Linux-Advocacy Digest #632, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SPECweb99 results ("Colin R. Day")
Re: SPECweb99 results (Mike Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Mike Marion)
Re: Help with printer ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Help with printer (Aravind Sadagopan)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:58:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting void from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000 05:05:24 GMT
[...]
>Single-user or not, nobody wants their computer locked up because one
>application has a serious bug. Operating systems should be resilient
>against programmer error, because bugs happen and they happen a lot.
No, desktop client operating systems need to be more resilient to user
errors. Programmers are assumed to have done their job correctly. That
this doesn't always happen is not the issue, as lock-ups do occasionally
occur (at least X dies, which is good enough for most end users) even on
PMT systems.
>Can you find a way to make cooperative multitasking as robust as
>preemptive multitasking?
No. Can you find a way to make PMT as user-responsive as CMT? Then all
you're doing is implementing CMT. The result is the value, not the
process. I don't care *how* you do the scheduling. As long as whatever
program I'm working in has, as far as I am concerned 100% of the
available time to keep up with me, even if it spends a lot of that time
waiting. Of course, background processes shouldn't be ignored, but they
only rarely have true priority.
Again, I'm over-simplifying the case by assuming that everything is user
applications, and I/O devices (network, drive) don't screw things up
because they were locked out. I'm not sure how those details are
handled, so perhaps I am merely arguing for a PMT system that pretends
to be CMT, now that we are no longer limited to the stand alone
"austere" environment which the Mac was developed in. But having you
guys argue against the logic so hard and only concentrate on the
engineer's view is a bit disconcerting.
>Anyway, the type of multitasking and the behavior of the GUI are not as
>tightly coupled as you think.
Yes, that's what I've finally realized. Yet I suspect they are not as
unrelated as theory indicates. I would still always like to have the
GUI have preference in multitasking.
>>Isn't it nice the way the design for what was intended to be an open
>>application architecture platform encourages, no, demands, cooperation
>>amongst all application programmers?
>
>No, it's lousy. Even when written with the best intent in the world,
>programs screw up and fail to yield the processor. This scheme also
>results in less efficient use of processor time, which in the end means
>that things take longer.
So get rid of them and get other programs. I don't care if "things"
take longer; I'm the only one with important things to do. The computer
is just a desktop, not a Cray doing nuclear weapons testing.
>These things degrade the user experience, drastically in the first case,
>subtly in the second.
PMT is not subtle in its annoyance value for the user, any more than
modal dialogs are.
>I disagree, and so do Apple, Microsoft, Be, and anyone else who might be
>producing new desktop operating systems.
Yes, and I'm worried it means that's not a single person who can be an
engineer and still maintain an end-users perspective. I guess I'm
probably wrong, but you guys have done little to raise my comfort value.
>But on unix, the background task will only slow very slightly, while
>interactive apps are still nice and responsive. You should read up on
>the algorithm used to do this, it's quite clever.
I have no use for clever algorithms! You speak in theoretical cases.
When I've got five program instances running, I want the one I'm *using*
to be the one taking up almost all of the computers time. When I go to
thirty eight instances (I've done it; just me browsing the web, and
ignoring the many other processes), I don't want the front one to be any
slower, not just "only very slightly" slower.
>>In the real world, huge amounts of processing power are simply wasted on
>>all desktop systems. Or used, if you're of a more functional mind set.
>>I'd rather that power get 'wasted' in my direction than because it is
>>theoretically better to do it different.
>
>No. There is no benefit that comes with this waste. There are
>scheduling algorithms that can take advantage of unused cycles without
>slowing down interactive processes noticeably.
My point is that cycles spent waiting for the user on a desktop client
system are not *wasted*. They are *spent*. Waiting for me. Engineers
have a warped, not inaccurate, but different, view of "noticeable" than
end users do.
>>It wouldn't surprise me if it was a Linux which allowed adjustment to
>>just how pre-emptive the multi-tasking is.
>
>That's because you overestimate the role of multitasking in determining
>how the GUI functions.
No, I overestimate the role of approach in how engineering gets done.
I'm very ruthless in this regard: the user counts; the engineer's
theory's don't.
>>Because it doesn't make any sense, when the primary
>>purpose of a computer is to provide a user interface, that that user
>>interface, and whatever interaction the user is executing, should always
>>have first dibs. Modal dialogs aren't any worse than BSOD or cascading
>>segmentation faults.
>
>I can't tell what you're saying here.
I'm saying that if CMT is so horrid, and PMT is so superior, why is the
Mac still outselling Linux PCs? :-)
Just tweaking. We can drop the subject now. Thanks for hearing me out;
I have been convinced. Provisionally.
--
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: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SPECweb99 results
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:57:13 -0400
"Steven W. Mentzer" wrote:
>
> Amazing....
>
> redhat wraps in a kernel-mode web server and no-one sees the potential for
> security issues and panics.
>
But I suspect that one can still choose to run the web server outside of
the kernel.
>
> microsoft wraps the GDI in the kernel and everyone flames them...
>
Can one choose to have this not in the kernel?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SPECweb99 results
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 01:59:39 GMT
"Steven W. Mentzer" wrote:
> redhat wraps in a kernel-mode web server and no-one sees the potential for
> security issues and panics.
>
> microsoft wraps the GDI in the kernel and everyone flames them...
Yes there is a potential for security and stability issues... however
with TUX, you can look at the code yourself (and the Kernel if you wish)
to try to find them if you want. WIth MS... no go. BIG difference!
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
I have a problem with my 95 machine.
It says "Insert disk 3" but only two will fit. What do I do now?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:14:57 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:28:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The one's telling lies are your cabal.
>
> Let's examine this:
>
>> You lie when you claim that to make restrictions on freedom such
>> that all entities share the same level of freedom is somehow not
>> free.
>
> Sorry, but you do not increase freedom by rstricting it. Period.
You maximize the freedom enjoyed by everyone by restricting
the freedom enjoyed by each individual. Period.
> Further,
> not all entities share the same level of freedom under the GPV: add-on
> developers are frozen out.
They are not. Under the GPL (man, you must be a martinet,
persisting with that silly GPV stunt of yours), you can
distribute your own work as you see fit. The moment you
distribute it as a combined work with a GPLed program,
you have to respect the rights of the original developer,
and not relicense her work without asking permission.
Claiming the right to do with your work as you please,
and not granting the same right to others, is not very
nice. It's comparable attitudes that are the reason why
the civil liberties you enjoy are limited.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 02:04:21 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Have you seen the desktops on Linux? Two unfinished ones, and six
> minimalist!
Both Gnome and KDE very useful.. and will likely never be "finished" as
the developers will probably like to add things they want, users can
modify (big gain), etc. There are plenty of other wm combinations that
work well and are a far cry from being minimal.
I've been using gnome under Solaris for over 6 months now and find it
extremely nice. It's far better then windows IME. The fact that I can
customize it all I want makes it better IMO.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
[X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
order your software package for $459.95!
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:04:59 -0400
Mig wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:20:35 +0200, Mig wrote:
> > >Hello
> > >
> > >Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
> > >The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
> > >
> > >No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
> > >Have an idea?
> >
> > Is the printer listed as supported in the printing HOWTO ? What type is it ?
>
> Its an HP Deskjet 950C.. and its not supported directly.. but i suppose it
> could run with other HP drivers.
> I get an error from "printtool " (version in RH 6.2) with the following
> error. "Error reason: Couldnt wite file /dev/lp0": no such device". Its the
> same error if i use lp1 or lp2.
> To me this sounds like the port stays undetected
The kernel has gone to autopolling the parallel ports. Check both your
kernel configuration and your print configuration.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:06:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
>the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
>running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network bound).
You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND. I don't *need* it right
now. What I *need* is for absolutely nothing on that system to slow
down the *foreground* netscape from rendering. And I don't care what
bounds it, because I'm not here for the theoretical value. I need to
get a job done, and I want the computer to wait for me, not vice versa,
regardless of the circumstances or what else the computer might be
programmed to believe is important.
How trivial would it be to configure the scheduler on Linux to give
whatever window is on top of my display a priority orders of magnitude
greater than everything else (unless I change it, of course)? If this
can be done, I'm going to want to do it.
And I'm going to expect that all the software is going to continue to
function without screwing up because they assumed I'd give them a fair
shot at the CPU. From there perspective, it should look like they're
just one of four million other processes that want time, right? How
prevalent is it for typical programs to get "choked to death" by lack of
CPU time? And how does a Mac manage to run a TCP/IP stack if CMT is so
bad when it comes to background processes?
Maybe I'm not as done with this topic as I thought...
--
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: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:08:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>No, there is not. CMT has no place and absolutely zero advantages on any
>general purpose machine where the operating system developer does not have
>absolute and total control over every instruction that is ever executed on
>it.
What the hell does the operating system developer have to do with it?
You're not saying "cooperation between applications is impossible" are
you?
--
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: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:15:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
[...]
>The problem isn't pre-emptive multi-tasking, it's the IDIOTIC
>decision among the M$ coding staff that decreed that every time
>a new window pops up, the GUI focus should immediately switch
>to the pop-up.
In case you don't know it by now, I'm not a software engineer or
programmer. But I am pretty knowledgable about computers 'n stuff. I
realize that you are technically correct. But I also can't help but
notice that the behavior which is problematic seems to mirror the
technical approach of the system. It appears that I am arguing for a
CMT approach on a PMT technology. Thanks for keeping me straight, but
the issue still remains.
It doesn't matter how wonderful the scheduler is; its a program, not a
person. The user should decide what gets priority on the desktop, and
this should generally match the *users* priority on the *desktop*. Get
it? If schedulers in PMT systems take efforts to do that, then fine.
But all this talk of "waste" and horrible inefficiency just sounds like
second-guessing the operator. It is something I don't tolerate from
Microsoft, and I wouldn't tolerate it from any other desktop system,
either.
--
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]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:15:00 -0500
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:06:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
> [...]
>>I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
>>the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
>>running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network bound).
>
>You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
>slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND.
So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
>I don't *need* it right
>now.
So what? Even if I don't "need" it right now, I still want it to keep
working on whatever I told it to do!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 12 Jul 2000 21:17:01 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 09 Jul 2000 23:45:01
>>In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>>
>>>> This is ... an area which isn't entirely clear in the law, although the
>>>> FSF has made threatening noises if the GPLed library is the only
>>>> library to which you can link the software.
>>
>>>> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>>>> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
>>
>>This is one interpretation that apparently the FSF's lawyer holds; I'd
>>personally really like to see a court put this to rest and say that if all
>>you're using of the other code is its API, it's not a derivative work, and
>>the process of combining an executable with a dynamic library on the
>>system is not the formation of a derivative work but rather the execution
>>of two independent sets of instructions, one of which calls the other.
>
>You mischaracterize the issue, inadvertently. Having this be tested in
>a court would not "put the matter to rest". In fact, it would be just
>the obvious. The reason FSF's lawyers hold such an interpretation is
>that they plan to sue for copyright infringement any software which can
>only work when linked to a GPL library as a derivative work of GPL
>software. FSF's lawyers have a valid legal justification for doing so,
>based on the reasoning that this would indicate that the software was,
>in fact, "based on", and is, both legally and "realistically", a
>derivative work. If your code will only work with a GPL library, then
>it is all but proven that you used the GPL library to develop your work,
>not just the API, which is assumed in this matter to apply to multiple
>alternative libraries as well, but the code itself.
I think you may be confused about the issue. The RIPEM case
and the situation in question does not involve distributing
a copy of the binary at all. No one would question that the
copyright law applies in that case. The situation involves
distributing source code containing none of the covered
work which the user compiles and links to the library of
his choice (but at the moment you are only aware of one
library that works). There is *no* GPL copyrighted code being
distributed by the author of this work. The running
copy may (or may not) become a derived work when linked
against the library in the end user's machine. However,
the GPL does not restrict usage.
>You would have the opportunity to defend yourself in court, of course.
>If you could give reasonable doubt to this claim, you're scot-free.
>Perhaps only two libraries are available for that function, and the
>alternative has a demonstrable bug which affects your software. If you
>can "prove" that you merely linked to the GPL library during
>development, and thus only used its API, not its source code, in order
>to develop your software, then legally, and realistically, your code is
>not a derivative work.
It is not necessary to ever link, or even have a copy of the
library in order to write the program. Most programmers are
capable of reading a manual and using the functions as
described.
>But you lost the benefit of that doubt when you closed your source; the
>law is not above assuming that when something is being hidden, it is
>because someone has a reason to hide it.
The case in question involved distributing only source, and not
including the GPL'd library.
>Lawyers are by nature sometimes required to appear to be, if not
>actually be, complete and utter slime-balls. But it is not in their
>nature to be stupid, nor is it a requirement that judges be both stupid
>and ignorant.
Note that every court case involves lawyers that take opposite
positions. And half of them end up losing.
>The point is that copyright cases are not based on whether something
>makes logical sense, but on whether evidence of infringement is
>presented, and whether it is defended. The easiest way to defend
>against such cases, in case you're worried, is to open your source.
No, this source was open.
>Whether under GPL or not, it will enable the FSF lawyers to read the
>source code to determine if you have created a derivative work, in their
>opinion, instead of relying on the indirect library issue.
If the source is necessary for a court decision, it would
have to be provided so this is irrelevent.
>>After listening to a lot of the arguments about this, I don't see any real
>>sense to the idea that, say, optionally using GNU readline to handle
>>terminal input makes GhostScript as a whole a derivative work of GNU
>>readline.
>
>If it is optional, and you could use some other library besides GNU's
>readline, then this is true. But if the only library GhostScript can
>use, if the API is available from non-GPL libraries, when the optional
>use of a readline function is used, then this is not true, and it is
>reasonable to believe that the developers of GhostScript have derived
>their software from GNU's readline, and not just 'a' readline.
The question is not whether the combined program is a derived
work, but whether copying only the source to the part other than
the GPL'd library (without GPLing it) can possibly be an infringment
on the library copyright. The end user is allowed to obtain
his own copy of any GPL'd work. If he is running Linux,
chances are good that he already has it.
>Hopefully I've helped clarify the issue. Let me know if you'd like to
>discuss it further. If I've got things straight (I'm still new to the
>issue, but it seems to make sense to me), linking to a library which is
>GNU while developing is not enough to make your software a derivative
>work. Unless you happen to get unlucky enough to end up with software
>which is "bug compatible" with only that GNU library.
Copyright law covers copying something. If you don't distribute
the GPL'd library as part of the other program, how can it
infringe on the copyright?
>That doesn't *mean* that your software *is* a derivative work; that
>isn't up to the FSF to determine. It *does* mean that it *could be*,
>and the FSF lawyers are going to take you to court. The judge or jury
>will then determine, by being presented all the facts in evidence,
>whether your intellectual property is an infringement or not, based on
>examination of the code (testimony of those who have, anyway) and the
>circumstances.
Even if we accept the idea that the in-memory copy is a derivative
work, the end user is allowed to create that. It is the distribution
of the derivative work that is prohibited. Since the author
didn't distribute any part of the covered material (and in fact
may not even have a copy) I don't see how he can be breaking
any law. Also, what if another library is written at some
point? Does the timing affect anything here? What if the
alternate library existed all along and the users of the
GPL'd one just didn't know about it?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aravind Sadagopan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:13:09 +0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It has nothing to do with Winprinter ..Sometimes Redhat fails to load
the the parport_pc,lp modules
so you have to play around with it then restart your lpd and suddenly it
will work..I have noticed this
problem with only Redhat . I dis lsmod, rmmod insmod with parport_pc
modules and somehow managed to get it to work
aravind
Mig wrote:
> Hello
>
> Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
> The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
>
> No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
> Have an idea?
>
> Cheers
> BTW i use RH 6.5 Workstation
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:32:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Leslie Mikesell from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 12 Jul 2000
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Unix vendors are rapidly learning that they have no need to keep their
>>source code secret.
>
>Learning? Is there any evidence that releasing source has
>helped them? I thought it was just a last desperate attempt
>at survival that hasn't paid off and may not.
If you mean classical Unix vendors, yes. Someday they may catch on to
the fact that they are hardware vendors, and start building robust and
reliable non-PC proprietary hardware platforms (which the PC can then
steal all the good ideas from, but without the robust and reliable part)
systems for enterprise computing. Kind of like they do now, and have
always done. (Well, they stole ideas from the cheap PC platform, as
well, but you get the idea.)
Sooner or later they will realize that they are not now, and have never
been, Unix vendors, but merely vendors of proprietary mid-range
computers systems which happen to run various flavors of Unix. Whether
this will become too blindingly obvious to ignore once all their
software is open source, or whether they will pursue this as an
opportunity, and therefore open their source, is an academic
distinction.
>> Again, you argue historical reality, which was
>>valid at the time. To suggest that vendors both don't use reference
>>implementations, and would find a GPL reference implementation to make
>>the protocol unacceptable, doesn't make sense. If vendors don't use
>>reference implementations, but re-implement the protocol, then it
>>wouldn't make any difference if the reference implementation is GPL.
>
>There is no reason to think all vendors are the same. A large
>one may not have a problem with the cost of re-writing some
>code. A small one may not be able to do it.
No vendor of hardware has any reason to need to profiteer on software.
It only limits their market. That's what killed the mainframes.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
