Linux-Advocacy Digest #494, Volume #26 Sun, 14 May 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux ("Jim Ross")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ("Jim Ross")
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: 13 May 2000 22:06:29 -0500
In article <8fkj7s$l5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh really?
>>
>> 'Many' certainly seems to be getting and smaller these days.
>
>What you need to understand is that the people making purchasing
>decisions do not have the technical expertise to judge systems, so they
>jump on the latest bandwagon, in this case Linux.
Linux infiltrated many companies just because the technical
people didn't have to even mention it to the people making
the purchasing decisions. And no need to pre-arrange an
expensive service contract to be sure you can get updates.
>The pointy-haired
>managers read some feel-good fluff about Linux in the mass-cultural,
>mainstream media, and then decommision the VAXes and install Linux.
The fluff didn't start this way - it came from people seeing
real machines doing real work.
>This does not mean that Linux is better than VMS. Most technically
>competent people believe that VMS is much better than Linux.
At a cost in dollars, ease of use, and cross-platform portability.
>Excuse me, I thought that this was a technical forum, not a business
>forum. There are separate forums for discussing commercial viability,
>but as a professional engineer, I am not interested in such fluff, but
>only which system is best (and in this case I choose VMS).
VMS seems to have found it's niche years ago. There must be some
reason it hasn't become more popular.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 03:10:25 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 18:41:30 -0400, someone claiming to be "Keith T.
Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Software was first copyrightable in the 1976 update of the US Copyright law.
>And in the United States, the first copyright law was passed in 1790,
>although it is mentioned in Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution.
No, software was first explicitly mentioned in that "update" but it
has always been covered, the same that a television program was
covered before it was specifically named as a protected class.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:16:56 -0400
david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fj59u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Solaris on Sun hardware works.
> >
> >Linux on Intel hardware doesn't.
> >
> >Is there a need to say any more?
>
>
I'm impressed.
This person is wrong several millions of times with just one sentence.
Good job.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 20:19:26 -0700
Yep, I did PC cards for the MCA system and boy, were they a pain! If
the new card shut the computer down, have the disk with the system
start program on it near at hand! I did figure out how to swap cards
(there's an extender that will allow this to happen) with some inhouse
software to load up the settings on the card and verify that the
settings in the CMOS didn't get changed but never got the computers to
not hang when the new card had a problem talking to the computer. The
PS/2 idea was great in some respects but it's horrible when something
decides to write to the CMOS. The wonder is that it is so easy for a
program to mess up and do that! The other thing is that the only
customer for your hardware (or software) was the IBM crowd that
followed I've Been Misled into that architecture. Nobody (for more
reasons) bothered to do the MCA card structure and thus it's one of
those private systems that nobody bothers with.
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 03:28:18 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 23:18:56 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>I * like * being able to launch attachments directly from email
Well, I *don't like* having users asking me to save them after their files
get wiped out by a stupid trojan.
I hope that you are using "launch" in the Windows way, that what you
really mean is "view". If you really do run programs you get in email, I
would suggest that you are living dangerously. It is hard to be really
sure of the origin of email.
I get a lot of attachments too, but I don't get scripts or executables
very often. I'll try not to bring up the other brain-damage going on in
Redmond, that being the idea of putting scripts and documents in the same
file and having "auto-execute on load" be the default behavior.
>How is the program going to make the determination which is trusted
>and which not is such a way as to impact the legitimate use of
>attachments?
Why is this hard? The mail program should only "open" attachments that
claim to be "safe" file types. It should have a list somewhere that says
which mime types and/or extensions are safe. Those it should pass to the
associated handler program. Worst case, the file is not what it claims to
be and the program crashes or displays garbage.
If an attachment claims to be a type not on the "safe" list (vbs, perl
script, exe, whatever), then the only allowed actions should be to save it
to a file or try to view it in one of the "safe" viewer programs.
This scheme allows me to "launch" most of the attachments that it makes
sense to launch, while protecting me from making a mistake and launching a
shell script that deletes all my files. I can still get scripts and
programs by email if need be. Yes, there is the slight inconvenience of
saving it to a file first, but I think that is more than offset by the
convenience of not getting all my data wiped out by a trojan.
The only thing not auto-running of scripts really impacts is the ease of
mailing around those stupid greeting-card things (e.g. "frog in a
blender"). Which are an accident waiting to happen anyway. People who
forward those things need to be beaten with a cluestick.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: 13 May 2000 22:43:33 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>Yes, safety first if it is an issue, but what 'impact' are you
>>talking about?
>
>I * like * being able to launch attachments directly from email -- I
>get probably 15 or twenty a day, and it saves me a considerable amount
>of time. What you want to do is make OL incapable of doing this.
No, I want it to know the difference between launching harmless
programs like multimedia viewers and do that without any
extra prompts or warnings. If you want to launch a general
purpose shell or interpreter with full control of the machine
with insecure input from an email message that is your
business, but you should at least have a prompt telling
you which program is about to be launched and a warning you
don't see when the safe programs are run.
>>Who are these other users that have any
>>reason to execute untrusted program attachments directly from
>>the mailer?
>
>How is the program going to make the determination which is trusted
>and which not is such a way as to impact the legitimate use of
>attachments?
The same way more sensible systems do it. You have a separate
list of programs to be used by the mailer instead of using
the same one you use at shell command level. The mailer is
the last thing that knows the content is untrusted, so it
should make the difference clear when you are about to run
something that it does not know to be safe.
>>In all the ranting here I have not seen one
>>instance showing a legimate reason to allow this. Do you
>>have friends that don't know how to delete their own files
>>so you have to send scripts they can click to do it for them?
>
>Of course, deleting files is not the only thing WSH is capable of,
>anymore than deleting files is all a .BAT is capable of.
But, since email is easily spoofed, you don't really know what
the script is going to do. You have to be aware that it has
the power to delete anything, and you should understand that
there is a difference between launching these and a safe
viewing program.
>>>I prefer education (from the school of hard knocks, if necessary)
>
>>I prefer computer programs that help you, not ones that cause
>>extra trouble.
>
>But you seem to be unaware that * any * sort of system automation
>utility would have been capable of this.
Yes, as long as you can fool the user into doing the wrong
thing. The point is not to remove the capability but to
keep doing the wrong thing from being the default action.
>And that such utilities are extremely helpful.
I still haven't heard what these helpful scripts are that
have to be run directly from a mailer in a way indistinguishable
from running a multimedia viewer.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 21:18:21 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Evan DiBiase wrote:
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > And in the WORKING catagory, Microsoft lacks.
> >
> > This is the second time you've claimed this. This computer is certainly
> > "working," and it's running Windows 2000. How is it "lacking?"
> >
> > -Evan
>
> Oh extremely simple.
>
> When I worked for HBOC it was a blue screening mess.
>
> When I quit HBOC to work for several life insurance concerns
> it was still a blue screening mess.
*sigh* When are you Linvocates going to learn? You cannot
enter anecdotal evidence as proof to a claim. How the hell
do we know that you're not just contriving this stuff in
order to look like you're a techie, when you really just
work for the postal service, or something to that effect?
> Microsoft products simply can't handle a LOAD!
I see. Well, according to NetCraft.com:
Microsoft-IIS is also being used by Compaq, Nasdaq, and The National
Football League.
Windows 2000 users include Microsoft, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Hotbot,
BigCharts, and Dell.
Now, I suppose you're going to give a conspiracy theory
entailing that Windows 2000/IIS is used _ONLY_ because
Microsoft is forcing these companies to do so?
> What really gets me sick is to see somebody who uses their NT box
> as some telnet device or web browser, a light load, then proclaims
> triumphantly that NT is working.
What really gets me sick, is to see somebody who is so
incredibly blinded by zeal for a product, that they
have absolutely no idea how a different idea could
possibly work, and in some cases, work better than
their idea.
> Well, W2K ain't working either as it seemingly can't even handle
> the simple job of running LAME terminal emulation software.
More anecdotal nonsense. Or, perhaps I should simply
write you off as clueless, since you cannot get Windows
2000 to work correctly. After all, that seems to be
the UNIX elitist way of doing things. Consider me
an "NT elitist", if that's the way you wanna play.
> I've been a computer programmer for very close to 20 years now.
Ah, here we go. "Experience pissing contests" are so
overdone in these groups. Please, give this crap a rest.
> I used to be a BIG microsoft supporter.
What this tells me, is that you used to be a zealot
for the other side, with no rationale for it. This
dents your credibility more than anything else you've
spewed into this newsgroup.
I used to be a BIG Linux supporter. Of course, it
was all out of blind zeal, and an unhealthy compulsion
to feel bigger by laughing at the less-learned. Now,
I dislike Linux, soley based on some of the poor
experiences I've had with it, but I rarely insult the
product for its very being... I save my insults for
loonies who push Linux like is the second coming of
Christ.
> I know what the hell I'm talking about.
I know what the hell I'm talking about. How does
this statement prove anything for either of us.
HINT: It doesn't.
> Now I'd like to read some about your background?
I'll jump in here. All me to whip it out, in order
to commence with the DickSizeWar(tm):
I started on computers when I was seven. I was writing
complex programs in BASIC, and assembly when I was
nine. I've been building PCs from scratch since I
was 16. I've been creating high-end computer graphics
since I was 18.
What does this prove? Absolutely nothing. So why
even bother asking? Please don't. It's just a waste
of time.
> Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
Linux is a whimp ass operating system at best.
BeOS is a whimp ass operating system at best.
UNICOS is a whimp ass operating system at best.
IRIX is a whimp ass operating system at best.
You see... all of those above statements are just as
trite and meaningless as yours was.
> It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Apple stole the GUI from South Park? Gee, I thought South Park
wasn't around until about '96... was I wrong?
First of all, try knowing what you're talking about before
you open your mouth. You'll look less idiotic. What you're
referring to is "Xerox PARC", which was Xerox's research
facility. Of course, Xerox also incarnated two other very
significant inventions. I leave it to you to figure out
just what those things were. Think of it as an attempt to
give you a brain cell.
Tell me, shall we chastise UNIX for "taking" ethernet? How
about bitching about UNIX for taking "object-oriented
programming"?
> The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
Microsoft didn't take DOS from CP/M. Seattle Computer Products
did. Microsoft simply purchased it from them, for IBM.
> And they never got this load of crap to work right under a load.
That's right. They did, however, get Windows 3 to work relatively
well under a heavy load, a cobbled-together as it was.
But Windows v3 still sucked planetoids through garden hoses.
> In every job which has involved Microsoft products, EVERY COMMERCIAL
> SOFTWARE MANUAL I've had to write to support MY software, I've HAD
> to
> put in a paragraph explaining why it's a good idea to turn your servers
> around every work day and to turn your desktops around every 3-4 days.
> Because if you use Microsoft OS's for anything SERIOUS, you'll have to.
>
> YOU'LL HAVE TO OR IT WILL BLUE SCREEN.
If this is your conclusion, then I can only merely conclude that
you have no business administering a WindowsNT network.
> That's why I appreciate Linux now.
> Linux is a continuation of ONE concept. They aren't trying to re-invent
> the world and then HOPE it works.
Yeah, and the Linux developers have no liability either, so they
have no pressure whatsoever. Give us a break. This is not the
same thing.
> They don't have the manpower nor technical knowledge to accomplish their
> OS goals and I'm using 95, 98, NT and W2K as support for that argument!
>
> If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
More malarchy.
> We have another company who's had some Linux boxes in continuous
> scientific
> research now for 1 year and 4 months running. I've got some other
> business
> contacts who've had Linux servers up for almost 3 years running.
>
> I have been recognized in several magazines for my efforts in converting
> software for the life insurance companies of America and I'm on the
> front
> cover of one of America's most popular compilers.
Ah. Proof please. And if you do not provide it in your
next answer, then I will know for a fact that you are
a lying. You opened the bid... it's time to put up, or
shut up.
> Unless you've written software and have some expertise in the OS's you
> work
> with, you have positively NO business giving out recommendations to
> inferior products.
Ah. UNIX-looney arrogance. I love it. You make me laugh.
[snipped rest of Charlie's crap]
> And that's the way I will leave it.
So, I take this to mean that you are going to yellow-belly
your way out of posting proof to your previous claims?
As far as I'm concerned, you are a liar, and you are a twit.
I honestly think you'd make a much more fun punching bag than
Matt Templeton anyway.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 23:05:04 -0400
I R A Darth Aggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 13 May 2000 01:31:48 GMT,
> bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
> <8fiba4$bfc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> + Complicated: More than what is necessary
> + Necessary: what is actually required
>
> User 1: newbie, wants to run some card games and office applications.
> User 2: serious Gnome programmer, going to be throwing all kinds of stuff
> on the screen
>
> If you cater to the needs of User 1, then you may cut down on the
> capabilities of User 2.
Not if it's a component system.
>
> + Actually that is what i wanted anyway. Windows and Mac offer builtin
> + controls, but that doesn't mean that programmers have to use them.
>
> Oh. And they can override them?
Yes. And yes they appears to virtually always get used. Winamp is the only
program I can think of that doesn't.
After all, why spend time recreating a toolbar when you can do better app
logic?
>
> + Do you expect users not to want to do gaming with their computers?
>
> Again, there are different levels of capability. The one-size-fits-all
> approach doesn't really work.
Everyone needs a nice looking environment that's fast.
Two things I think X sucks at currently.
(Fonts)(XFree86 3.3 stable series [Hint: XFree86 isn't fully stable/complex
and not widely shipped])
>
> + Unfortunately the very architecture of X is so old and backwards that
> + it is in many cases impossible to add modern features.
>
> Such as?
Antialiasing is a good example.
I hear it's next to impossible to add since it breaks the X spec.
An Xfree86 developer said recently they are waiting for an updated spec to
allow it (X 6.5 I'm thinking).
>
> + A GUI architecture would benefit everyone involved.
>
> If that where so abundantly obvious, you'd think there would be more
> effort into making one?
There are a few.
It seems to be such an extreme effort that it's just not being done.
The only way to make one would probably be to use all available code (Mesa,
Berlin, XFree86, svgalib, etc) to put something together.
The client/server idea X was based on is rare, thus in the year 2000 the
benefits don't outweight costs of extra overhead.
I can tell you one thing. Even with an AMD 850, Voodoo3 3500, and XFree86
4.0 + 3DFX drivers, the 3D screensavers still seem slow
compared to the very fast performance you get in NT. It's like slow motion
using XFree86 3.3, and that's still accelerated.
Clear their is some killer overhead or limitations. I can see Railroad
Tycoon actually refreshing/updating the screen on my PII system.
Available qualityt TrueType fonts are limited and without
antialiasing/smoothed fonts, text especially Times looks horrible.
>
> + I would start such a project, but I don't have the time to do it and
> + give it the attention that it needs. If someone is willing to start or
> + has started such a project, I would gladly help in its implementation.
> + I am a seasoned programmer and I am not afraid at all of getting my
> + feet wet.
>
> Go volunteer with the Berlin group.
They don't seem to be making extreme progress
>
> James
> --
> Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
> The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
> To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
> <url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
Take a look at this url for some reasons X is this way. One word.
Politics.
http://www.catalog.com/hopkins/unix-haters/x-windows/disaster.html
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 04:22:27 GMT
In article <8fl3v0$262r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
> All large software packages have bugs. The difference with
> Linux is only that you are allowed to know what they are.
But Linux is riddled with bugs. VMS has very few bugs.
> Do you have some numbers to back this up? Even estimates of number
> of hours on numbers of machines compared to Linux users?
Within Digital, VMS field tests are deployed on 1,000's of employees
desktops as their full-time workstation. I do not have more detailed
information.
What you need to understand is that there are far fewer hardware
configurations for VMS than Linux. There are only two architectures,
and only a few supported options. Therefore it is easily possible for
the vendor to declare all supported platforms as bug-free. Linux claims
to support far too many different configurations for it be practical to
test. Because of this, I declare Linux as untestable.
> On the contrary, that is the best part.
Most customers are not interested in debugging bug-laden software.
Where do you get this impression?
> Backwards again. The users will perform exactly the correct testing
> where the company testers can only simulate real-world use.
The customer is only running its own tests performing high level
functions. The company has the ability to do extensive whitebox
testing, because it understands what the boundary conditions are. The
customers testing will find fewer bugs, except in the case of Linux
where software is released before it is tested.
> No more so than you have to alpha-test every pre-release from
> a commercial company.
Where do you get the impression that VMS users are using alpha-tests
and pre-releases? Though field tests are available to public users, an
overwhelmingly vast majority of VMS users are conservative and do not
upgrade until x.1 or x.2. What evidence do you have most VMS users are
using alpha-tests and pre-releases?
> If it has been two weeks since the last release there are probably
> no showstopper bugs.
And the two weeks are a magic number because ...?
> What an odd question in the context of a preference for VMS!
> What do you do when you add a piece of hardware that VMS doesn't
> support? And why would you consider doing that on a production
> machine where you don't have time to reboot?
On VMS you never have to reboot because it supports clustering. The
need to reboot to install new hardware is a Linux thing.
> This is the point of the Cathedral/Bazaar, release early/often, and
> all that. Massively parallel testing just happens to work, and the
> testers don't even need to understand the problem, just how to
> report the reproducable ones.
If this is the case why are there so many bugs in Linux compared to
VMS? Have a look at the CERT advisories and count the number for Linux
versus the number for Linux. You just do not seem to understand that
the cathedral model consistently develops software which is
substantially more reliable than software developed in the bazaar model.
> The difference from the user's
> viewpoint is just the lack of glossy PR fluff when the highly
> stable versions appear so you have to pay attention. However,
> once you get started with 2.0.36 or 2.1.12 or any other solid
> version it is easy to ignore the machine until something else
> well-tested comes along.
Tell me, how do you know that 2.0.36 and 2.1.12 are "stable"? Did a
bunny come and tell you? Of course not, _customers_ ran these and
declared them as stable. Therefore, these customers must have gone
through the previous versions of each of these in order to find out
that the other were _not_ stable. See, this doesn't happen in VMS.
Digital would not release a version less stable than 2.0.36 - the
2.0.36 would become the first version in the release. The main
difference between minor versions in VMS is not bug fixes (there are so
few because there are so few bugs), but new features.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 04:36:52 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Microsoft is a whimp ass operating system at best.
>
> It's a bunch of borrowed ideas which have been sewed together over
> the years. They took the Windows idea from Apple who in turn took
> it from Xerox south park. The Multitasking they stole from Unix.
> The concept of dos the took from CPM back when it was popular.
Linux borrowed and stole more.
> If an application dies in Linux it just does. But it doesn't take the
> OS down. Prolonged use of Linux isn't disastrous either.
>
Don't naturally assume Linux OS never crashes on others
if it hasn't crashed on you. There is no bug free OS.
>
> This is YET another example of why I say Microsoft was NEVER ready for
> prime time.
>
Microsoft already had its prime time.
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 04:49:33 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> When I was writing software for HBOC, I felt I was doing something great
> for the
> company. I was comming up with new packages, helping them go into new
> markets
> with new ideas.
>
> Then I saw their profit board and realized that their profits were 80%
> from support
> and maintainance contracts and very little of the top line came from my
> writing code.
>
> They would GIVE away my work in order to get the more lucrative
> maintenance contract
> as the medical software industry is a continually changing thing.
>
> So Linux will survive and the GPL is sound.
Watch how the stock market justifies the soundness of GPL.
Have fun !
>
> Microsoft does the reverse of this, or course.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
