Linux-Advocacy Digest #586, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 05:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux code going down hill (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux code going down hill (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: linux: 'insmod sr_mod': no module by that name found (Zoran Cutura)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:37:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul
>In article <8jnfn7$28pv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >> IMO, Solaris is more or less unusable until you add the GNU
>> >> utilities to it. ( Does it even ship with a C++ compiler ??? )
>> >
>> > No. Hell, it doesn't even ship with something as basic as 'top'.
>>
>> Solaris is an exceedingly specialized UNIX, linux is not UNIX at
>> all. Linux is 'gnu-nux'.
>
>Well, if you REALLY want to nit-pick, Solaris isn't Unix either,
Yes it is, most definitely (although as always possibly incorrectly,
since I'm not God or anything.) What makes you think Solaris isn't
Unix?
>and I don't understand "highly specialized".
Of value only to people with particular requirements in comparison to
more inexpensive varieties.
>What exactly is it
>highly specialized for?
It is highly specialize for being Sun's Unix, mostly, and Sun deals with
general purpose workstations, mostly. Their Enterprise line is starting
to crack HP's host business, as well, but I never said Sun only produced
specialized computers. Only that their Unix isn't necessarily
bog-standard.
>Runs nicely as a desktop, database
>server, web server, application server, X terminal server,
>computational node, file server, names serveretc. Specialized
>OSes are more like real-time systems for data aquisitions,
>manufacturing, telephony, etc.
A general purpose workstation, like I said. All the things you
mentioned, mostly, but a bit heavier on the graphics than is commonly
used today. An artifact of the history of the workstation concept.
>> If you do not know exactly why you need solaris, then you do not
>> need solaris.
>
>What does that mean? If you don't know what you need any software
>for, you probably don't need it.
We're not talking applications; we already know why we would have a
general need for an OS. If you don't have any more specific reason for
Solaris ("exactly"), it isn't necessarily a good choice, even if you're
running a Sun box.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:41:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting abraxas from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000 19:02:14 GMT
[...]
>>> So does VMS. Most OSes do.
>>
>> Actually not.
>
>Oh really? Hmmm...OpenVMS runs as a desktop, database server, webserver,
>applicaiton server, X terminal server, computational node, name server,
>etc. It just isnt very popular. :)
Despite the perversions of the marketplace caused by the Windows PC
monopoly, it is still possible that the reason it is not very popular
for doing something is because it is not, in fact, very good at all at
doing it.
[...]
>You realize that Mainframes are still being made right now, dont
>you?
You realize they still suck at being anything but Mainframes, don't you?
;-)
Thanks for your time. Hope its fun.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:41:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does the term "race condition" mean anything to you?
Yes.
Your point? How does this relate to "Linux lags behind Windows" or
anything else for that matter?
Are your posts always one liners with about 99% of the original posted
with it?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:38:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First off, I think we need to ditch everything that is believed about
> computers at the moment. Forget about backwards compatibility, and
all
> the other left-overs from all the years computing has been here
> already. Start from scratch and build a system that does the
following:
>
> First off, make the system something that can "learn" like humans do,
> but without the glitches humans have. You know, if we didn't forget
> things, could compute numbers quickly in our heads (and I'm talking
huge
> numbers here), and the other things that computers are already good at
> (huge computational work). Make it have voice and visual recognition.
> The computer *knows* who is there by the voice/looks of the person,
just
> like normal people. For visual represtations, there is a truly
> three-dimensional hologram type display and the speakers are all
around
> for postional sound, the voice would come from the area near the
center
> of the *display*. When you wanted a new program created, you could
type
> it in (the old fashioned way), tell the computer how to create the
> program (a mixed old/new way), or just tell the computer what you want
> the program to do and allow it to write the program from the ground up
> (once the computer had been *trained* to program itself properly).
> Obviously artificial intelligence and artificial life would have to
come
> a long way to make this happen. Then it brings up the age old
paranoia
> that people have about how machines will take over the world if we
allow
> them to *think*, but I think we could find ways around that. Make the
> computer more of a worker, rather than a slave. Once they become
> *intelligent* in human terms they are granted the same rights as a
> person (with some obvious restrictions, I wouldn't want to see a
> computer in charge of the presidency or something like that). I know
> this sounds like total sci-fi, and that's fine. I don't expect to see
> this in my lifetime. But I truly feel that this is what we need to
work
> towards. I think that it is the only way to make sure that computers
> are truly *intuitive* to novice users. Make it something that can be
> interacted with by even someone that has never seen a computer before.
> How do you do that? Make it act as a *human* acts. Talking,
> conversation, sight recognition (when someone points it *sees* what is
> pointed at, etc.). There would be some ethical questions involved
along
> the way (when does an artificial life-form qualify as a real
life-form?)
> but I don't think it is unreasonable to push in this direction. The
> important thing would be to end the "DOES NOT COMPUTE" type of
messages
> and instead get a "I don't know how to do that, can you show me?" type
> of response from the computer. This would make sense to anyone,
whether
> they understood computing or not. And if you couldn't teach the
> computer, you could find someone that could (or they could teach
> eachother through network interaction).
This is stuff of Science Fiction for now.
> So, what would your ideal computing platform be like? If you didn't
> have to worry about backwards compatibility and didn't have to worry
> about the baggage of all the previous work in computing, what would
you
> want to see?
I think my idea is more mundane. What I'd like to see is a mobile phone
that works with a home land line system (so you get the best of both
worlds), a PDA and have an internet connection (that costs little or
nothing to use).
They aren't here yet, but it looks like they're coming.
Of course, the OS would be neither Windows/WinCE or Linux! Probably EPOC
32.
> BTW, a few years ago I actually ran across a good series of sci-fi
books
> that dealt with a concept like I described. Of course, like in most
> sci-fi books the author assumed that if computers had a "life" of
their
> own they would start working against humanity, he took the unique
> approach of the computers using their political power to do so.
> Allowing computers into politics is one of those questions we would
have
> to answer along the way, but it is an interesting concept. If you are
> into sci-fi at all, and enjoy a good book, it was the Hyperion series
by
> Dan Simmons. The guy knows how to write good fiction. As far as I
know
> there are now four titles in the series. I've read Hyperion and Fall
of
> Hyperion in the past and have just recently started in on the two new
> books (I think they are called Endymion? and Rise of Endymion? or
> something to that basic effect). Definitely a kick ass read,
especially
> if you are into computing/networking/human-computer interaction and
any
> other good computer jargon. His concept of the WorldWeb people
> "visiting" the WorldWeb through virtual reality (although much more
> *real*) was simply awe inspiring. I hope some of the brighter spots
of
> the books actually come to be, but I hope it doesn't take 700 years to
> happen (when the series starts is 700 years in the future).
I've been reading a lot of Peter F Hamilton: Mindstar Rising, A Quantum
Murder, The Nano Flower. Basically a lot about bioware implants, cores
that contain complete personalities etc.
Also by Greg Bear: Slant - artificial thinkers.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 03:59:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
[...]
>And I've never claimed anything about cost -- other open source
>licences eliminate cost. The claim is, again, about 'free speech', not
>'free beer'.
OK, up until this point, I myself haven't really explored this "free
speech" question that I think Austin is validly bringing up. I realize
I'm jumping in to the middle of a growing discussion you two are having,
but I think you're both even-tempered enough to get to the point of the
matter. Austin has raised, through free inquiry, a question about
whether GPL is truly described as free as in free speech, in comparison
to open source software licenses of a different character. A lot of
discussion in the "Stallman's Politics" thread has gone to entropy with
claims of dishonesty. I have not commented directly on the matter of
RMS's personal statements on the issue; I'm familiar with all of these
facets (source code, Stallman, and licensing) only in general, as an
expert end user, let us say.
So what have we got for arguments? I'll paraphrase, to save on
requoting:
Free Speech is an inalienable right to express your views.
Free Software, in the manner of the GPL, is provided as an equivalent
concept by RMS.
Other licenses, however, which also provide open source distribution
rights, have restrictions which are different, and might ostensibly be
considered less of a burden on certain uses, and thus "more free". As
free speech is an inalienable right and therefore considered as
unfettered as possible under any set of circumstances, it is figured
that free software cannot match the quality or measure of freedom that
free speech enjoys. GPL software is not as unfettered as some other
software, and therefore can't be as unfettered as the almost unlimited
freedom that both the term and the action of "free speech" are meant to
engender.
Can anybody agree or disagree with that statement (constructively), or
doesn't it make any sense?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 07:51:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Windows will crash at the login prompt if you let it sit for a month.
Rubbish! We have a file server here running Windows 98 SE. It rarely
crashes, and we rarely reboot it. I think its been rebooted three or
four times in the last one and a half years, and that only to fix a
hardware problem!
> If you forget about a Windows machine, and it's running any
> software that someone considers necessary...believe me, you
> SILL be reminded of that particular machine's existance within
> a month orso.
More nonsense! See above.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Zoran Cutura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: linux: 'insmod sr_mod': no module by that name found
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 10:05:44 +0200
Carlos Villegas wrote:
>
> My goal is to have the 'sr_mod module' load automatically.
>
> As root I typed: 'insmod sr_mod'
> And I got this:
> insmod: sr_mod: no module by that name found
>
> How can I get the sr_mod module to load automatically given the above
> obsticle?
>
> --------------------------------------
> -- Carlos Villegas
> -- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Hello Carlos,
automatical loading of modules is done by the kernels
autoload function which needs to be compiled in. But also
your post shows that the module is not available for
loading. This indicaters that there is no file called
sr_mod in the /lib/modules/2.2.15/misc path (this path
is an example an must vary for other kernelversions
or modules that don't reseed in the misc directory.)
Where is this modul from? If it is in the standard kernel
simply construct a new kernel (look up the web for how
to do this, and read the manual of your distribution.)
and don't forget to type make modules modules_install.
Hope this is of any help.
Z
--
LISP is worth learning for the profound enlightenment experience you
will have when you finally get it; that experience will make you a
better programmer for the rest of your days. Eric S. Raymond
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:13:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>> You don't need proof that they "used [...] source code in
>> implement[ation]" if the code is open and they used the specification,
>> because it is a reasonable (bumbumbumBUUHHM - I never use this word like
>> this hardly) assumption.
>
>Ah, but it *isn't* a reasonable assumption -- at all.
Pardon my ignorance, but without further information or some reasoning
as an elaboration, this contradiction is less than helpful.
>> So your suggestion that this isn't the case is an unreasonable
>> assumption, and therefore requires some proof before anyone is required
>> to take it seriously. And considering the circumstances, its worth
>> reminding you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
>
>Except that it's not only my suggestion. People who are closer to the
>primary Kerberos development have said this as well (and first).
I don't understand why it not being your only suggestion is supposed to
shed light on its validity. Could you explain what the comments from
the development team were, and why they are useful to consider here?
I'm sorry for jumping into the middle of the discussion like this, but
I'd like to understand what you're saying.
>>> Sorry, but it really would help if GPL advocates didn't make fools of
>>> themselves this way.
>> And, what do you know! If the Kerberos source code were GPL, then MS
>> couldn't have kept the source for their implementation secret, and we
>> would know the answer to your question of whether they used Kerberos
>> open source code or not.
>
>Again, this is *false*. MS would not be obligated to show its source
>code unless it actually used the source code -- and it's not stupid,
>unlike the foolish GPList advocates who actually think that the GPL
>would have helped in this case.
Try to flame-off, dude, your rhetoric isn't helping your case. I think
what you're saying is that MS could have implemented the Kerberos
protocol without using the Kerberos reference implementation source
code, which I guess is true. And I guess the question this sub-thread
is discussing is whether Kerberos would have been protected from
Microsoft if it had been GPL, but the fact is it wouldn't make any sense
to make a protocol reference implementation GPL, certainly not in the
time period when Kerberos was developed. Nevertheless, if you can try
to ignore that absolutely correct and valid point you have, you might be
able to see that aside from the lunacy of making a source implementation
GPL, Microsoft would not have been able to do what they did with
Kerberos if it had been GPL. For the reasons I stated in the first
paragraph, which you contradicted without explanation. Because if there
is open source code for a protocol, and a vendor implements the protocol
very well, with the explicit exception of properly implemented
extensions, then it is reasonable to assume that they implemented the
source code in their software, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Which is exactly why, of course, that reference implementations should
never be GPLed. At least not until all of the profiteers have died off.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:25:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 09 Jul 2000 23:10:01
>In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 08 Jul 2000 14:28:56
>
>>> Again, MS reimplemented Kerberos from an open standard. It would not
>>> surprise me if their lawyers were unwilling to allow use of *any*
>>> external source code regardless of the license, but in any case they do
>>> not appear to have made use of the existing source base in any
>>> significant fashion. The license that source base is covered by is
>>> therefore irrelevant to what they did.
>
>> What does "they do not appear to have made use of the existing source
>> base" mean? The GPL doesn't make a distinction between "significant"
>> use or not,
>
>Yes, it does, because it's based on copyright law, and copyright law makes
>that distinction.
That would be copyright law making the distinction then, not the GPL.
And that is a very important distinction, I think. Because, unlike
secret source commercial code, it is only copyright law which requires
that you agree to the license. Commercial software licenses have a very
different character, and are not "based on" copyright law, but merely
your agreement when you buy it to agree to its stipulations. Users
don't need to agree to it other than its the only way they can get the
trade secrets which are the source code, because everyone who has the
trade secrets is bound by license not to give them or sell them to
anyone else. Open source code is quite the opposite. The user of a
binary compiled from open source doesn't need to agree to a license,
because they aren't copying it in any way that isn't allowed by fair use
or essential steps exemptions in copyright law. Unless they distribute
it to someone else. And while that is a really cool thing about "free
software", it isn't something that a typical end user needs to do.
>> so I think the license may very well have made a profound difference.
>
>All of the factual evidence of the situation doesn't seem to support this.
Could you be more specific?
>No offense, but if all you have is random speculation, I've talked to more
>of the people directly involved and can come up with my own random
>speculation. :)
I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my comments anyway. In the spirit
of free inquiry; I mean no offense.
>> Particularly since the GPL requires redistribution of derivative works
>> as open source,
>
>For something to be a derivative work, it has to make significant use of
>the underlying copyrighted work. Derivative work isn't defined by the
>GPL; it's defined by copyright law.
Well, there you have a point, I'll admit. But if we're talking
copyright law, then it is common to view the work in order to see how
derivative it is. And software "developers" that make their profits on
secret source don't generally like a lot of people examining their code,
which makes it a might hard to consider, let alone determine, just how
derivative the code is. I mean, there's no new algorithms, right, but
the source doesn't have to be cut-and-past to be considered "use of the
underlying work". You're right that the GPL can't draw the line.
You're wrong to think that this means that copyright law can draw that
line very easily or simply. "Derivative work" is a concept that only
makes sense when everybody can view the work itself, such as literature,
artistic images, and source code. So if your source code isn't
"published" (open), there's no reason to assume that a work that could
be derivative, isn't derivative, as I've said.
>> so we would be able to see precisely if they had used the existing base.
>
>MS isn't ever going to distribute anything as fundamental as their OS core
>security code as open source; their lawyers will have their programmers do
>a clean-room implementation of anything where it's even an issue. I bet
>that they did that with Kerberos anyway, just in case.
If MS was known for not being sloppy, Windows would work well, and they
wouldn't have held on to those incriminating emails.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[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: Aaron Kulkis <[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?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:24:43 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >>
> >> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sun, 09 Jul 2000
> >> [...]
> >> >The issue of product and services bundling was resolved
> >> >OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO. It's an open and shut case.
> >> >Microsoft's legal department must have their heads up their asses.
> >> >
> >> >DOJ's case is based on MOUNDS of precedence.
> >>
> >> You should check the last few days' posts on alt.destroy.microsoft,
> >> where David Petticord and I have been discussing this exact issue in a
> >
> >Hmmm, that name sounds familiar... somewhere from 10+ years ago.
>
> Wow, that's scary. He's just a guy I "met" on Usenet about two and a
> half years ago, AFAIK.
>
> >> great amount of detail.
> >>
> >> The problem is that the MOUNDS of precedence, which are all true and
> >> valid, even when applied to software, aren't *proven* to be true when
> >> applied to software. One of the fundamental tests for whether MS's
> >> actions have been illegal for thirty years (or a hundred) or whether
> >> they are legal, is not applicable to software. So at the very least one
> >> new precedence has to be set, which is, "how does software work when you
> >> apply the 'technical capabilities' test?"
> >
> >I think it is. The "bundling" case against IBM. IBM refused
> >to honor their warranty for ANYTHING if the customer had even
> >one line of non-IBM-written code on the machine.
>
> IBM was bundling software with hardware, not software with software.
>
> >The final judgement was that end-user's shall not be compelled
> >to pay for anything which they would rather obtain through some
> >other method (3rd-party purchasing or contracts, or in-house
> >development, or even "shareware")
> >My source: Thomas Watson, Jr's autobiography.
>
> But it is the IBM case which relates the precedent to software (the
> appellate decision made specific reference to this.) And it is that
> reasoning that allows any combination of two pieces of software to pass
> the "technology test". I don't know what the "some other method" piece
> you're referring to is, but if the producer can demonstrate benefit to
> the consumer, they are technically immune to tying claims, even if they
> integrate or bundle. Mr. Watson's autobiography probably concerns the
> consent decree which ended the case, rather than the legal arguments
> involved.
>
> [...]
> >Still, you can't compel a purchaser to pay for something which
> >he would prefer to get from another source.
>
> That is the essence of the issue, yes. But the problem isn't the paying
> or the source, but the "compel" question. Are you compelling someone to
> buy something when you make it more attractive? (Please don't compel me
Apparently, a lot of people consumers and OEM's disagree with
the assertion that MS's bundling is "more attractive" than
the alternatives. The whole suit got started by OEM's
complaints that Microsoft was (and is) PREVENTING the OEM's from
doing what the customers think is attractive, because doing so
would violate Microsoft's strategic methods.
I think that's sufficient counterexample.
> to pursue this line of questioning too avidly, as I'd have to start
> arguing in Microsoft's defense, and I can't do that and feel good about
> myself, even if I know its the right thing to do in certain
> circumstances.)
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> [A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
> [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! =-----
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
