Linux-Advocacy Digest #526, Volume #27 Fri, 7 Jul 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John Dyson)
Re: Linux faster than Windows? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!! (Mike Marion)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:58:45 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:22:53 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07 Jul 2000 17:51:00 -0400, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >> >> > Of course this is a lie. The point of the GPL is to encourage
> >> >> > the development of free software.
> >> >> >
> >> >> That statement isn't consistant with the result, since the GPL
> >> >> isn't free.
> >>
> >> GPL is free for the people it is meant to be free, the masses.
> >> That is a more important compelling interest than ensuring the
> >> interests of would be plantation masters or perpetrators of
> >> Jim Crow.
> >>
> >Why do you continue to create analogy that is meaningless in this
>
> It's not an analogy at all. It is another instance of an
> identical sort of situation.
>
It isn't identical: People != Software.
> >situation? Weasling ones way into being able to call GPL free doesn't
> >really solve the simple problem of the misuage.
>
> No weaseling is require. You're the only one weaseling, depending
> on the common misperception of "free" as mob rule or anarchy.
>
It is CLEARLY weasling when comparing people with software, and the
terminology 'free' associated with them. You are using a device to
create a straw argument. :-).
John
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:00:13 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:25:03 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> >
> >> > No they aren't. The GPL seeks to ensure certain end user
> >> > freedoms in perpetuity. If anyone is lying here it is you.
> >>
> >> US XVIIIth century law seeked to ensure the right of the plantation
> >> owner to
> >> enslave certain specific humans in perpetuity. Is that free for you?
> >>
> >> The GPL seeks to ensure certain rights by denying certain others. That
> >> is
> >> not inherently bad or good, but it IS.
> >>
> >> This "the GPL is free" "it is not" debate is ludicrous, Noone has a
> >> freedometer.
> >>
> >> Freedom is not a number.
> >>
> >I agree... However, when freeness is explicitly removed, that is
> >quite clear. GPL specifies ways in which the freeness is denied.
>
> ...much in the same way that certain US Constitutional
> Amendments do.
>
> The GPL creates an equality of rights. The 3/5th's compromise
> or the Fugitive Slave Act did not and that is why they ended
> in a civil war.
>
Slavery of people should be discussed in an anthropology newsgroup. We
aren't talking people here, but only software.
Also, you are creating straw arguments, and the comparision that you
beg is nonsense.
John
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:01:56 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:29:10 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:15:23 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On 7 Jul 2000, Steve Mading wrote:
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>: You cannot steal something that has 1000's of copies already on the
> >> >>: net.
> >> >> Ahem - Kerberos.
> >> >
> >> >Spec problem, not copyright problem. NEXT?
> >>
> >> IOW, the specification much like a licence wasn't sufficiently
> >> structured with abusive Robber Baron's in mind.
> >>
> >> That sort of mistake is precisely why the GPL came into existence.
> >>
> >The GPL is NO defense against a company like Microsoft, who could
> >reimplement Linux, with some help from a few UNIX-world OS developers
>
> ...this from the same company that can't even be bothered
> to keep it's MIPS, PPC and Alpha ports current?
>
Contract issues. Percieved market demand.
Microsoft hatred is not an issue here.
Next,
John
------------------------------
From: John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 19:03:16 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:36:18 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hyman Rosen wrote:
> >>
> >> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > Those other things that are free have few counterparts that are more free.
> >> > In the case of GPL, there are certainly licenses that are MUCH MORE FREE.
> >>
> >My response was with respect to other claims about items being 'free.'
> >In
> >those cases, there were few examples that had other alternatives that
> >were
> >more free. In the case of GPL, there are alot of cases where the code
>
> ...until the first would be plantation owner comes along.
>
> More equal than others does not constitute free.
>
Imagine a software plantation :-). Imagine all of the little software
slaves who cannot own (or control) the fruits of their labor :-)... Oh
yea, thems the add-on developers when using GPL.
You continue begging the false analogies, but thought I'd play with you
for a minute :-).
John
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:56:16 -0600
"Tod D. Ihde" wrote:
>
> My point was that nobody cares about _good_ code anymore - about saving
> that byte,
I disagree with your basic premise: "saving that byte" may very well
make your code bad, not "good".
> about saving that clock cycle.
Same thing again. Saving clock cycles and bytes does not define code a
good.
> Everyone's answer is to just throw
> more CPU, more memory, more HD space at a problem until it becomes bearable,
> not to actually go through their code & try to make it leaner, meaner, more
> refined & elegant.
"Leaner, meaner, more refined and elegant" may very well be labels that
you could honestly apply to horribly bad code.
"Good Code" isn't about bytes and cycles, its about total cost
calculated over the total life cycle.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:08:38 GMT
JoeX1029 wrote:
> OK they have turned out some decent stuff if you don't want to do alot of
> upgrading. I tried to add a second hd, either i must remove the CD or 3.5"
> drive. None of the cables are long enough, not enough room in the case etc.
Agreed. If you want a pre-packaged system, that you'll likely only run
windows on and never upgrade at all.. then Compaq is ok. However, if
you ever want to upgrade, or possibly even run Linux.. run away from
Compaq PCs as fast as you can. The layout in them sucks, most use a
daughterboard so that several of the slots are sideways instead of
vertical, which limits card sizes.
The CMOS is accessed via software that has to either be installed on the
HD or loaded off of 3 floppies (which takes forever), and it's an old
windows-based (or so it seams) program. I had a box at work where it
got corrupted to the point that the CMOS software would run, but would
always GPF (yipee) if I tried to change _any_ setting. I upgraded the
software, downgraded it.. etc. The only thing that finally fixed it was
to use the Compaq "eraser" (or whatever it's called) disk which wipes
the drive and system completely clean. Good thing I didn't have any
data on it that I needed to get to. Then I got to sit through the 30min
(or so) process of reinstalling the software yet again, so that I could
change the settings I needed changed. Fun, fun, fun!
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief.
They all kill their inspiration, and sing about the grief."
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:15:23 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 7 Jul 2000 16:50:31 -0500, Drestin Black wrote:
>
> He makes some good points, for example about the bazaar having a
> "priesthood", and about small groups being productive.
>
> He's kind of wrong when he claims that Open Source projects are not
> "customer oriented". Some, like KDE for example, certainly are.
>
> He's also dead wrong about there being "no bug count". Debian have a bug
> count, and major projects such as the kernel, kde, and mozilla keep their
> own bug tallies.
>
> I also disagree that making life hard for developers is a good idea. A lot
> of Microsoft's success was due to the fact that they worked hard to win
> over developers. Likewise, Linux is making ground in the UNIX world, because
> all the UNIX geeks in college use Linux at home, and they'll inevitably
> drag it into the workplace with them as soon as they think they can get
> away with it.
It's been going on for years....how do you think so many Web servers
at commercial sites ended up being Linux?
Many started out as NT Servers, but, after many many crashes,
admins started looking at Linux as a replacement.
>
> The "elitism" of any type of programmer or user is a
> danger. The non-elitism of Windows programmers has helped attract developers
> to that platform. Linux has succesfully won a lot of the UNIX market,
> largely because it is more grass roots and less elitist than traditional
> UNIX ( unfortunately, some users are somewhat elitist, and these users do
> not help )
>
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:16:59 -0400
Mike Marion wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > over developers. Likewise, Linux is making ground in the UNIX world, because
> > all the UNIX geeks in college use Linux at home, and they'll inevitably
> > drag it into the workplace with them as soon as they think they can get
> > away with it.
>
> I have to agree with this. When I was in college, we did C on Solaris
> machines. My only remote connect to school at the time was dialup over
> 14.4k.. which was hell for editing source. I first tried things like
try 300 baud. (0.3k) This is when a 1.2k modem cost $300.
> djgpp under dos to do work at home, then transfer to the server at
> school. This worked, but took a lot of tweaking after moving it to the
> Solaris box to get a clean compile and run.
>
> Later, when I installed Linux at home, it usually worked perfectly after
> moving the source to the Solaris machines. I think the only times I had
> to do edits were when we used pthreads on Solaris and used macros to tie
> the threads onto one processor.
>
> --
> Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
> What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A MacOpinion of Open Source that REALLY HITS THE MARK
Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 20:17:58 -0400
Mike Marion wrote:
>
>
> --
> Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
> What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
You must experiment with RAID & redundant power supplies.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:16:59 GMT
On 7 Jul 2000 19:56:15 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:29:37 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>>>
>>> nowadays :
>>>
>>> winamp is better than xmms or whatever on Linux
>>
>>WinAmp is 99.9% the same as Xmms. What has an MP3-player got to do
>>with the quality of an OS, anyway?
>>
>
>Windows can do it, LIE-nux cant.
Can't do what? Play plenty of sound formats from one application,
deliver a piss poor UI to the end user, theme that piss poor UI
for the end user in a fit of futility, allow for lots of really
frivolous visual plugins?
You've never bothered to established why winamp is better. Infact
gqmpeg makes winamp blow bloody chunks becuase it has a more
ergonomic and flexbile user interface.
Winamp skins are a pathetic joke.
>
>>> word is better than startoffice or whatever on Linux (wordperfect,
>>> abiword, ...)
>>
>>No. Word only has more features, that's all.
>
> ...witch makes it better.
For whom, not for the easily confused.
[deletia]
>>> eudora is better than whichever Linux program
>>
>>Eudora is a fine mail-client, that's true. It isn't better than Linux
>>mail-clients though. It's somewhat like KMail.
>
> ..except it has moar featchers.
Like what exactly?
>
>>
>>> outlook express is better than whatever Linux news reader
>>> development tools are much more better under Windows
Outlook is an atrocity, much like winamp.
[deletia]
Outlook has given me a newfound appreciation for ccmail.
--
Free Software: because liberty necessarily requires the the
suppression of those that would deprive others of freedom.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:19:11 GMT
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 18:39:04 -0500, Jason McNorton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 16:02:04 -0500, Jason McNorton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:42:09 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Except Macs--where things just work.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tell that to my friend, who bought an iMac and had a hard time getting
>> >> > his SCSI Zip drive to work over USB.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, my friend is pretty clueless, but he had someone more knowledgeable
>> >> > look at it, and they couldn't get it working either.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not anti-Mac, but be realistic. Things do not "just work" 100% of
>> >> > the time on any hardware platform that I know of.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nope. Just vastly more often than any other platform.
>> >
>> >Then don't say it 'just works', cause it sure doesn't.
>>
>> This is quite likely a vendor support issue. USB isn't quite like
>> ADB since it's not an Apple standard. With both the SCSI->USB host
>> and the Zip itself you have to hope that the hardware vendor is
>> supporting your platform of choice in a reasonable manner.
>
>Does it matter who's to blame? It doesn't always work, despite the
Yup.
>nonsensical 'it just works' mantra Joe was spouting.
It gets to the heart of the matter. Macintosh hardware works
with Macintoshes. Non-Macintosh hardware and non-standards
compliant hardware doesn't.
--
Free Software: because liberty necessarily requires the the
suppression of those that would deprive others of freedom.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:19:50 GMT
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:44:17 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 23:26:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>when said peripheral is newish and uses a common, well-supported interface?
>>
>> That is not at all established here actually.
>>
>> An SBLive uses a common, well-supported interface but you don't
>> expect it to work in a G4 do you?
>
>Well, not THIS month, but I hold out hope for one of the next few
>months.
>
You would always try it under Yellow Dog... <snicker>
--
Free Software: because liberty necessarily requires the the
suppression of those that would deprive others of freedom.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:08:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Default wrote:
> >
> > Having just gotten through reading over 7,000
> > Linux posts in one sitting,
> > I *still* fail to see the advantages of
> > Linux over Apple's forthcoming OS 'X'.
Let me start right off by saying I am THRILLED to see Apple
come out with OS/X it's ABOUT TIME that Apple released a version
of UNIX with all that Mac friendliness.
The really simple answer is that OS/X doesn't run on all 40million
combinations of components that go into the average PC. Linux does
a pretty good job, but it's still like 20^8 (average of 20 available
options for each component, with 6 key components required for a
basic system including processor, video card, sound card, modem,
Lan card, printer, scanner, hard drive, and mother board, and you
quite a challenge.
Ironically, even Windows can't support as many combinations as Linux
can (try running Windows 2000 on an Alpha chip with a Voodoo 3 video
card).
> > Okay, Steve is still an Assh**e, and Apple Inc.,
> > leaves much to be desired.
For years Steve wanted to beat IBM, and Bill Gates used that
motivation to drive Steve into ignoring the fact that Bill was
literally stealing Mac code en masse. Gates claimed that he
got it from Xerox too, but I don't think the guys in Rochester
were that stupid.
Back in 1984 (even as late as 1991) IBM was suffering from a
terrible case of inbred management that ignored customers,
used monopoly power to force their standards (SNA, LU 6.2, EBCDIC,
MVS, Cobol...) and overplayed their hand when they tried to get
the entire customer base to spend $4-6 million on software and
hardware upgrades to a $3 million computer.
Now, it's 2000 and Microsoft is suffering from a terrible case
of inbred management that ignores customers, uses monopoly power
to force their standards (Office, WINS, DCOM, MSMQ, Windows, Visual
Basic) and expects the entire corporate user base to shell out
$10,000 on hardware and software upgrades to $1000 computers.
Apple didn't stop IBM, UNIX did. Eventually, IBM hired an outside
CEO, started listening to it's customers, and started supporting
UNIX in a big way, not it's listening and supporting Linux as well.
Apple won't stop Microsoft, Linux will. But since Linux is really
a brand name that is used to lump thousands of Open Source programs
that run on BOTH Linux and BSD Unix, Apple can have all the benifits
of Linux and still have their own "Look and Feel" toys.
If Apple really DOES come up with a winner of a user interface
(what they do best), they might even be able to license it or sell it
to OEMs and Consumers using Intel Platforms as well as their own
hardware.
Of course since most of the source to "Linux" code is available
(even the proprietary code is available to their developers) it's
quite likely that we will see not only MAC but TransMeta, PPC,
StrongARM, and UltraSparc versions of Linux Desktop machines.
> > And Apple's present operating system stinks compared to what it
> > replaced (8.6 vs. 9.04). Sort of like Windows 95 vs. 98/2000.
> > I fail to see why anyone,
> > other those that want to make a living via
> > Linux, would want to be involved in Linux?
According to one source
http://www.voila.co.uk/News/afp/media/000707144037.48xz8zvv.html
Computer viruses caused over $1 trillion in damages this year. This
is only $2000 per machine (assuming an active base of 700 million
machines). Microsoft Office, Outlook, and Internet Explorer have
managed to turn firewalled "safe" systems into "at risk" systems
by allowing hackers to push bundled attachments with invisable
viruses under the radar.
The problem is that Microsoft has ignored standards that were
etablished as a result of peer review by thousands of system
administrators, security experts, and stable people.
Linux systems can be vulnerable too, but even the default security
settings are more secure than Windows/Office/Outlook/Explorer.
> Of course this is only my opinion,
> and not a very informed one at that,
> since I haven't used OSX yet.
> I've used Linux for a long time, but I'm
> very excited by OSX. However, I can imagine
> reasons why I would stick with Linux after
> OSX comes out (and I don't know whether
> any or all will prove to be true):
>
> 1. A PC+Linux+X may be cheaper than a Mac+OSX.
Economics 101: A competitive market creates elastic supply/demand
curves. The demand drives suppliers, and when many suppliers supply,
prices decrease and performance increases.
> 2. A PC+Linux+X may be faster than a Mac+OSX.
This is the other side of the equation. Apple has some winning
technology, but they need to license it to third party sources
and cultivate the competitor market. Apple has a nasty habit of
eating it's own children. Apple HAS licensed technology to third
party makers, only to kill them with quantum leap improvements it
refuses to sell to the competitors. A bit like the boys in Redmond.
Apple can do this legally because it doesn't have much of a market,
but the laws of economics prevent it from succeeding by killing off
it's children. When Apple tries to control everything, it gets about
5-7% of the market. When Apple loosens up, adopts standards, and
provides compatibility with competitors, it, and it's licensees
get about 20-25% of the market.
The reason Microsoft gets 98% of the market (through the combination
of Windows and Office), is because Microsoft cultivates many
competitors under it's guidence.
> 3. Although I look forward to having a friendly interface on top of
> Unix, I abhor a graphical interface that I can't configure and tune in
> my own quirky ways. Linux+X allows me to do that (although GNOME has
> taken a step in the wrong direction, IMHO), and Mac+OSX may not.
Actually, it looks like Apple has realized that many people really
do want scripting capability. You might not get a full-blow shell
prompt directly off the screen menu. It might take some clever
shift-ctl-alt-click type of "incantation" to get an xterm window,
but at least you will be able to get one.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 00:20:52 GMT
On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:37:37 -0500, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 17:04:27 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On 7 Jul 2000, Graham Murray wrote:
>> >> In gnu.misc.discuss, John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >>> Your counter-example is fallacious. An example of a GPL-like parking
>> >>> lot is that it is marked 'free parking', but that means that it is
>> >>> 'free' to park there. However, a GPL-parking lot requires that you
>> >>> pay to leave the lot with your car.
>> >> How about another example.
>> >>
>> >> "A free man may not be enslaved, nor may his children".
>> >
>> >Debunked.
>> >
>> >Software is not a person. Children are not possessions. Slavery
>>
>> ...but end users are.
>>
>We are talking about 'free software' not 'free end users'. Puuuleeese,
>don't start comparing people and objects again.
...like "free countries"...
Your pedantry is pointless and purely rhetorical.
--
Free Software: because liberty necessarily requires the the
suppression of those that would deprive others of freedom.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
