Linux-Advocacy Digest #631, Volume #26 Sun, 21 May 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Hauck)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Roger)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Jack Kessler")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Roger)
Re: Charlie Ebert: COMNA's new official punching bag... (was Re: Things Linux can't
do!) (Roger)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David T. Blake)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: What is the BSA? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Jim Ross")
Re: The Path Dependence (Loren Petrich)
Re: What is the BSA? (mlw)
Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 22:42:45 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 03:13:56 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an office only
>solution.
Sort of. The original OLE was really just a protocol built on DDE. DDE
is just a hack on top of Window's messaging system. So, I suppose OLE was
"built-in" by some definition, but it didn't actually matter much. It was
doucmented, after a fashion, but the definitive app was Excel. Whatever
Excel did, that was what DDE/OLE was defined to be by most programmers.
I suppose that we should all just be grateful that version was killed
quickly.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:38:13 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 11:28:38 GMT, someone claiming to be Charlie Ebert
wrote:
>Oh shit Perry,
>
>all you have to do is put a Scan for Charlie Ebert and look at the
>national magazines which pop up.
A scan * where *? Because there's a program on the TV that says
you're wrong.
------------------------------
From: "Jack Kessler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 16:42:48 -0700
Easy. The bottleneck for adoption of linux for home users is that winmodems
won't work with it. More and more modems are winmodems, which rely on the
operating system to do most of the functions that the hardware on the modem
used to do.
The modem manufacturers are in terror of Microsoft if they should release
the code that would be necessary to drive their winmodems under Linux and
"forget" to supply it to the public and Linux developers. Linux users have
to buy full hardware modems which are more expensive, harder to set up and
are becoming harder to find.
Linux companies really don't give a damn because they make their money by
selling to businesses with LANs, not to individuals, and LANs don't use
winmodems.
There is a volunteer project to reverse engineer winmodems, but it is a
difficult undertaking.
Your assignment is to find a way to get the portions of the windows api that
winmodems use, and use it under Linux directly, without reverse engineering
the modems.
Victor Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g00bv$ufd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.misc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> :> I was thinking, maybe not just servers and stuff, but an application
> :> that windows users have but linux doesn't. Something that would give
> :> windows users more of an incentive to move to linux, or help them
> :> migrate to linux.
>
> : The way I see it, Linux needs the following, at minimum, before it can
> : be a legitimate competitor to Windows:
>
> : 1. A streamlined, easy install process;
>
> Disagree. System should be installed by competent techinicans in
> computer shops. Windows is not any more easy to install than say
> Mandrake 7.0, only user do it much more frequently, so get used to it.
>
> : 2. An office suite roughly as functional as Office, and at least as
> : easy to use;
>
> But based on quite diferent ideas - it shouldn't be so bloated and
> should have ability to use its components in scripts, and add own
> components written as simple scripts or C programs to common GUI.
>
> : 3. A GUI package installation mechanism that's as easy to use as
> : InstallShield (trivial if we get a file manager for GNOME or KDE);
and
>
> Whats wrong with capt?
>
> : 4. A GUI interface to the most common configuration files.
>
> Never, never, never let user who doesn't understand things tweak the
> config files. For such users remote sysadmin service via SSH should be
> provided.
>
> : In order to beat Windows, client-side, we need:
>
> : 1. A GUI interface to *all* configuration files;
> I've expressed my opinion above. I'd prefer something like expert system
> - somethig which allows to ask question on natural language, and answer
> with extracts of man and howto. NO GUI - interface just like micq, but
> much more interactivity than stupid office equipment in MS Office
> 2000.
>
> : 2. Integration of all Linux documentation into a centralized,
> : searchable help center;
> Whats wrong with dwww?
> : 3. A DirectX-like platform for hardware-accelerated devices, not
> : necessarily at the kernel level;
> Whats wrong with OpenGL?
> : 4. Abstraction of many protocols and features, ala ODBC (which I hate
> : because it never works, not because it's a bad idea); and
> Whats wrong with
> 1. ODBC?
> 2. DBI/DBD?
>
> : 4. A "killer app." Unfortately, the odds of this being in the office
> : suite are about zero, as MS has far too much of an edge on this
> : front. The GIMP, with a few unique features, may have the
> : potential to get there.
> Given Adobe PhotoShop for Linux coming in half a year?
> No, if apache is not killer app, you'll have to invent totally new way
> of using computers.
>
> But I can give you an idea - some canvas which can be used just is
> people use a piece of page - write text, write formulas (and they will
> be calculated), draw graphs (and they will be aproximated by formula),
> draw arbitrary drawing, and replace hand-drawn objects with exact
> gometry shape if desired.
>
> and all the thing could be converted to well-enough printable form (no
> better quality than Word gives) with few mouse clicks.
>
> Most people would say, hey, this is Word, Excel and MathCad in one
> window, becouse they don't really need neither Word, nor Excel, nor
> MathCad - they need to write simple text, compute simple expressions and
> draw simple graphs. Now MS give them feature-bloated programs, most of
> features of which they never learn, but they consume their hard disk
> space but no professional would use them becouse of poor output quality,
> and OpenSource gives them Lisp and TeX and Emacs, which require
> considerable learning to do anything at all, although if you spend
> enough time learning, you get quality output.
>
>
> : Linux has survived largely because its only real competitor,
> : reliability- and performance-wise, was NT, which few "regular" people
> : liked because it runs about as many Windows programs as Linux. But
> : with Windows 2000 out, suddenly the "mainstream" Windows is comparably
> : stable and feature-laden. I think that, unless Linux starts playing
> : catch-up in a big way, we're going to be relegated to the niche market
> : we've been, until recently, exclusively a part of.
>
> : I suppose that now I'm going to have to get Linux running again so I
> : can put my programming hours where my mouth is. (Reason I'm not using
> : it now? The fucking Aureal Vortex 2 drivers are (a) non-free; and (b)
> : unusably poor.)
>
> : --
> : Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
> : non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
> : - Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
>
> --
> Даже созвездия не являются свободными ассоциациями звезд.
> --- С.Е. Лец
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 23:43:01 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 11:39:42 GMT, someone claiming to be Charlie Ebert
wrote:
>You can't remember me pointing out web pages?
Sure, you pointed me to the FreeBSD site for info on MS trying to port
Hotmail to NT. Problem is, there's nothing on that site on that
topic.
And you pointed me to the Hotmail site itself for information on the
conversion to W2K. Same problem.
So perhaps Evan should have said you hadn't pointed to a website which
actually supported you points.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert: COMNA's new official punching bag... (was Re: Things Linux
can't do!)
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:24 GMT
On Fri, 19 May 2000 14:14:44 GMT, someone claiming to be Perry Pip
wrote:
>On 19 May 2000 02:45:36 GMT,
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Uh, you haven't posted a _SINGLE_ URL since you started babbling into
>>COMNA.
>Sure he did:
>
>http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=625244728
>
>Your not coming down with Althiemer's, are you??? Your memory seems to
>really suck.
And let's just ignore that this URL contained no information
supporting Charlie's contention that MS had tried to port Hotmail to
NT...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 21 May 2000 23:54:36 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What TrollTech is currently doing with Qt 2.x and higher is a
> good thing. People who produce GPL software can use Qt without
> worrying about the QPL.
That is not even close to true. Trolltech has rights to a copy
of everything that even links with QT. They could EASILY take
your QT linked code, and fold it into proprietary software.
>From the QT Free license.
If your program links with QT or is a modification of QT, you
must supply a copy of your program (including source) to
Trolltech.
Think about that for a while. They are granted a copy, with
full rights to the copy. They are not bound in this copy by
any license you use. Fair use would allow them to use large
chunks of it in proprietary closed software.
A license is not free if your modifications of the copyright are
not as free as the original.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 00:58:23 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 00:07:44 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 02:10:27 GMT
>>On 04 May 2000 17:27:11 GMT, someone claiming to be Damien wrote:
>>>Another thing, the default on all these programs is to save into the
>>>new incompatible file format. Is there reason for this other than to
>>>turn the upgrade treadmill?
>>Because certain of the new features (which are what new customers are
>>buying the software for) require the new format.
>Care to back this up with some particular examples, or are you just assuming
>it must be true because it is what Microsoft tells you?
Sure, off the top of my head: file compression (not file * system*
compression) Unicode support and versioning.
Can we now expect that you will begin responding to such requests?
>>>And why aren't these
>>>file formats backwards compatible?
>>They are -- Office 2000 can read the older formats.
>Guffaw.
Such as backing up this?
>>Or are you seriously suggesting that the older software be capable of
>>reading a format which did not even exist when it was released?
>Yea, kinda like WordPerfect 5.1 could almost ten years ago. And most HTML
>documents.
And what changes to file * format * has HTML seen? I'm aware of
*content* changes, but not file format.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 01:06:43 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 03:30:45 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
Colla wrote:
>There is just one difficulty: we happen to have uninstalled Office 97 because it was
>too buggy to be used (our secretary had become almost hysteric).
Bugs such as ... ?
>Reinstalling the
>previous Office was quite hard because of the usual registry mess of Microsoft.
You * did * uninstall O97 first, right?
>Documents produced with Word 97 where completely unreadable with Word 96.
Nope.
http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/downloadDetails/wd97cnv.htm?s=/downloadCatalog/dldWord.asp
Available since September 1998.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 01:11:49 GMT
On Wed, 17 May 2000 07:05:22 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
Williams wrote:
>Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 15 May 2000 22:06:04 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
>> Williams wrote:
>> >Roger <roger@.> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Sun, 14 May 2000 22:54:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T.
>> >> Williams wrote:
>> >> >No it wasn't. There were major discussions as to whether it should be
>> >> >patented or copyrighted prior to the changes in the copyright law.
>> >> Proof?
>> >go read some computer magazines from the 70's.
>> Which specific "computer magazines" from the 70's had you in mind?
>>
>> IOW, "I have no proof of my contention."
>IOW, I don't remember which magazines were around then. Certainly not PC
>ones. The discussion at the time was centered around if software was
>patentable, then any algorithms which included in the software were also
>patented, which meant that no one else could use them without at least
>paying a royalty fee. And since an algorithm is a technique, which may be
>independantly discovered that would have been an inappropriate venue.
IOW, "I * really * have no proof, since I cannot even recall which
resources were available at the time I am claiming such resources
support my claim."
>You can claim copyright on anything, by declaring a copyright in the body of
>work. Until that right is tested in a court of law, or specifically granted
>by an appropriate legislative body, it may or may not exist.
Wrong. The only way it would * not * exist is proof that the material
in question had been copywritten prior to your creation of it, or if
you do not aggressively defend it.
>Even so, patents are still issued for software, witness U.S. Patent No.
>4974159 (1985), issued to Hargrove, et al, and assigned to Microsoft, for a
>"Method of transferring control in a multi-tasking computer system"
And this is significant to this discussion because ... ?
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris?
Date: 22 May 2000 01:27:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Actually, Bill's house runs on many different NT servers (at least that's
: what the press has reported).
Why would there need to be more than one?
A reasonably modern and well-built PC running any genuine server OS
can serve many dozens if not hundreds of users, performing a variety
of both CPU- and IO-intensive tasks, with reliability considerably
superior to that of most other household appliances.
If Bill G. truly needs "many different NT servers," then this fact
alone speaks volumes about the limitations of NT Server as compared to
any genuine server OS.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is the BSA?
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 01:27:47 +0000
mlw wrote:
>
> (b) Overall cost and exposure.
> As much as people like to say cost is not an issue, the reality is that
> it is. Also, one should note that the BSA can't prosecute your company
> for using Linux. BTW one of the biggest participants of the BSA is
> Microsoft.
>
Excuse me, but what is the BSA?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 01:33:56 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Joseph T. Adams would say:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Actually, Bill's house runs on many different NT servers (at least that's
>: what the press has reported).
>
>Why would there need to be more than one?
>
>A reasonably modern and well-built PC running any genuine server OS
>can serve many dozens if not hundreds of users, performing a variety
>of both CPU- and IO-intensive tasks, with reliability considerably
>superior to that of most other household appliances.
>
>If Bill G. truly needs "many different NT servers," then this fact
>alone speaks volumes about the limitations of NT Server as compared to
>any genuine server OS.
Actually, I don't have a problem with there being a multiplicity of
servers.
I'd rather have the redundancy, whether we were talking NT, UNIX, or,
for that matter, VMS.
After all, with the size of the place, there's a sizable and complex
electrical system, which means you could perhaps lose part of the
house's electricity without the whole house being "down."
Frankly, I'd think it quite entertaining were he to have a VAX in each
"quadrant." :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html
"Bawden is misinformed. Common Lisp has no philosophy. We are held
together only by a shared disgust for all the alternatives."
-- Scott Fahlman, explaining why Common Lisp is the way it is....
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 22:11:08 -0400
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It was the Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400...
> ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes
don't?
>
> This is pathetic. So you're *that* completely out of other arguments?
> Nothing else to make a point with but *fonts*?
>
> Anyway, if you use good fonts, antialiasing doesn't matter very much.
> My fonts are not antialiased, but they aren't jagged either.
>
> mawa
> --
> Everything's gonna be all right.
That sounds very much like a server user mentality.
Figures.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 22:06:28 -0400
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g9a76$2e4m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8IIV4.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >Thread support seems more mature.
> >>
> >> Thread support NEEDS to be. There's no other effective method
> >> to achieve concurrency under NT. However, this is quite
> >> disputable.
> >
> >There are some nice advantages of theads as they are lightweight.
> >It doesn't seem like a process can be a perfect substitute.
>
> One of the original design goals for unix was that processes
> should be lightweight enough that you wouldn't think twice
> about starting one to perform some job for you. It isn't
> quite as lightweight as threads and sharing variables
> among processes can be cumbersome, but it works for a lot
> of things and avoids the kinds of bugs you get from implicit
> shared memory. Under NT, process creation usually involves
> dealing with a window context with the GUI in the kernel
> and can't be considered lightweight.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmmm. Thanks very interesting.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 22:10:11 -0400
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 20 May 2000 23:39:38 -0400, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >Marc Schlensog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8g6icm$mvb$13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> >> xOGU4.2045$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > Linux only has 4% desktop market share and won't grow since it's not
> >easy
> >> > enough,
> >> > and missing critical features like anti-aliased support.
> >>
> >> Why is anti-aliasing critical? Stability is critical, but most
certainly
> >> not aa,
> >> when you still can read the fonts. That was a really dumb one.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Jim
> >>
> >> Marc
> >
> >That's the server mentality.
> >On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes don't?
>
> Mebbe you don't want your work to get toasted quite so much,
> or deal with as many sysadmin headaches.
>
> >
> >Hint: Windows stability is "good enough" for most people on the desktop.
>
> This is disputable. Most people don't percieve that they have
> a choice. Either they are unaware that there are other alternatives
> or have the perception that those other alternatives won't let them
> do all the things they think they need to get done.
>
> >NT's stability is "good enough" for virtually everyone on the desktop.
>
> This is also disputable.
>
> >So, with that out of the way, good fonts are next. Why use Linux, when
> >Windows/NT has AA fonts and Linux+X doesn't?
>
> NT will make you somewhat of an orphan anyways, while any Unix
> will be more robust than NT and likely perform better.
Even an MS orphan OS gets alot of attention.
MS dealt with that by making some things common/compatible between Win9X and
NT.
And MS knew people would write for Win9X and that they did.
Modem config is the same for one.
Linux does get some attention, at least compare with BSD.
I haven't heard of many games running natively on BSD.
Jim
>
> >Linux as a desktop system seems to take a backseat to Linux as a server.
> >If X can't support AA, Linux can't be billed as better than Windows/NT,
not
> >as a desktop OS. Plus lack of apps and you should get the picture.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of'
|||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / |
\
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 22:12:41 -0400
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8g9f7j$2p8i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <QTIV4.161$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >That's the server mentality.
> >On the desktop, why use an OS without jagged fonts when other OSes don't?
>
> Note that jagged fonts are an artifact of low screen resolution, low
> resolution bitmap fonts, or poor quality outline fonts. Antialiasing
> is a workaround, but you can also solve the real problem.
>
> >Hint: Windows stability is "good enough" for most people on the desktop.
> >NT's stability is "good enough" for virtually everyone on the desktop.
> >So, with that out of the way, good fonts are next. Why use Linux, when
> >Windows/NT has AA fonts and Linux+X doesn't?
>
> If you have a high resolution screen and high quality postscript
> fonts, antialiasing doesn't make a big difference.
>
> >If X can't support AA, Linux can't be billed as better than Windows/NT,
not
> >as a desktop OS.
>
> If you use low quality hardware on the desktop. Put some more pixels
> there and X will use them nicely.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les, are there some good free fonts I could use that you're using?
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.media,alt.journalism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: The Path Dependence
Date: 22 May 2000 02:17:26 GMT
A URL that MK will undoubtedly love:
http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/Steve-Keen/DE/
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 May 2000 17:53:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> No, path dependence is completely real.
>If so, you will not have the trouble explaining path dependence in case
>of Beta being on market two years before VHS and existence of many
>other typing systems except QWERTY instead of cutting the quoted
>article like a true coward (you can snip it, I can quote it again)?
Grow up. I've read some articles about high-speed trains, and one
*very* interesting comment struck my mind. Some maglev designer said that
it was *very* important not to make design decisions that could cause
trouble later on. As if path dependence is a painful reality and as if
Adam Smith's Invisible Hand could not be counted on to make quick fixes.
And I do a lot of programming, and one thing I'm worried about in
my programming is to have good data formats and public interfaces,
because a bad decision there may be difficult to reverse later on. I know
from experience that there is no invisible hand that will come and fix
whatever turns out to be troublesome; I have to do it myself.
As to QWERTY, I still think it's a case of path-dependence,
because relearning can be very troublesome for someone who has to do a
lot of touch typing. I know that from experience, because I experience a
smaller-scale version of that problem with various numeric keypads.
Calculators and computers have
7 8 9
4 5 6
1 2 3
while telephones have
1 2 3
4 5 6
7 8 9
Touch-typing learned for one will fail on the other.
And as to Beta vs. VHS, the problem here was that Beta was
proprietary to Sony, while VHS was an open standard. This meant that more
VCR makers could create VHS machines than Beta machines, thus eclipsing
Beta. I don't know if Sony ever opened up the Beta format, but if it ever
did, it was too late.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is the BSA?
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 22:16:29 -0400
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> >
> > (b) Overall cost and exposure.
> > As much as people like to say cost is not an issue, the reality is that
> > it is. Also, one should note that the BSA can't prosecute your company
> > for using Linux. BTW one of the biggest participants of the BSA is
> > Microsoft.
> >
>
> Excuse me, but what is the BSA?
Oh, man, www.bsa.org, read. Be afraid, be VERY afraid.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hotmail still using FreeBSD & Solaris?
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 21:29:09 -0500
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ga2ee$9gf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Actually, Bill's house runs on many different NT servers (at least
that's
> : what the press has reported).
>
> Why would there need to be more than one?
Two words, industrial control. You can only hook up so many devices to a
single system, and it's much easier to maintain if the devices in one room
are run by the server in the same room. If something is wrong, you don't
have to run all over the house trying to fix things.
> A reasonably modern and well-built PC running any genuine server OS
> can serve many dozens if not hundreds of users, performing a variety
> of both CPU- and IO-intensive tasks, with reliability considerably
> superior to that of most other household appliances.
>
> If Bill G. truly needs "many different NT servers," then this fact
> alone speaks volumes about the limitations of NT Server as compared to
> any genuine server OS.
No, it speaks about the topology of his home.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
