Linux-Advocacy Digest #589, Volume #27 Tue, 11 Jul 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
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: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
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: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Warning! -- SONY SUBSTANDARD SERVICE! (mlw)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 05:36:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000 16:55:32
>Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (You meant to say ... "a licence which can be coopted by it.")
>
>No, of course not. The original software under its original license
>is just as available as before. Distributing the combined work under
>the GPL in no way affects how the original can be distributed.
I disagree. I think the answer is "yes, a license which can be coopted
by it, with the intent to spread the GPL license across all software so
that all software will be free."
--
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 05:40:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000
[...]
>You can't encourage anything with restrictions. You can only
>restrict it.
That's an absurd statement, but probably just a minor error. You can't
encourage any one thing by restricting that thing. You can encourage
something (development of software) by restricting something (co-opting
a public code base into a less public code base).
[...]
>But, it isn't free, and in many cases the set of wheels
>that have different-than-GPL restrictions is even larger
>and in some cases have patents that prohibit re-invention.
And that might remain the case for a long long time. Or maybe not.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 11 Jul 2000 09:42:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:30:36 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It seems reasonable to assume that no software would exist if it *had*
>to be GPL'd. Nevertheless, indications are strong that someday, almost
>all software will be voluntarily GPL'd.
I find this a truly terrifying prospect.
Why? Because it implies the destruction of the software industry as we know
it. That would throw millions of people out of work and damage the
technology economy beyond any hope of recovery. After all, if you can't sell
software, why pay people to create it?
Oh, I have no doubt that open source projects to replace some stuff would
spring up. The experience of the Linux world is relevant here: stuff that
interests hackers (term used properly, i.e. *NOT* as a synonym for
"cracker") would be developed and of reasonably high quality and usability
for hackers, but other software would be of varying and sometimes barely
usable quality at the user interface level, and developed with little regard
for making it usable for real people who aren't computer geeks.
What would those millions of people (not just programmers, by any means) who
work for software companies do for a living? They can't all go to work
supporting open source software, for two reasons: 1) there's not as much
demand for that, and 2) if there were, somehow, what would that say about
the quality of the software? The folks at Troll Tech have a point worth
careful consideration when they argue that companies who make open source
software and sell support for it have little incentive to make the software
robust and easy to use...case in point: Sendmail, Inc.
You describe the GPV zealot's utopia. To me, it's a nightmare world with
poverty and misery for millions of people, and I want no part of it.
------------------------------
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 05:42:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000 16:52:10
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>> You can't encourage anything with restrictions. You can only
>> restrict it.
>
>So you believe that commercial software companies would happily
>go on producing software if there was no copyright law restricting
>how their products could be redistributed?
Copyright law does not restrict how software companies distribute
software (object code). It is private trade-secret style licenses which
restrict commercial software.
Other than that, your points were quite valid.
--
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 05:54:48 -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:
>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 6 Jul 2000
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>> You cannot restrict others anymore than you have been restricted.
>>>>> In GPL terms, this actually means 'you cannot restrict others
>>>>> *differently* than you have been restricted'; [...]
>>>> All that proves is that the GPL is the least restrictive license
>>>> possible, since any difference in restrictions would constitute more of
>>>> a restriction.
>>> This is not the case. The least restrictive licence is the BSDL. The
>>> MPL and the LGPL are significantly more restrictive, but the GPL is one
>>> of the most restrictive of the open source movement.
>> By "possible" I meant "possible without failing to prevent distribution
>> of open source software as closed source software".
>
>That may have been what you *meant*, but it is not what you *said*.
So? What's your point? That you didn't understand me, or that I left a
way for you to purposefully misunderstand me?
>If that's the intended meaning, you should look to both the LGPL and the
>MPL as being far less restrictive than the GPL. Neither of these permit
>the portion of software that is open source to be closed source in
>distribution; software that *uses* them can be.
That's useless to the consumer, even detrimental, though it might
provide more liberty for the developer. Open source licenses which
promote closed source software distribution can hardly be considered
less restrictive than the alternative, as far as I am concerned, though
it may pare down the ways a developer of closed source software can
profiteer off of open source software.
[...]
>> You can quantify and qualify "restrictions" how you like; AFAIK (and
>> I'm not necessarily studied on this, but I've read about it, and I'm
>> pretty bright) these other licenses have more restrictions on what
>> whoever recieves the code can do with it.
>
>They do not. They often have *different* restrictions, but not necessarily
>more restrictions.
You didn't understand what I said. You can quantify the number of
restrictions however you like (clauses, acts restricted, number of
products which would be restricted; whatever). The sum total of
restriction on the person who receives the code is less than the
alternative, even if the sum total of restrictions on the person who
supplied the code were greater.
>> Like "you can't produce derivative works" and such. I can't see how
>> anyone could call Mozilla less restrictive than GPL.
>
>It *is* less restrictive and differently restrictive. You are permitted to
>produce derivative works -- and those derivatives do not need to be wholly
>open source. That's less of a restriction. You do have to provide credit
>for the original source, which is a different restriction.
Its not less restrictive on the person who relieves the software; only
on the person who produces the software.
>I'm not sure where you get the concept of 'you can't produce derivative
>works' -- because none of the licences that I've mentioned suggest
>anything of the like.
I am not limiting my memory to licenses you've mentioned, but I'm not
clear in my memory of individual clauses, either. Not being a
programmer, they don't mean much to me.
>> Could someone maybe give me a moderate's run-down of this issue? I'm
>> getting sick of the trolling on this topic, and would seriously love
>> to get down to some actual discussion.
>
>Maybe it would help if you started listening to what I'm saying, then
>-- because I *am* a moderate, except when it comes to deceptive
>terminology.
Insisting that terminology is deceptive because you've found reason to
want to disagree with it which aren't necessarily shared by the
preponderance of other interested parties is not being moderate.
> I also happen to have been one of a few dozen people that
>actively participated in criticism on the NPL/MPL when it was being
>created.
Yet even after clearly asking, you couldn't bother to explain in more
complete terms than a couple of acronyms what the NPL or MPL
specifically call for which is instrumentally different from GPL so as
to be included in your example. This is the "trolling" I was talking
about. Quit begging the questions and just answer them, OK?
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:56:14 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
> [...please snip a bit more, Aaron...]
> >> >Apple ][ and ][ was just as OPEN. Peripherals proliferated.
> >> >And an Apple with 64k of mem was significantly cheaper than
> >> >a PC with 32k of mem.
> >>
> >> Peripherals aren't the issue. Clones are the issue. Publishing your
> >> spec is one kind of open. Not owning the spec is a different kind of
> >> open entirely.
> >
> >In that respect, the Apple ][ and ][+ were COMPLETELY OPEN
> >
> >The Manuals contained
> >
> >A) An appendix with the COMPLETE *COMMENTED* Source Code (assembly)
> >for the ROM's and
> >B) Another Appendix with a huge foldout-page with the COMPLETE
> >schematic diagram of the electronics.
> >
> >You can't get much more open than that.
>
> Yes, you can. Decisively so, because the Apple II wasn't an open spec
> like the PC at all. Lots of companies published their specification.
> That isn't the same as NOT OWNING IT. Essentially the PC architecture
> was public domain, not IBM's property, though that is a metaphor more
> than a fact. Did any other companies take these specifications and
> start making Apple II's, *that's* the question. Not would they have
> known how to if they wanted.
Yeah, a company called "Franklin" was making Apple clones.
I'm not sure if it was under license or not.
>
> Perhaps it hinges on the fact that IBM didn't own the OS, and even
> though MS didn't publish it either, Apple owning the OS and keeping it
> secret for their own hardware platform is not the same as MS owning the
> OS for IBM's hardware platform.
true.
>
> It's not like this all became reality by invocation as soon as the first
> PC ran off the line; it is not a construct of business law or rules that
> the PC is more open than the Apple II, necessarily. It is a construct
> of the market; anybody can not only make a PC, but attempt to change the
> "standard" for the PC. But only Apple could make an Apple II, and Apple
> was free to change what being an Apple II meant at any time they wanted
> on a whim. Once PC clones were established in the market, at least,
> that wasn't the case for the more open platform.
>
> [...]
> >I think someone made a Z80 card for the Commodore 64, too.
>
> That wasn't what I was talking about. Putting multiple chipsets into
> one chassis doesn't make software independent of hardware. C++
> compilers that are available for every platform is what does that.
>
> [...]
> >> "Ignored" would be too strong a term. There were quite a number of MCA
> >> cards.
> >
> >Yeah, but nobody purchased any :-)
>
> Not if they could help it, and had a clue. ;-)
>
> [...]
> >> Yes, but partially because you wouldn't need to implement a rule, since
> >> nobody would want to or be capable of installing their own software.
> >
> >Of course you can. People do it on Unix all the time. They just
> >have to install it INSIDE their own account.
>
> People only do it all the time on Unix because most Unix operators are
> highly technical and capable in comparison to the average PC user. The
> average PC user only installs software until they find out how many
> problems it causes, then they stop. On Unix, without the
> point-and-click hand-holding, they simply wouldn't want to install any
> to begin with. Or at least that was my contention. It wasn't a very
> serious one.
>
> [...]
> >> I'm not terribly pleased to have such a potent and noble statement
> >> followed by a crass and insulting disavowal of your personal
> >> contribution to the problem. All humans act this way, even those who
> >
> >:-)
>
> Yes, even me. But not as much as everyone else. :-)
>
> [...]
> >> I was very distraught, last year, to find a Sun workstation (Ultra 10, I
> >> believe) delivered with a *completely failed* hard drive. "This shit
> >> isn't supposed to happen," I thought, "its as bad as a PC!"
> >
> >ACK! Did they rush over immediately?
> >
>
> NACK! But they were a bit nicer on the phone when they told us they'd
> ship out a new one. We are a VAR, BTW, in case I didn't mention. This
> one was for lab use; and end user never would have seen it. But in the
> old days, we'd never have had the problem.
>
> [...]
> >Yeah. As time progresses, I find more and more tolerance for
> >absolutely lousy results. If the automakers were like this,
> >we'd have 1,000 traffic deaths per day PER MAJOR CITY.
> >
> >I mean, can you imagine if brake systems only worked 99% of the time?
> >
> >
> >> vendors are pie-in-the-sky arrogant elitist dweebs, generally clueless
> >> about the real power of personal computers, and they need to realize
> >
> >Quite true. I really can't see much to justify the cost of
> >a Sun (some_letters_go_here)10000 when the same capacity can
> >be met by 10 $1000 Linux boxes and with beowulf extensions.
>
> Well, it can't. Because you don't buy a Sun *X[1-N]* for capacity. And
> ten boxes with a relatively new and intentionally transparent technical
> mechanism is not necessarily going to work very well to begin with, let
> alone provide the putative benefits.
>
> >the Nuclear people at Oak Ridge, Tennessee recently reported
> >that they assembled a multi-terra-FLOP computing system out
> >of old discarded 386, 486, and sub-100 MHz pentium machines
> >using beowulf.
>
> Cool. But it only goes further in making people's use of computers too
> abstract, virtualized, and emulated to be reliable. But cool.
>
> >They needed a super computer...something on the order of
> >a couple of crays clustered together...but they only had a
> >a few tens of thousands of dollars left in the budget.
> >
> >So, they went out scavanging for old computers and computer
> >parts, put in decent hard drives and ethernet cards, and
> >behold...world's fastest computer system for the current
> >"world's biggest computing problem"... made out of "obsolete"
> >computer parts.
>
> Now that is a beautiful thing. Thanks.
>
check this out:
http://www.processtree.com/?sponsor=42595
> [...]
> >> But have any of these vendors
> >> moved to promote competition by any conscious developments to enhance
> >> the customers ability to easily integrate or migrate between them? No,
> >> not to speak of.
> >
> >Everyone is finally working on an open-binary standard for
> >Intel-type chips. I think it's because each company's sales
> >reps are coming back with "They love our proposal...except for
> >one thing...the software isn't available on our Unix"
>
> I love Linux. The software could suck, for all I care, it could be as
> crappy as DOS, 4.1 even, and I'd still love it. An open source OS for
> and open architecture computer platform. What more could we need?
> (Other than to rest the x86 "standard" from Intel, though that is the
> most competitive market of the three?)
>
> [...]
> >> I meant in a non-glass house environment. I had assumed from your
> >
> >Actually, most of my time has been in some sort of "user support"
> >aspect or another.
>
> The glass house environment I am referring to is directly related to
> user support.
>
> >At Ford, and at a stock brokerage, there was the "glass room"
> >aspect (life devoted to taking care of the central servers, with
> >little or no contact with users...) but most of my other positions
> >have been very "desktop" oriented.
>
> You're the help desk for host systems, right? OK, so its the progeny of
> a glass-house environment. You do have a glass house mentality, I've
> noted from observation.
I think it accomplishes the business objectives more effectively
and more cost-effectively.
>
> >> earlier comment that you had some experience with the technology. But I
> >> will reiterate that, based on what you said, you aren't "familiar with
> >> the nightmare", having not experienced it in the implementation you
> >> dealt with. Remember, I only hear about the stuff that doesn't work so
> >> good; if Xterms were never a nightmare, I wouldn't know anything about
> >> how Xterms work. ;-)
> >
> >They were. Their big problem is they tie up the network too much,
> >and so nobody gets anything done.
>
> Tying up the network so nobody gets anything done? I guess you'll say
> its "overhead, not getting things done", right? Welcome to the glass
> house. Where the power is on the hosts, and the users are clueless...
>
Outside of the engineers at Ford and GM, the typical user is clueless.
Not stupid, mind you...just not very well educated in the technical
issues that require years of intense study to really understand
how everything relates.
> [...]
> >[...]YEAH, you can do it in a spreadsheet, but,
> >after about the 30th file, it starts to become a drag.
> >So..I say, "Ok...what do you want done with it?.. show me
> >the data, and show me what you want it to look like...
> >..OK...here, let's FTP that stuff over to my machine...
> >...spend a few minutes writing an awk script....
> >...OK... you mean like this?... yeah...OK.....here,
> >wait 2 minutes. Write a for-loop to run each file through
> >awk...Here you go man... all done.
> >....Uh....WOW...how'd you do that?"
>
> This exact kind of scenario was potentially extended to the end-user
> themselves by the PC revolution. You will agree, I hope, that while it
> requires intelligence and learning to do this kind of thing, it ain't
> rocket science. Every end-user should be able to do these kinds of
> things for themselves, dependant only on the frequency of the recurrence
> of a need to do so. And end users should have a need to do so, or they
> aren't really operating a computer, they're just data entry people.
But now they have GUI's, and GUI's encourage intellectual laziness
on the part of most users.
Sad, but true.
>
> >You want to know how to get through to a user who keeps doing stuff
> >the hard way (and usually fucking everything up for himself along
> >the way)?
> >
> >You say the magic words: "Here's a trick..."
> >
> >At that point, you have their complete attention, because, in
> >their eyes, it is now a chance to learn a magic spell from the
> >wizard. :-)
>
> Bless you. To teach is to learn, and to learn is to teach.
>
> --
> 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.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning! -- SONY SUBSTANDARD SERVICE!
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 18:12:27 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 21:18:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This idiot has been spamming several newsgroups. I suggest reporting them to
> their ISP if anyone can trace it.
>
> FWIW, I've purchased a 19" monitor from SOny and am 100% satisfied --
> with both the quality of the product and the service.
I actually bought a $259 Sony VCR two years ago, after 6 months the
plastic gears stripped in the tape ejection mechanism. I bought a
Samsung $109 VCR one and a half years ago and it is still working. BTW,
it seems to have better audio/visual quality than the Sony.
While I have no experience with Sony depot repair, I think Sony products
are over priced and poor quality. Their repair policies being shoddy
does not surprise me.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
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 06:02:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roberto Alsina from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) wrote:
>
>> If anything is religious, it's people arguing that their
>> interpretation of "free" is the only one.
>
>And what else has the FSF been doing the last 25 years or so?
>Oh, they concede the existence of something called "free as in free
>beer", but they claim sole ownership of the definition of "free
>as in free speech" to signify only what they say when applied to
>software.
I don't know of any attempt to claim this exclusively, and certainly not
as intellectual property or trademark. I suspect that no other
organization has ever applied it to their own licensing policies.
>Just go to a RMS speech and try to tell him that IYHO SCSL software
>is "free as in free speech" software. See what happens.
I would expect that he would explain why its not, as he seems like an
intelligent man.
[...]
>By this definition, any software for which you can buy a license
>is free software, since it grants you freedoms beyond current
>copyright law, as soon as you agree to some restrictions (as
>everyone understands) like "you must pay me $399 first, and not
>give it to anyone else".
Commercial licenses do not grant any freedoms beyond current copyright
law, and grievously restrict the buyer's right to freely use their
purchase in other ways, notably in order to maintain the source code as
trade secret, quite in contrast to copyright policies. No commercial
software comes close to merely restricting to the level of copyright,
and none grants any freedoms whatsoever beyond what copyright law
already allows.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 06:03:13 -0400
void wrote:
>
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 14:04:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >[...] I imagine the realization that it is only a matter of time now before
> >that groups (alt.destroy.microsoft) putative "goal" is accomplished, as
> >Windows inability to properly function, its user's general inability to
> >accurately troubleshoot, and Microsoft's inability to defend themselves
> >from the criminal charges for which they've been convicted seem to be
> >on-track for allowing the world to embrace the superior and free alternative
> >that now stands before us.
>
> Don't equate Windows with Microsoft. In particular, don't assume that
> their botching of Windows technology means they'll be unable to capture
> new markets. They've always understood software market dynamics better
> than they've understood technology.
Yes, but the audience is now beginning to realize that, and is
getting to be quite wary of their methods of manipulating the
market. That, and M$'s routine market-manipulation techniques
are being specifically prohibited in any way, shape or form by
the courts.
>
> --
> Ben
>
> 220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
--
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"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: 11 Jul 2000 10:07:37 GMT
On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 04:25:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) Your manner is completely obnoxious. Try to work on it. Either that
or your keyboard is broken.
(2) Slice and dice the words any way you want, but if the best available
desktops for Linux have bugs, it is a usability problem for Linux.
Sure, KDE bugs are not kernel bugs, but they are *Linux* usability
issues. Why ? Because it's important that Linux has at least the best
few desktops ( ie the ones that the distributors are going to use )
are usable.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
