. I see you've failed to answer the question.
Reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> > > > to provide third verse;
> > >
> > > What alleged "third verse"?
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> Glad you agree.
How ironic.
> > > > I wrote this back in January and never got around to finishing it)
> > >
> > > Typical inconsistency.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Ask Eric Bennett.
Why?
> > > So what are you trying to say here, Bobo?
> >
> > Why are you addressing me as Bobo, Marty?
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
Illogical.
> > --
> > Are there any kooks in the theatre tonight?
>
> See above and below.
Where?
--
Why do you fail to understand how he can lift you in the air just by raising
his hand?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 05:39:21 GMT
On Sun, 9 Apr 2000 20:33:57 GMT,
Bart Oldeman, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 9 Apr 2000, Jim Richardson wrote:
>
>> >I've assigned a key between "Ctrl" and "Alt" containing a certain logo to
>> >"Meta" ;-)
>> How can I do this?
>
>Relevant line of /etc/X11/XF86Config
>
> XkbSymbols "en_US(pc105)+gb"
>
>For US keyboards it's probably en_US(pc104) instead.
>
>This maps:
>left windows key to meta
>right windows key to multi_key: right-windows ' e produces é (e accent
>aigu).
>the menu key produces "menu". I use it for "goto-line" in emacs like this:
>(global-set-key '[menu] 'goto-line) in .emacs
>
This doesn't work for me, may be because this is a laptop with a non-std
keyboard arrange ment. KDE did it, so I should probably look into that. (I
run windowmaker.)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 10 Apr 2000 05:53:43 GMT
Jim Richardson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: If you are in C: Will the windows find command (executed from the dos
: shell) look in D: E: &etc? If not, will the gooey find do it?
: Since windows really has no equivilent of / I am curious.
It sort of does. It has "My Computer," which holds C:, D:, etc, as well
as "Network Neighbourhood" (how is the network part of my computer?), and
assorted random things like "Control Panel." But, of course, it only
magically appears in the GUI. Drop to the CLI and it's mysteriously gone!
All part of how Microsoft makes your PC easier to understand and easier to
use!
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
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: 10 Apr 2000 05:56:33 GMT
On 10 Apr 2000 00:31:11 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On 10 Apr 2000 02:20:35 GMT, Damien wrote:
| >On 9 Apr 2000 18:15:11 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| >Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| >I'm not forcing you to do anything. You are not involved. Just me,
| >my property (arranged in a certain way) and the people to whom I
| >distribute it to. How am I forcing you to do anything?
|
| You are making the fruits of my labor available to others against my will.
| You don't have the right to decide who my software should be shared with.
You don't have the right to control what I do with knowledge in my
possession.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rex Riley)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy
Subject: Re: Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 05:55:34 GMT
In <8cqepc$muv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> John Jensen wrote:
> Let's eliminate some of the ': > : > :' chaffe:
>
> Rex Riley wrote:
>
> : This is a huge mindset change on John's part since wading through
> : endless rants that the future revolves around Linux.
>
> When asked for a reference, Rex quotes my Mar 7 comment.
>
> John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It is a little frustrating therefore, to see Apple now make the
> > explicit choice to become irrelevant in a world increasingly
> > centered around a Linux standard.
>
> And now, Rex writes:
>
> : I don't think we're communicating! Less than 30 days ago you
broadcast
> : Apple "*irrelevent* in a world increasingly centered around a Linux
> : standard." (your words)
>
> : You either stand for a Linux centered world and Apple is irrelevent
?
> : or You've changed your mind and value open competition in a
unixverse?
>
> : You asserted:
>
> : >I don't think so. Feel free to deja-news me.
>
> : I answered your challenge to prove the evidence you demanded.
>
> : At least, you could have the common decency to respond to the
question
> : you put in play after the hanging diatribe:
>
> : >In fact, until you do I don't feel any need to respond to you
further.
>
> I was offended that you accused me of "endless rants".
>
>
<wheat>
Quit deconstructing the accusation into an indefensible blanket
statement. The accusation stands as:
"endless rants that the future revolves around Linux"
It never was "endless rants" ± a prima facia falsehood and construct of
your defence...
> Maybe we aren't
> communicating.
>
is that a fact? (As John answers original question with yet another
question...)
> What do you think makes a rant?
Comments/conversation become a *rant* when you have no deference to
courtesy of a response - rhetorical... by example.
> Is polite conversation,
> ciritical of something you support, a rant?
>
see above.
> I've had good things to say about Mac OS X, going way back. I've
tried to
> explain several times why I think a good technology can end up in
niche.
> It can become a boutique product. It might even become irrelevant.
I'm
> sure you can think of several good products that have already become
> irrelevant.
>
MacOS X got where it is by challenging accepted norms and conventional
wisdom. That's the culture...
You want 'a play Knight Templar? Go talk to Jobs, Avie, Paquette.
Each are approachable, affable and respectful, if you *want* to sell
Apple on a Linux technology map. Have you've ever tried it?
It looks like I misjudged your "Looking forward to Apple's MacOX X"
thread. I don't know where you stand, anymore. I don't know if you
know where you stand. I asked... If you're stuck on a Linux centered
desktop, I would not be surprised.
I personally believe this serves to Linux detriment. It distracts
Linux core resource focus onto a desktop where it does not compete. It
ignores strengths of the OS responsible for solid growth opportunities
where it does.
> Looking back over my our postings though, I see that you've attempted
to
> miss-represent my position in the past. Earlier, you claimed "John
Jensen
> castigated Apple for not developing new open standards". When I
supplied
> relevant quotes, you ducked out with "I can't chronologically piece
the
> thread back together but from what I've read ..."
>
> It's kind of pathetic that you claim the moral high ground ("you
could
> have the common decency...") while attempting to warp and dismiss my
> coments as "endless rants".
>
>
I _neither_ attempted to "warp" nor "dismiss" your comments. I quoted
them *literally* for you to read and respond, as per your demand.
*You* have chosen to deconstruct and diatribe around a reasoned
response.
The *ducked out* one-liner above, was a 303 word response... ± to wit:
****begin****
I can't chronologically piece the thread back together but from what
I've read the discussion drilled down to open standards based graphic
systems X11 .vs. Quartz . The scalabiltiy of the two models in
parallel development environments and performance parameters for the
proprietary graphics system against future developments.
Failing to substantiate a consumer acceptance for X11 graphics system
the discussion tangentically turned to "process". With the implication
that "trust" is philosophically and practically on the side of Linux,
the merits of Apple's open source effort was somehow "left as an
exercise for the reader".
I've been wrong headed here so many times in the past that this bias
couldn't go unchallenged. Many of my bias' have proven to be just
that... If I had, had the objectivity in times past to weigh the
opportunities and possibilities beyond the technical, I too might have
had a clue my dog wouldn't hunt.
The almighty momentum and ubiquity of Linux and X11 may simply
"standardize" the hardware side of the integration equation. Quartz
decision then can be judged on its O-O abstractions and architectural
flexibilities compared going with the Linux X11 graphics system.
Quartz for Apple represented an "integration" opportunity for Apple to
*package* their graphics rendering engine to their OS. The
side-effects from the decision brought independence from Adobe,
ease-of-use X11 lacks and the opportunity to abstract the graphics
system above the OS. Quartz today X11 tommorrow Apple should have the
ability to saddle any graphics system it chooses to the OS without a
significant rewrite.
Its not entirely out of the realm of possibilities an X11 MacOS X could
ship someday. But right now for Apple's demographics, business model
and strategy Quartz looked like the differentiator their new Mac
needed.
****end****
I formally retract all prior statements in dispute in this thead...
usenet bandwidth is returned for the free exchange of polite
conversation.
-r
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
