Linux-Advocacy Digest #74, Volume #26 Tue, 11 Apr 00 02:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Christopher Browne)
Re: RH linux stable?? (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (Roger)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Christopher Browne)
Re: RH linux stable?? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Jim Ross")
Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven guilty
(Mark S. Bilk)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible ("Gooba")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (David Steinberg)
Re: RH linux stable?? (Christopher Browne)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible ("Gooba")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:32:54 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when fmc would say:
>"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 05:25:29 GMT,
>> fmc, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>> >
>> >"Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when fmc would say:
>> >> >> True enough. But what inate rights of the manufactures and software
>> >> >> licensor's did we violate in making a clone of your laptop?
>> >> >
>> >> >The ones you just acknowledged. Don't forget the additional costs the
>> >> >manufacturer will have to absorb to maintain your clone. It's still
>> >under
>> >> >warranty.
>> >>
>> >> Huh? Warranty? How can it make sense for the manufacturer of *your*
>> >> laptop to have a warrantee cost for maintaining the "clone" that they
>> >> did *not* manufacture?
>> >>
>> >> The manufacturer did not condone the action; the manufacturer did not
>> >> manufacture the clone. What *conceivable* legal relationship would
>> >> permit a demand of warrantee support on the "clone?"
>> >
>> >It's a clone, a perfect replica of my original, which means that it has
>the
>> >same serial number as mine. If it's sent in for service, how is the
>> >manufacturer to know that it's not the original? Of course they've been
>> >scammed, and if I ever send MY machine in for service a lot of eyebrows
>will
>> >be raised. The damage will have been done by then, because they will
>have
>> >already fixed the clone and returned it. That's money they never would
>have
>> >spent if the clone didn't exist.
>>
>> Sounds to me like the crime would be fraud, sending in the cloned laptop
>> for warranty service that wasn't agreed to. So if the unit never gets
>> sent in for warranty work, how is the cloning a crime?
>> What if I have your permission to clone your laptop, and then remove the
>> serial # so that it can't be sent in for repair under warranty? is that a
>> crime?
>
>You're right, there's an act of fraud involved. Add fraud to the charge of
>copyright and patent infringement. If the unit never got sent in for
>service, then no fraud was committed, but the other crimes were. I'd never
>give you permission to clone, but for the sake of argument, let's say
>someone else did,, and you removed the serial numbers. That doesn't negate
>the acts of copyright and patent infringement.
I'm not sure but that fraud is the only one of the actions mentioned
that is formally a "crime." (Well, perhaps the "Millennium" Act
changes things...)
It certainly doesn't negate the infringement, but if the unit is never
sent in for service, that _does_ negate your contention that there is
a warranty cost associated to the action. If there is such a cost, it
comes in as _fraud,_ with the other infringements very likely being
way down on the list of things that lawyers would spar over.
>> >> That is, much of the revenues that the Software Protection Racket
>Agency
>> >> (or did I misspell that?) claim as "lost to piracy" were illusory in
>> >> the first place.
>> >>
>> >> Another way...
>> >>
>> >> The teenage kid that "misspent" a summer trading 25 computer games with
>> >> his buddies may have copied software that the SPA would have valued at
>> >> $25 x $50, or $1250.
>> >>
>> >> The likelihood that this *truly* represents a loss of $1250 in sales
>> >> is between zero and nothing. The kid's finances could have permitted
>> >> spending maybe a couple hundred bucks on games, but nowhere near the
>> >> raw prices of the boxes on store shelves. (Which also don't resemble
>> >> the losses on the part of the software *producers,* but that's
>*another*
>> >> story...)
>> >
>> >Golly, that's a novel legal theory. "Your honor, my client has only two
>> >hundred dollars to his name. How can he be charged with stealing more
>than
>> >that?" That would have been a good for a laugh on the old TV program,
>Night
>> >Court.
>>
>> That's not the argument. You (and others ) claim that the crime is the
>loss
>> of revenue to the copyright holder, because of pirated copies that would
>> have been purchased otherwise. If the kid in question only had $200, how
>> is it possible that he would have *purchased* $1250 of software absent his
>> bit nibbler? The logic doesn't add up.
>
>There's no problem with the logic because there's no reason to believe that
>the kid had only $200 to spend. He could have had more stashed under his
>mattress, or he could have borrowed from mom, or sold his pokemon
>collection.
Then we can soup it up a bit.
Suppose the kid *also* "pirated" copies of:
- MS Project ($195 on PriceWatch)
- AutoCAD LT 2000 ($300)
- MS Office ($250)
- MS SQL Server (about $700, base)
If we add more to the list, it can become *eminently* clear that the
kid cannot reasonably have the money available to pay for the
licenses.
More particularly, if the kid made 15 copies of all of the above, and
passed them on to buddies, that's about $21,000.
Or if the kid made copies, for 15 of his closest friends, of 15 games
priced at $60 each, that's $13,500.
For a teen on an allowance of $100/week (which strikes me as high),
either of those figures amount to several times his economic means.
If the law makes the assumption that such sales would truly have
resulted, when there was only $5,000 of actual "income" available to
be spent, that is the sort of outcome that makes people think that
lawyers are Really Stupid.
I'm not making any assumptions here about what the law is, or whether
it is right or wrong, but rather trying to assess the reasonableness
of the estimates of losses that are being claimed.
The conclusion I come to is that the SPA and other such organizations
are overestimating losses, _which is clearly in their interest to do,_
and that _realism_ would dictate lower estimates. If a court comes
out with other figures, well, courts came up with notion of a cup of
spilt coffee being worth $100M in damages. Ridiculous assessments
have the result of people losing respect for the legal system. The US
legal system isn't looking too highly respected these days...
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #47. "I will not imprison members of the
same party in the same cell block, let alone the same cell. If they
are important prisoners, I will keep the only key to the cell door on
my person instead of handing out copies to every bottom-rung guard in
the prison."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RH linux stable??
Date: 11 Apr 2000 04:39:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Essentially you have discovered Linux's dirty
>little secret and that is, while it is fine for
>back room geek stuff, it absolutely sucks on the
>desktop.
>
>You tried it. You found out. Others will and Linux
>will quietly disappear.
>
>Steve
>
>"Try Linux....Please do...Discover how much it
>sucks for yourself."
Steve/Heather/Proctologist of Borg is reaching very high
posting rates with his lying Microsoft propaganda.
Here are some of his team mates:
"Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, Stephen Edwards,
Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/heather/mcswain/
"S"/"Sponge"/"Sarek", etc., "Chad Mulligan"/"boobaabaa",
Jeff Szarka, Robert Moir, Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies,
Boris, "ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "bob/bill/
[EMAIL PROTECTED](newsguy.com)", "Cuor di Mela", etc.
Is Microsoft behind much of this high-volume pro-Microsoft/
anti-Linux propaganda barrage? They've certainly done
similar things in the past:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-121243.html?tag=st.cn..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991018-000017.html
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:40:30 GMT
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:37:24 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Should someone who has read the writing of a newspaper columnist be restricted
>from writing news stories on similar topics for fear of breaking the license
>they were required to accept in order to read the paper?
Ignoring that what is being discussed is not "similar topics" but
copying the column word for word and distributing it without the
newspaper's permission.
>Because that's quite a different case: if pirating software *were* just like
>sharing information with your neighbor, then there would be no licensing
>restrictions necessary. Your neighbor would still buy their own subscription
>to the paper. You don't sign a license to play a record, or to buy a book, do
>you?
Actually, you do -- look at the text directly under the copyright
notice on a book of your choice -- chances are very good it is
something to the effect of "All rights reserved" and probably
explicitly forbids unauthorized reproduction. Ditto the musical CD of
your choice.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:45:15 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Bloody Viking would say:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Keith T. Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>: Post Script is a (device-independent(?)) printer language, how the hell
>: would that help, might as well use PCL, because we'd then all be paying
>: royalties to Adobe. In fact we'd be better off because PCL is a lot less
>: verbose, but it's owned by HP.
>
>I mentioned Postcript as an example. Now, you point out it's a printer
>language. But a word processor has to format for a printer anyways. Did
>Adobe really buy Poscript?
a) No, Adobe never bought it. They *created* it. The definitive books
on PS are produced by Adobe. The specs are produced by Adobe.
b) Postscript is entirely unsuitable as a word processing format because
its purpose is for rendition of graphics, and the only intended "reader"
of PS data is the set of utilities that render it for display/print.
--
"A study in the Washington Post says that women have better verbal
skills than men. I just want to say to the authors of that study:
Duh." -- Conan O' Brien
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RH linux stable??
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 04:51:04 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Steve/Heather/Proctologist of Borg is reaching very high
: posting rates with his lying Microsoft propaganda.
There is another criminal organisation who has shills to push the
propaganda: Scientology. Is Microsoft the Scientology of the IT world?
--
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: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:18:26 -0400
Bill Godfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > > What happens if you lose the root password?
> > > Boot up with a floppy, change the password.
> > Wow, that is secure.
>
Doesn't Windows 2000 have this same problem unless you use encryption?
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Microsoft Uses NDAs To Cripple Competitors (was: Guilty, 'til proven
guilty
Date: 11 Apr 2000 05:19:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2000 13:58:50 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
>
>>Other than his figures on Linux usage and its growth (which
>>he has explained are estimates, and discussed their basis),
>>and occasional misremembering of exactly who did a particular
>>thing (which, in any case, was done) would you please give
>>some examples of major, important assertions by Ballard which
>>you have shown to be false?
>
>When estimating the costs of installing NT at a school, he included
>"consultants" fees of $200- per hour for *uinstallation*. Talk about
>rubbery figures.
>
>The guy makes some good points from time to time, but his "statistics"
>are completely fictitious.
That's not a very serious possible error. Besides, maybe he
knows consultants who are expert in both computer systems and
education who do charge that much.
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 05:46:25 GMT
This is rather odd...
You're now arguing over the strategies used by programmers as though they
were built into the operating system. Multiple libraries which functionally
overlap are the product of programmers "reinventing the wheel", which is
generally good to avoid, but if they *do* create multiple items which do the
same job, it doesn't change whether the job is done.
Essentially, if you only want one widget set, or GUI or whatever else, then
only install one. The option is yours. You even get to choose which ones you
like, and thankfully, with overlapping functionality, you have options even
within a particular class of widget.
On the whole, this is a pretty nonsense argument, take it to
alt.gui.advocacy if there is such a thing. It doesn't really pertain
directly to Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 11 Apr 2000 05:52:53 GMT
abraxas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: The point is, you only have to type it once.
Heck, if that's too hard for people, why not put it on a disk, wrap it up
in a pretty white and orange box, sell it for $250, and allow them to have
"all the ease and power" of Windows 2000 for half the price?
<chuckle>
--
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] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RH linux stable??
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 05:56:15 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Bloody Viking would say:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Steve/Heather/Proctologist of Borg is reaching very high
>: posting rates with his lying Microsoft propaganda.
>
>There is another criminal organisation who has shills to push the
>propaganda: Scientology. Is Microsoft the Scientology of the IT world?
Whether they're criminals or not, it is exceedingly unwise to claim
so in public, as something that both Microsoft and Scientology have
in common is...
Expensive Lawyers.
Say something that they can argue to a court is libel, and you'll see
a somewhat different reaction than you likely want. Microsoft appears
more prone to sue over software licensing, whilst the Church of
Scientology seems quite prone to suing people for publicizing them on
the Internet...
--
"Catapultam habeo! Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum
saxum immane mittam !!" (I have a catapult! If you do not pay me the
money you owe me, I will hit you with a big rock !!)
-- Simon Gornall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 06:08:11 GMT
I bought a motherboard with a network card and sound card built into the
motherboard. Likewise it has an AGP video adapter built-in. I bought cheap
and expected to have to switch over to my old 16 bit soundcard and probably
have to install a network card I had on hand because it's fairly well known
that built-in "hardware" is often in the form of software modems and Windows
hardware which does half of what it is supposed to and dumps the rest onto
the CPU.
However...it works fine. My Creative Labs CDRW drive works great, my
Voodoo Banshee video card works fine, though I did have to do funky things
to the bios to turn off the built-in video. This however is something I had
to do in order for Windows to work properly. The 32 bit sound on my
motherboard works great. I bought it all at the lowest prices I could get at
the time, brand-name and not-so-brand-name stuff. I'm using an HP Deskjet
400 printer, which is hooked up to another machine and I connect through my
home LAN. Samba is working great, today I used it to edit my sister's essay
on her hard drive in the other room. It was written in Word, because that's
what she knows, but I used StarOffice to do the editing.
As for offline browsing of newsgroups, I don't use it myself, kinda
pointless being on the cable connection, but I'm sure there's someone else
here with a response for that one.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Try running News offline...Try using a SoundBlaster Live... Try using
> off the shelf hardware...Try using a non-win/non postscript
> printer...Try....Try....try and try again...... and if you have half a
> braincell, whoich I doubt you do,,,you will see how much Linux
> sucks.........
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000 01:27:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >> Linux sofware as a whole is a joke...It is a collection of hacked
> >> together crap that never makes version 1.0, and rightfully so because
> >> most of it sucks....
> >
> > Prove it, troll. All you do is come on a linux newsgroup and
> >put it down, but without an ounce of evidence to support your bullshit.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
