Linux-Advocacy Digest #926, Volume #26 Tue, 6 Jun 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The State of the System Address (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Wintrolls! M$ will get the blade. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Yet Another Analogy: Military Aircraft. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages) (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: The State of the System Address
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:44:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 5 Jun 2000 20:50:56 -0700
<wB__4.156622$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The State of the System Address
>------------------------------------------
>
>I just want to explain how I see the GNU/Linux OS. It is a system very
>heavily based on Unix and then extended with one of the various desktop
>enviroments to provide a modern enviroment.
Pedant point. Linux isn't based on Unix code at all, although the
philosophy of Unix -- if such can be said to exist -- has
heavily permeated it. This philosophy would probably include
small processes, small APIs [i.e., don't include a boatload of
arguments], and good tools for tying programs together like pipes
and such.
>
>GNU/Linux has been said to be a good server OS. I have no experience with
>GNU/Linux on the server, so I have no room for comment.
>
>As a desktop operating system---GNU/Linux falls short in many way.
>
> 1. It has an incomplete graphical user interface. Many common functions
>are inaccesible from the GUI. This makes using the system more difficult
>than it needs to be.
>
> 2. Applications are not compatable within the platform. This includes
>such things as cut and paste, fonts, and widget sets. Cut and Paste means
>true cut and paste of any object---not just text.
It's not clear whether anyone's really bothered, but X supports arbitrary
atoms in its Selection paradigm. In other words, a tool could in
principle offer a STRING version, a PIXMAP version (i.e., the "printed"
page), a POSTSCRIPT version (a slightly more flexible version of the
printed page), and a HTML version (which could be part of the source code
if the offering tool was a browser, say).
Whether another tool would be able to interpret anything other than
the STRING version is another question, but at least X has that
option available, although it's rather limited in some respects
because of the 16,384-byte server limit; there are also issues
with standards.
(And we all know how badly Netscape pastes text if there are
tables involved -- those darned leading spaces! :-) )
>
> 3. Configuring and installing of less common hardware is much more
>difficult than needed. This can be expected as GNU/Linux doesn't have vendor
>support.
I will note that many board vendors do in fact support Linux.
(And many don't.)
>
> 4. The X Window System requires more resources than equivalent Desktop
>Operating Systems. In addition, the X Window System has instability problems
>such as memory leaks.
And Microsoft Windows doesn't? :-) Mind you, I think you're right,
at least in the case of Netscape -- although in Netscape's case it
may be more of an issue with Netscape leaking, than X. I'd have to
figure out an elegant method by which to test this, though; one
simple one that comes to mind is having a tool that creates a Pixmap
(as opposed to an XImage, which is client-side) and then never
releases it (even if it dies), being run 10,000 times, and see if X leaks.
I'll admit, I'm curious.
>
> 5. Some common desktop applications are either missing (e.g., desktop
>publishing) or sorely missing in functionality (e.g., vector drawing apps).
>
> 6. The GUI lacks consistancy in almost every way. The look and feel,
>keybindings, documentation system, and installation routines can change from
>application. This is due to Bazaar-style development.
You've also forgotten the help problems; does one use man,
info, /usr/doc, or HTML? What hyperlinks? Is there a
reliable search engine, index, or "See Also" on manpages?
All this hopefully will be cleared up at some point. (I will
also make the pedantic observation that, if one is a good writer,
one can contribute. :-) I may do so myself, if I can figure out
what "good" documentation should be; there are obviously some
issues there -- and technical familiarity with things such as hyperlinks
does not necessarily equate to ability to write good documentation
using same.)
>
>On the plus side, the GNU/Linux has the following key advantages that the
>competition has yet to offer.
>
> 1. Much of the GNU/Linux operating system is free software, giving the
>users the same rights as the developers or software vendor.
This is not an advantage in certain applications. Check the license
carefully!
There was a fairly long thread some months back about how "free"
the GNU public license actually is. My take on this is probably
a reasonable one, though; if a company incorporates unmodified
GNU source code into a project, it need merely note it; if a company
incorporates modified GNU source code into a project, it needs to
publish its modifications back into the GNU system, as a public service.
These modifications do not need to be anything more sophisticated than
hooks into their own proprietary code, however -- think C++ virtual
methods, for example, or callbacks into C function pointers, allowing
"arm's length" development.
Richard Stallman may complain (I don't know; I've never met him
personally :-) ), but I think this is the tack most companies
would take with GNU code. At least, I hope so.
>
> 2. The average GNU/Linux operating system comes preinstalled with at
>least 4 or five programming languages. This allows the user flexibility in
>configuring his or her enviroment for more esoteric circumstances.
And possibly total confusion, under certain circumstances.
Granted, I like the flexibility. :-)
>
> 3. Sane development. The GNU/Linux undergoes very dynamic development so
>that if a component causes the user stability problems, the user can often
>upgrade to a more stable component. In addition, most GNU/Linux applications
>make stark distinction between stable and instable components.
I'm not sure if I would call this "development", or "management".
Still, it is a plus.
>
> 4. The X Window System is mostly network transparent.
>
> 5. The leading desktop enviroments have or will have a theming capability
>standard with the software. This allows the user to theme his enviroment to
>his tastes.
>
> 6. The average GNU/Linux application is smaller and more narrow in
>functionality than similar applications on other platforms. Instead, much
>development is reused in many applications. This standard for Unix in
>general but for GNU/Linux this extended into the GUI applications.
This may be a partial explanation for the hodgepodgeity (is that a word?)
of the Linux desktop. (This is not necessarily a bad thing, of course.)
>
> 7. The GNU/Linux applications tend to use open or standard file formats
>for greater interoperability. New GNU/Linux application will usually be able
>to read other applications file formats (provided they are not secret) by
>their 1.0 release.
And in some cases, even if they are. Recall SAMBA's success at
reading whatever Microsoft calls its network disk protocol, for example.
(Although it's possible parts of it are published; I don't know, now.)
Also, some apps can read simple Word files. (I don't know if there's
an app which can read an arbitrarily complicated DDE/OLE document,
though, apart from Microsoft Word or Wordpad.)
>
> 8. The entire graphical user interface can be configured in a factorial
>of ways. Indeed, the user even has the option of whether or not he *wants*
>as graphical user interface.
>
>
>If you are looking to use GNU/Linux operating system on your desktop
>computer, you should consider the pros and cons above. I happen to use this
>system and so do many others. If you are looking for an alternative to
>Microsoft Windows, GNU/Linux may be a practical consideration because it has
>the most applications after the Windows platform. Also, except for the
>Windows platform, it has the most compatibilty with common hardware.
>
>Best regards,
>Kevin Holmes
>"extrasolar"
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: 6 Jun 2000 10:50:39 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If the MAC OS was superior to those available for the Intel platform, it
> > > would be dominant. It was rejected by the marketplace.
> > >
> > That's rather a dangerous statement to make.
> > By the same token Win9x would be superior to OS/2 - and that's just
> > plain silly.
>
> Define "superior". Is it technically superior? Yes.
>
> Is it superior to the vast majority of end users? No.
>
> Superior means "It can do everything I need it to do", where "need it to do"
> are things like running MS Office, and all the other software you want to
> use.
>
> Most users want to run specific programs, not programs that are "like" some
> other program.
>
> As an example, I just set up a friend of mine with a Windows 2000 system.
> He was used to using a Mac, and wanted to use the programs he knew
> specifically (Illustrator, Quark, Photoshop). It didn't matter to him that
> Canvas or Freehand or FrameMaker or PhotoDraw Might do the same things he
> needs them to do, he wanted to use only those specific programs.
>
> The moral of the story. It's the apps, not the OS which drive people. They
> may prefer one OS over the other, but they'll use any OS if it gives them
> the Apps they want.
"Superior" means "better", and that quality has to be earned by the
operating system on its own merits, not by the applications that are
written for it. You are trying to make us believe that "superior"
means "better marketed" or "with more available applications". If I
had meant that, I would have written that Win9x is better marketed
than OS/2.
As to technical superiority, only a fool would still claim that Win9x
is technically better than OS/2.
It's a nice example you gave there, but other than that you probably
did your "friend" a disservice by setting him up with a non-proven,
resource-hungry O/S to do the same things less efficiently, there
really was no point to it.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
"We seem to be made to suffer. It is our lot in life."
C3P0 - 'Star Wars IV, a New Hope'
========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:48:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, jeff carroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 06 Jun 2000 01:44:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:58:49 GMT, Scott Norwood
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <8hhano$1qnp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>VNC is better than nothing, but pretty slow over a low
>>>bandwidth link.
>>
>>As if X is any better? Personally, I find X performance to be slow
>
>Ironically, VNC is best on Unix, where it is needed least. VNC on Windoze
>servers sux head cheese through surgical tubing by comparison.
*chuckles* I have to ask...why surgical tubing? :-)
Are we talking like 1/8" inside diameter or something? :-)
>
>jkc
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- now where'd my giraffe go?
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:54:19 GMT
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 10:56:33 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 06/04/2000 at 11:59 AM,
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> This is true from a core OS point of view. From a UI point of view
>> (which is what I was talking about), MacOS has continued to go forward.
>> OS 7 -> OS 8 -> OS 9 were all pretty decent steps in UI terms even if
>> the core OS never really changed.
>
>If the MAC OS was superior to those available for the Intel platform, it
>would be dominant. It was rejected by the marketplace.
No. If Apple could match the price and commoditization (is that a
word?) of Microsoft/Intel then they could kill the market. Problem is
they (Apple) don't seem to be sure whether they want to be a niche
market system or a mainstream system.
Of course, does that mean that Win9x is better than 2000, or that
Win9x is better than Linux, or even that Win 3.0 is better than OS/2?
;-)
Personally I think OS X is gonna be a good rival for NT/2000, and
that's coming from an NT advocate!
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Wintrolls! M$ will get the blade.
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:52:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 05 Jun 2000 22:22:43 -0600
<8hhqo0$t61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Judge Jackson is considering the idea of chopping M$ into
>> three pieces -one more than the government's proposal of two.
>> Nice. The more the merrier.
>
> Well ``hoop-tee-doo-bee''!!!
> This surely means M$'$ skunk works
> is working on a linux port of Visual Bloated Basic.
> I can't wait!!
> LIN2K yeh!
> *.VBS!!!
> $$$ for all!!!
It's been done already for Solaris.
And there was much rejoicing. (unenthusiastic "Yay")
>
>>
>> Ferdinand
>>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- there might be a slight COM problem, though :-)
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:57:10 GMT
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 23:09:02 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article <393b879b$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> If the MAC OS was superior to those available for the Intel platform, it
>> would be dominant. It was rejected by the marketplace.
>
>And once again a wintroll makes the error of assuming popularity =
>quality. An infiriour product with a lower price and supiriour marketing
>can easily outsell the supiriour product. Particularily when people who've
>tried Windows think the mac is just a variation of the same theme.
Actually, Bob's an OS/2 fan. That's why most of us are having
problems figuring out his statement.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:54:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Tue, 6 Jun 2000 01:55:30 -0500 <J61%4.542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It was shortly after
>> that that MS came out with Windows 3.11 to fix some small bugs that had
>> been in the system for awhile. It also broke OS/2 for Windows, but that
>> they said that was just a coincidence, not intended at all [3].
>
>> [3] Want to buy a bridge?
>
>Windows 3.1 was released a mere few weeks before Windows 3.1 was released.
Read that last sentence *very* carefully. I think one of the
"Windows 3.1" may need to be replaced with OS/2 something. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:59:56 GMT
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:00:25 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 06/04/2000 at 12:02 PM,
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> You'll find the 386/486 machines probably had Win3.x or Win95 licenses
>> and not Win98 licenses. MS hasn't required a license with each
>> processor since about 1995 when they got told they weren't allowed to do
>> that, so the licenses you are talking about are definitely not Win98 and
>> probably not Win95 either.
>
>Bullshit. It is only in the last few months that it was possible to
>purchase an Intel based PC without Windows 9x or NT from ANY of the
>significant OEM's in the US market. IBM, Dell, Compaq, Gateway, HP, etc.
>all required you to purchase Win9x (or NT) of you didn't get the machine.
>If you claim otherwise, you are a liar.
I thought IBM sold machines with only OS/2 if you wanted it?
I know you've been able to buy Dell machines with only Linux for about
18 months now.
The last time I bought Windows with a machine here (Oz) was 1993 -
used upgrades since then, but then again I avoid the major OEMs and
prefer to build the machines myself.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:03:57 GMT
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:41:34 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 06/05/2000 at 09:23 AM,
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Sounds like the US pays doctors better so the doctors move south.
>> Doesn't sound like a Canadian problem, but a demand for doctors in the
>> US.
>
>No, John, it is all about freedom from Government interference. In Canada,
>the government regulates the income of physicians. The US does not. In
>Canada, the government determines where and when a person can get care.
>The US does not. In Canada, the goverment takes a much bigger bite out of
>income via taxation than in the US.
Now isn't it interesting that Australians have the second longest life
expectancy in the world and we have a system very much like Canada?
Basically, what you are saying is that in the US the government
doesn't care enough about its citizens to ensure they all get
affordable health care. "Freedom from Govt interference" sounds like
a cop out for "We don't want to care about those who can't afford
health care - they don't deserve it".
How much does it cost to visit a GP in the US *without* health care?
How much for the same in Canada?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Yet Another Analogy: Military Aircraft.
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 09:59:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 5 Jun 2000 14:47:02 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 13:55:08 GMT,
> Christopher Browne, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when The Ghost In The Machine
>>would say:
>>>Since this is slightly off-topic, I'll briefly mention it; I saw
>>>a program that claims -- and it looks like a good claim, too -- that
>>>the Hindenberg didn't explode and burn because of the hydrogen, but
>>>because of the powdered aluminum and some other chemical that coated
>>>its fabric (the same constitutents as solid rocket fuel, it turned out!),
>>>and improper charge dissipation from the fabric panels, leading to
>>>an electrical spark and...whoosh, there goes the fabric coating.
>>>Note the color of the flame -- it's not blue.
>>
>>_Interesting_.
>>
>>Certainly the "anti-hydrogen lobby" as well as the "anti-German lobby"
>>went for the easy contention that Zeppelins were German and dangerous.
>>It would be most interesting if there were more to it than the
>>hydrogen...
>
>Hydrogen will burn yellow/orange in a fuel poor environment.
Erm....can you clarify this? Do you mean oxygen-poor (as opposed
to fuel poor), or oxygen-rich, hydrogen-poor (hydrogen being the fuel)?
I'm slightly confused here.
I am also given to understand that the yellow portion of a
standard candle flame is because of glowing carbon, and that
a well-setup natural gas flame is also blue, but a natural gas
flame with too much gas and not enough oxygen will burn
yellow (which allows for such effects as artificial fireplaces).
(Should I cross-post this to sci.aviation or something? :-) )
>
>--
>Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
>WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Linux. Because entertaining discussions can
happen in its newsgroups. :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: HTML Help files (an updated set of man pages)
Date: 6 Jun 2000 09:51:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Um, doesn't this just demonstrate the weakness of the man pages? If
> I can find nothing under smbmount, which I did know points at
> smbmnt, but didn't think the clever developers would HIDE it there,
> shouldn't the text be updated?
Are you willing to help get the documentation into better shape? I am
sure that many people would *welcome* this, and it is a lot of effort.
Also, the best person to write some documentation is invariably *not*
the code developer who tends to be too close to their work to see all
the places that need something written about them.[*] Similarly, the
production of examples and test suites is also best left to others
than the software programmer, and for much the same reason.
Donal.
[* OK, there are exceptions to this rule, but they tend to be where
the documentation is stated to be definitive and differences
between docs and the code are specified to be coding bugs. Not
much software is written this way, and this kind of doc is tricky
to write. (You're really programming abstractly. :^) ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:09:26 GMT
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 11:04:03 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 06/04/2000 at 12:02 PM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (G. Wayne Hines) said:
>
>> They must have seen you coming! In Nova Scotia, we have some of the
>> highest prices in the country. Regular unleaded is 72.9 cents a liter,
>> or $3.28 CDN per Imperial gallon. That's about $2.20 US and works out
>> to around $1.78 US per US gallon.
>
>Once we got about 40 miles out of Niagra Falls, the price per liter rose
>to nearly 95 cents per liter and stations were only offering 75 cents per
>US Dollar. Nearer the border, of course the exchange rate was much closer
>to the official rate and the price per liter was much lower.
Didn't you say you were paying $3.45 per gallon? That's $1.21 per
litre (at 75c exchange rate).
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:12:01 GMT
On Mon, 05 Jun 2000 21:37:07 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Wiltshire wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 18:49:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 20:21:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >>>*Or* they could simply decide that they seem to be running just fine,
>> >>>and that this whole "upgrade path" nonsense is something their competitors
>> >>>may worry about. I suspect that would increase operating profits quite
>> >>>dramatically for such companies.
>> >
>> >>What do they do when they employ someone and need a new license?
>> >
>> >Get out the Win98 CD, and install it on a new computer. Yes, it is
>> >piracy --- but the only entity that could prosecute them for it has
>> >decided that they don't care anymore, remember? So who cares.
>>
>> I was assuming that if MS decided to do something as blatantly nasty
>> as that then they would contiunue sueing for copyright infringement.
>>
>> Anyway, it's only hypothetical.
>
>How can Microsoft both be and not be a business at the
>same time?
You just refuse to sell anything or make any more money. Maintain
your contractual obligations but sit on your bum and do nothing.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
