Linux-Advocacy Digest #752, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Greg Cox)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451694 (Karl Knechtel)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Roger)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ? (Craig Kelley)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(John Jensen)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 29 May 2000 16:48:59 -0500
In article <a3uY4.4224$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I was speaking from a consumers point of view. The companies interested
>> in taking the consumers money for as little as possible in return
>> have a different perspective, and yes they do often succeed at
>> this by building something intentionally incompatible with everything
>> else in order to lock you and everyone you share files with into using
>> their product.
>
>:D
>
>Okay, *from a consumers point of view*, why is it better to have
>many small companies rather than a few big ones, or one big one
>and many small ones?
It doesn't matter that much as long as there is viable competition.
The large companies do tend to consider their cash cows as
sacred, though, and often won't make obviously needed changes
until a competitor with nothing to lose offers the better alternative,
often at a lower price.
>MS *was* interested in fixing the problems, just not with the inadequate
>band aids Digital Research was using. MS's answer was Windows,
>and it is a *far* better answer than DR-DOS.
The Mac was already there for people who wanted it. The reason
Windows sold at all was because you could drop it on top of
a working DOS/Novell network without losing anything.
>It *is* true that DR-DOS pushed MS into improving their MS-DOS
>product. It's far from obvious that this is the best thing that could
>happen! One can argue that it is better not to waste time impoving
>the incorrigable DOS, but rather replacing it.
>
>The good news, of course, is that Microsoft didn't get bogged down
>in 'DOS wars'; they didn't waste time as they might have, fine
>tuning DOS until they had the best, most kick-ass CP/M clone
>ever made, which still couldn't print worth a damn.
Windows would never have gotten off the ground without the leverage
of the existing DOS base and it would not have hurt a bit to
push the low level functionality into the underlying structure
instead of bypassing it. But then they couldn't force you to
pay for the GUI on machines like servers where no one normally
even sees it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Cox)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 14:53:16 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> On Sun, 28 May 2000 23:06:22 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>The biggest limitation of
> >>>>Wintel systems is the designers' perceived need to maintain backward
> >>>>compatibility.
>
> >>I couldn't agree more, but the artificial 640K barrier was one of the
> >>worst pieces of anticipation the Wintel industry has seen.
> >
> >That's almost redirection, there. The argument that the 640K barrier
> >was a bad idea is scarcely support for the argument that the decision in
> >the 80s to implement a bad idea (the Wintel system incompatibility which
> >could be considered the root of most backward compatibility problems,
> >namely the 640K barrier). It was apparently a Microsoft lack of
> >anticipation.
>
> That is what I said.
The 640K limit was set by IBM when it designed the IBM PC in 1980. This
was due to the address locations hard-wired by IBM for their cards. For
example, the video buffer for the IBM Monocrome Card started at B0000
hex. Microsoft sold versions of DOS to OEMs that didn't have the limit
set at this point because they used different hard-wired points for their
hardware (this was before everyone standardized on the IBM PC model).
There was, of course, a hard limit of 1MB because that was the limit of
addressing that the Intel 8086/8088 supported.
DOS was designed around what the Intel 8086/8088 supported: 1MB of
memory. At the time this was a reasonable limit because of the cost,
quantity of memory chips needed, and power requirements of those memory
chips.
Was Microsoft slow in supporting > 1MB of memory once the 80286 came out?
Yep. But you also need to realize what a pain in the butt the 80286 was
to work with to directly access memory > 1MB. I can explain in further
detail if anyone cares...
>
> > A flat memory model could have been used, and was
> >available in competing products (which didn't, alas, use per-processor
> >licensing to secure a monopoly). While these would still have been
> >limited by the original PC's 1Meg memory support, they wouldn't have
> >imposed a barrier like DOS did when the 386 became available.
>
> I think we all know that.
Microsoft decided early on to leave DOS to the legacy "Intel real-mode
8086/8088" world and designed OS/2 to support the flat memory model that
the 80386 supported. But first, OS/2 had to support the 80286 which was
a real mess. I don't have any proof of this but I believe that when
Microsoft found out all the details of the 80286 from Intel it wanted to
skip the 80286 and wait for the 80386 but IBM insisted that OS/2 support
the 80286 first.
<snip of other stuff>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:51:55 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 01:38:44 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 03:35:00 GMT
>>On Fri, 26 May 2000 11:50:02 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin wrote:
>>This would be the case if the BIOS presented a standard interface for
>>all of it's functions. It doesn't. Things like plug and play and
>>power management vary non-trivially from one BIOS to the next.
>No they don't. They use roughly the same hardware components, and are
>supported by roughly the same software OSes, so my statement that it is
>the BIOS's responsibility to provide an interface between the
>motherboard, hard drive, and OS is roughly correct, to say the least.
I never said that this was not the BIOS's job. I * did * say that the
reason that Windows cares about the details of the BIOS is that the
way in which things like PnP and APM are implemented can vary
non-trivially between BIOSes.
>Forgive any false modesty you may have detected. It is specifically the
>networking industry, and only tangentially the computer industry, which
>my subject of expertise. And I obviously can't know more about any
>industry than everyone else, though my claim of knowing more about
>networking than any *one* else still stands.
Since this is the first time you've made it, it can't * still * stand.
Does this admission mean you will stop making appeals to your own
authority when discussing anything but networks specifically?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Knechtel)
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451694
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:10:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: 61> Tholen tries a digest of me,
: I succeeded, Malloy, thus your use of "tries" is inappropriate. How
: ironic, coming from the person who was commenting on the rules of
: word formation in English.
Non sequitur. Proper formation != proper use.
: 61> but we all know what that's worth!
: A lot more than yours, Malloy.
His what?
: 51> Ha! More like *you* slipped.
^
Incorrect.
: Illogical, given that I haven't been so reluctant to say anything
: about my motives for being here, Malloy.
Prove it, if you think you can.
: 61> Why is that a surprise?
: It's not a surprise that you would fail to consider an alternative
: method for making it end, Malloy.
Glad you agree.
: 61> Liar.
: Balderdash, Malloy. See below for why.
What alleged "why"?
: 61> - none of those threads from which you ran
: I didn't run from any of them, Malloy. But that's rather ironic,
: coming from the person who deleted over 90 percent of my latest
: digest. Looks like you're the one running, Malloy.
Illogical. Deletion of digest content is commonplace.
: 61> Not with impunity, Tholen, but with my computer.
: Having more reading comprehension problems, Malloy? Acquaint yourself
: with the definition of the word "impunity".
Having more pun recognition problems?
: 61> Don't be a doofus, Tholen!
: How ironic.
How ironic, indeed.
: 61> Balderdash, Tholen.
: Illogical, Malloy, given that it was a digest of your postings from the
: last several weeks.
Non sequitur.
: 61> You've been waiting for a chance to respond
: Illogical, given that I've been responding to you rather consistently
: lately, thus I've had plenty of so-called "chances".
Prove it, if you think you can.
Karl Knechte {:>
da728 at torfree dot net
P.S. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere to be seen?
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:53:56 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 11:12:00 +0200, someone claiming to be Giuliano
Colla wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>> This would be the case if the BIOS presented a standard interface for
>> all of it's functions. It doesn't. Things like plug and play and
>> power management vary non-trivially from one BIOS to the next.
>Then a non-trivial OS should be able to cope with it.
Which Windows does, by customizing its setting on install to the
specific BIOS detected. Which is why there are problems making
changes to such components without reinstalling.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:58:59 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 10:40:50 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 00:25:15 GMT
>>And you question * my * English skills?
>He dropped an 'is'. Couldn't you figure it out, Roger?
I caught the missing "is," but the rest still didn't make sense.
>>Case and statutory law
>>maintains that a copyright, once declared, to be valid except in the
>>cases where it can be proved the work had previously been copyrighted,
>>or in the case where the holder does not aggressively defend the
>>copyright.
>I would disagree; copyright case law indicates that a copyright need not
>be declared,
Need not be * registered, * but must be declared.
>and need not be defended.
Flat out wrong -- an absolute defense to copyright infringement is to
show that the holder has allowed other infringements.
>In fact, the courts don't really
>care if you *have* a copyright, until you try to stop someone else from
>publishing something by way of "defending" your authorship or ownership.
In the same way that the courts don't care if you murder someone until
you're caught. Your point?
>Aggressive defense is not as necessary as it once was, either. I
>believe some landmark ruling in the late 80s, which also did away with
>the requirement to declare the copyright to begin with, changed most of
>these outdated guidelines you seem to be concerned with.
Please feel free to post reputable citations in support of this.
Because someone who was unaware that royalties must be paid for the
public performance of copywritten music can hardly be considered an
authority on the subject.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 15:01:29 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > MS's profit margins are so large for one reason only: Volume.
> >
> > Monopoly.
>
> You can have volume without Monopoly.
MS has a monopoly.
> If MS had 20% of the market, they
> would still make obscene profits that 50 other competitors with a compbined
> 80% of the market wouldn't have.
No.
> > Monopoly 101.
> > In markets where MS hasn't aquired monopoly peower they cut prices. In
> > markets MS has aquired monopoly power they raise prices.
>
> MS has not raised the price of consumer Windows in the last 5 years, despite
> their supposed monopoly.
MS has increased prices.
> > > Customers prefer integrated products. For instance, in the audio
> market.
> > > Bookshelf systems, and integrated recievers are much more commonly sold
> than
> > > component systems.
> >
> > Bad exmaple -
>
> You're wrong. There, my statement carries just as much weight as yours.
> PROVE why it's a bad example.
It proved youre were wrong. I can choose to buy integrated or stand
alone setero equipment. I cannot buy a Windows PC without IE.
> > > Yes, discrete tuner/pre-amp/amplifier sets are much
> > > higher quality, but for most end-users, the integrated product works
> just
> > > fine for their needs, costs a lot less, and is much more convenient.
> >
> > bad exmaple -- What version of Windows comes without IE? NONE. MS
> > claims it is impossible.
>
> They claim that Windows *AS DESIGNED* is impossible to ship without IE.
No - they said they were unable to remove IE without breaking windows
and then shipped such a product to spite the judge.
> Additionally, many integrated recievers are made by companies that do not
> make a non-integrated product. Panasonic doesn't make a discrete
> tuner/pre-amp/amplifier system.
Panasonic is a US brand name of equipment sold by a larger company.
That company does make both integrated and component equipment.
> > When asked to build Windows without IE MS shipped a crippled product and
> > insulted the judge. I can CHOOSE to by an integrated stereo or
> > components. I can CHOOSE. MS says consumers cannot CHOOSE so IE is
> > integrated and shipped in every MS PC OS.
>
> You cannot choose to buy discrete components from any vendor you want, nor
> can you choose to buy integrated components from any vendor. Many vendors
> simply provide only one solution.
I have choices in the stereo market place unless you can prove
otherwise. I have componets and integrated stereo systems to choose
from and they all work with the same media and interoperate.
MS offers no choices with browsers and MS has a monopoly. Harm and a
foul.
> > MS is a monopoly and doesn't have to service the customer by taking back
> > defective software.
>
> You don't have to "take back", but simply fix. MS provides service packs,
> and does so for free.
MS doesn't recall defective software.
> > Software has been around since weaving looms were programmed with
> > punchcards cards in the 1800's.
>
> Software engineering has not.
Word games - programming has been around for over 100+ years.
> > and...there have been books about this topic since before MS was
> > created. It isn't relevant to the fact MS has monopoly profits and
> > shows no fear of competive OS pricing.
>
> No, there have not been books on the same topic since before MS existed.
> Read the book before you make comments on what it contains.
Don't humiliate yourself.
> > Backwards compatibility is about software. The excuse for lame Win95
> > was to have backwards compatibility - OS/2 still did a better job that
> > that crummy OS.
>
> OS/2 did *NOT* do a better job. OS/2 could not use periphials with DOS
> drivers for OS/2 applications.
A fantastically better job. MS abused their monopoly power to protect
themselves from OS/2.
> > Office 2000 is not an OS.
>
> Neither is a CPU. What's your point?
My point is to be relevant to a thread about PC hardware and the OSs
they requrie to run.
> > > Since the majority of tools are focused on OOP methodologies, they do
> little
> > > to help with the design of the OS.
> >
> > Baloney.
>
> Ahh, and your experience is what?
Ahh, and your credibility is what ?
> > Visual basic is a crummy example.
>
> You didn't answer the questions.
It's a bad exmaple, I cannot go any further.
> > > IE is *NOT* written in MFC. Not a stitch. It's actually written in a
> > > custom framework that ATL was based on.
> >
> > Still a framework and a code base MS tells us all is part of their OS.
>
> What? That statement is a little vague. What is a framework part of the
> OS? MFC? No. ATL? No. IE? Yes, but it's not written in MFC.
I am very clear. IE authors used a programming framework and C++ and it
is part of the Windows OS.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: PLAN9 O/S - - Upcoming Linux Competition ? ? ?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 May 2000 16:00:04 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Beeg Fat Eddie) writes:
> Well maybe not that new, but this interview I read back around
> January with Ritchie (or was it Kernigan) -- one of those UNIX / C
> grandaddies... was all bent out of shape about how Linux has
> developed over time. It seems he mentioned "lack of focus" and
> "anarchy" a well as a few other dispariging remarks towards Linux,
> like "old technology all over again". He also mentioned working
> on an operating system technology for some time now that will be
> (or is) going to be released sometime in the near future called
> Plan9.
>
> Was this all a bunch hogwash? It basically seemed like this
> guy was promising a big open system dogfight somewhere down
> the proverbial road (2002...?) between Plan9 O/S and Linux for the
> technical achievemnet crown or whatever.
Perhaps, but at $350 a pop, it's not going to go anywhere soon.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 23:59:23 +0200
Damien wrote:
>
>
> Maybe others accept Windows because they think it's the only option.
> Maybe it's because they think it's flaws are inherent with computers
> and unsolvable. Or maybe they just to justify paying what they did
> for it. Or maybe they believe the FUD. Or maybe a combination of all
> of the above.
There are more reasons.
Just suppose a small company which has bought an expensive (but
necessary) administration, and production management program, which
works with a Novell Netware server and Dos stations. Then the program is
"upgraded" (the previous version being not supported anymore) to Windows
environment.
The same small company needs affordable CAD workstation, for hardware
and PCB design, FPGA design, etc. Just try to bet for which platform
those tools are available.
Only resort: use Linux where possible (for the moment my desk, but with
another Windows PC besides, hope to extend at least to SW development
stations), and post in this NG.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
40139 Bologna (Italy)
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: 29 May 2000 22:03:05 GMT
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Microsoft's main innovation is quite obvious: putting lots of computing
: power into the hands of general consumers. Who else, besides, Commodore,
: Apple, IBM, or Atari has even attempted this? The beloved UNIX weenies at
: Sun? Silicon Graphics (officially renamed to "SGI")? Yeah... _right_.
Classic. Say "Who else, besides" and then name [almost] everybody
involved in the first generation of personal computers. Missing Radio
Shack was a big oversight. You could also add TI who sold a lot of 99/4s
(if I've got the model right), and Adam Osborne with the Osborne I. And
Sinclair. Maybe Acorn in europe ...
UNIX weenies were interested in a different functionality at the time, and
one that could not be created at a PC price point. We could count a
smaller number of people who tried to bring such systems down to the PC
price point (Fortune, Radio Shack Model 16(*)), but it didn't really work.
We had to wait until historical events conspired to create free UNIXes and
commodity hardware to run them.
What a happy outcome,
John
* - at one time purported to be the most widely used UNIX system.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:05:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:58:59 GMT
>On Mon, 29 May 2000 10:40:50 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 00:25:15 GMT
>
>>>And you question * my * English skills?
>
>>He dropped an 'is'. Couldn't you figure it out, Roger?
>
>I caught the missing "is," but the rest still didn't make sense.
Whatever. Tell me why I shouldn't be bored?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 17:49:28 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> John Gluck wrote:
>>
>> Tom wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> >
>> > I have a gig of RAM, so it's not the RAM requirements that are choking
>> > it.
>> >
>> [snip]
>>
>> By default most linux distributions don't see more than 64 Megs of RAM.
>> You need to tell the kernel at boot time that you have more.
>> I have 256Megs so in /etc/lilo/conf i added a line that says: append
>> "mem=256M" (if i remember the syntax correctly)
>>
>> There are several ways to check if you are using all your ram.
>> One is in the KDE control center, choose information memory
>> Second is do a top command. That will show you all processes but will
>> also give you info about memory usage.
>> --
>> John Gluck (Passport Kernel Design Group)
>>
>
> Actually John it`s a BIOS problem, the BIOS under reports the amount of
> RAM.
> It doesn`t happen on all PC motherboards, some will report it correctly
> some won`t. That is why on some Intel systems you have to put the
> append line in lilo.conf.
Hmm. I was under the impression that this was a kernel issue, although I
have seen it pop up in Red Hat 6.x, for some odd reason. Debian 2.2 (frozen)
is reporting the memory fine, however.
--
Evan DiBiase <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG/PGP Key: http://www.telerama.com/~evand/evand.key
"When a masochist brings someone home from the bar, does he say, 'Excuse me
for a moment, I'm going to slip into something uncomfortable?'"
-George Carlin, "Brain Droppings"
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 18:08:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 21:24:53 GMT
>On Sun, 28 May 2000 22:05:23 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
>Williams wrote:
>
>>"Roger" <roger@.> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>> On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:17:46 -0400, someone claiming to be Keith T
>>> Williams wrote:
>
>>> >If something is copyrightable by law then yes, but until it declared to be,
>>> >then not necessarily.
>
>>> And you question * my * English skills? Case and statutory law
>>> maintains that a copyright, once declared, to be valid except in the
>>> cases where it can be proved the work had previously been copyrighted,
>>> or in the case where the holder does not aggressively defend the
>>> copyright.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what you thought you were writing.
>
>>I think that I was saying that until either the courts or a legislature say
>>something is copyrightable, then it may or may not be. I am NOT refering to
>>something which is currently entitled to copyright.
>
>Then you are wrong. The declaration of copyright on a given work has
>been held to be sufficient, regardless of whether the specific *type*
>of work is explicitly listed in a law book. There are two exceptions
>to this : that the work in question is provably prior art, or if the
>holder does not aggressively protect the copyright.
But the lack of declaration on a copyrighted work does not change the
situation, so Keith is far more accurate in his statement. You are
wrong, if not terminally boring, on this point, Roger. And your
insistence that "aggressive defense" is necessary is also outdated, I
believe. But I sense you might be purposefully arguing at
cross-definitions to begin with, and so we slip into that unfocused
sense of boredom you seem to cast, once again.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 May 2000 16:06:35 -0600
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip another 31337 post from drestin]
Do we troll comna every time a commercial company fails?
Geeze, at least you could have picked a REAL failed OSS project...
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
