Linux-Advocacy Digest #673, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Passenger Pigeon)
Re: linux, of course!! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Peter Seebach)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Passenger Pigeon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:44:40 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:11:25 GMT, Passenger Pigeon
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Poor Mac. When did the Mac get 256k or 512k?
> >
> >Now, I know this is a difficult logical leap, but somehow I just assumed
> >that the Mac 512k had, oh, somewhere in the ballpark of 512k of memory.
>
> No shit. But when?
http://search.metacrawler.com/crawler?general=mac+models&method=0&redirec
t=web&rpp=20&hpe=10®ion=0&timeout=0&sort=0&format=beta99&theme=classic
&refer=mc-search
--
William Burke, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
HTH. HAND.
Visit my web page! Current essay: Happiness. http://come.to/passenger-pigeon/
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux, of course!!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:42:29 -0500
This is a killer.
1. Linux is not an organization.
2. I have yet to see any case where "Linux killed someone" or "Linux
raped someone" or "Linux encouraged war".
3. WTF crawled up your ass and lived?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:51:27 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:53:34 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:38:10 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
>> >> >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
>> >> >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
>> >>
>> >> The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
>> >> bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
>> >
>> >But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
>>
>> That just shows that Apple likes to skimp on hardware while
>> overcharging their customers...
>
>Hardly. The Mac came about as a direct result of the Lisa; a more
Bullshit.
8bit systems were coming with 64K and may have even been
coming with 128K by that time.
128K was simply stingy, especially for what Apple charged
for their machines.
>expensive system that nobody bought. Incidentally, the Lisa supported
>PMT. This was one of the corners Apple had to cut when trying to build a
>lower cost system.
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Under System 6 I wouldn't want to run a Mac in less than 2M.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:53:00 GMT
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:02:54 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:53:34 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 21:38:10 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 20:41:34 -0700, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> >The more fundamental reason is that the Mac simply didn't have the
>>> >> >memory to do it. So there is at least one example of a benefit:
>>> >> >cooperative multitasking is more efficient in terms of memory used.
>>> >>
>>> >> The Amiga did it - beginning with the 256k Amiga - and color and a
>>> >> bigger screen, too. And it did it quite well, too, for 1985 or so.
>>> >
>>> >But the Mac had half that amount of memory.
>>>
>>> That just shows that Apple likes to skimp on hardware while
>>> overcharging their customers...
>>
>>Hardly. The Mac came about as a direct result of the Lisa; a more
>>expensive system that nobody bought. Incidentally, the Lisa supported
>>PMT. This was one of the corners Apple had to cut when trying to build a
>>lower cost system.
>
>...which in no way contradicts Jedi's poing, that Apple likes to skimp
>on hardware while overcharging customers. After all, if the C= Amiga
>could do it then, why not a much larger Apple Computers, Inc.?
Nevermind the Ameoba. What about the 128K commies? And weren't
there 128K Ataris as well?
HELL, you could get expansion packages for the Atari 8-bits that
could boost you all the way past 512K.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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, 15 Jul 2000 02:00:19 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 23:30:01 +1000, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I would have thought, wrt to hardware resources, it had more to do with
the
> >amount of CPU grunt available - wouldn't the overhead of a PMT scheduler
> >have a quite noticable impact on a GUI OS with such a slow CPU ?
> >
>
> Not at all, as the first Amigas proved. They wiped the floor with the
> slow Macs - it wasn't until years later that Apple had a Mac system
> that could even begin to compete with the current Amiga systems.
But the first Amigas had a lot of coprocessors to take care of things like
graphics acceleration, sound etc.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 11:55:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Nathaniel Jay Lee in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>OK, in this previous posting you are starting to make sense. The issue
>that I had that caused me to get pissed off was the fact that you seem
>to continually attack things that I did not say. I know Windows
>crashing is random. All I am saying is there are some things you can do
>that will help prevent some of the crashes some of the time.
I am such an ass, I can't help but what to do exactly what you say is
pissing you off, every time you do what pisses me off. Which is not
saying that Windows crashing is not random, as we now understand that we
both understand the term in context. But, rather, what I find
unbearable is you're not recognizing it in everything else you say. If
you know what it means to say Windows crashes *randomly*
(non-deterministically, due to complexity and secret source,
essentially), why wouldn't you just say "to avoid" instead of "that will
help prevent"? I assume, being a level-headed person, that it simply
didn't occur to you, and I am not faulting you for that, or trying to
insult or ridicule you for not thinking of it. But it would help
immensely if you didn't get defensive and insist I'm just being
pedantic, when it seems obvious from this lengthy conversation that it
is something of an issue. When you talk, you teach, whether you want to
or not. I know its a little thing, possibly too subtle to consider
important and definitely too minor to notice once you're enamored, but
this constant re-enforcement of bad ideas seems to be a pet peeve of
mine. And I seem able to point them out accurately, even if I haven't
figured out quite how to do it delicately enough to avoid knee-jerk
reactions.
But the fact remains that every time you say it like that, that you are
"helping to prevent" something that is going to randomly, not
deterministically occur (and therefore can't be "prevented"), you teach
new people who don't have an advanced and long experience to tolerate
crappy software, and blame themselves for not being expert enough,
instead of blaming the people who sold it to them at 1000% profit for
selling them crappy software.
And the same goes for people who say "the purpose of a business is to
make money", as if a business can have a purpose on its own, and humans
aren't required to mitigate their greed with social awareness.
And if it makes me a pedantic asshole, even a troll, to pop up again and
again to remind people, then fuck it, I'm an asshole and a troll and
proud of it. Because constant repetition seems to work for the bad
ideas; I figure I might as well make it work for the good ones.
>Here's what I've seen, and why it pissed me off so much:
>
>According to you my sins (based on things I actually said) were:
>1. I said 'not common' instead of 'unlikely'
>In my mind:
>not common=uncommon=rare=not likely=unlikely
I know they're all very similar in your mind. They are in everybody
else's too. But when using them in technical subjects, especially where
statistics are at issue, can be very important for applying valid
troubleshooting logic.
>They are all the same. Perhaps this is a case of semantics that I am
>not aware of, or perhaps you are trying to add distinction where there
>is none. I don't know which is correct. All I know is that the english
>language allows you to say things in different ways *without* changing
>the meaning. In my mind this is one of those cases.
In my mind it is not, and while it isn't an incredibly important thing,
since your "charge" that this is just me being annoying I will interpret
as a request to try just once more to explain it, because I think it is
valuable to know.
If you are trying to figure out what is wrong with something that
something is wrong with (troubleshoot), one of the techniques which can
be incredibly valuable in saving time and effort is simply starting with
the most likely cause, and working to the least likely cause. While
this is essentially a last-ditch approach, and should be proceeded by
more explicit examination of the details and environment of the case, it
is something that obviously would come up extremely often when trying to
troubleshoot a system which does not behave deterministically and you
where you don't have detailed reference information.
But if you should pick whichever cause is most likely, does that mean
that you can start with whichever is most common? Well, now you're
going from troubleshooting to statistics. If you look at the population
at large, you'd need tons of data, which we don't have. (I'll point out
in passing that part of the reason may be that Microsoft seems to insist
that nobody can compile such data and legally running Windows.) So what
you want is to pick a representative sample of the population, and
extrapolate what is most common in that sample so that you can determine
which is most likely in the one case you're trying to fix.
Now, the difference between common and likely and its practical
ramifications should be more obvious. If you have a sample (or someone
else does, and has reported the results, like a troubleshooting guide or
the array of what they teach you to check in training, more importantly)
it is very important that it be *representative*, which is not
necessarily the case. Without anyone ever having compiled statistics on
the entirety of the population (through true random sampling), then this
isn't as easy a question to answer as we might hope. But assuming that
it is a representative sample which guides our choice of 'common', and
thus likely, scenarios, we still have the problem of properly
extrapolating from that information so that we can come up with a
hypothesis to test by trying to fix the problem. And to do that, you
have to have some at least semi-formalized characteristics which you can
match up as also being likely in the sample versus the instance. The
array of such characteristics include the very issues you are referring
to in your list of 'preventions', though you have named only their
general meta-groupings. Things like "what are the configuration
settings for this app, that app, or the OS" which would fall in to
"administration". Or obvious corollaries in operator or network
interactivity. It is not a coincidence that you've essentially blocked
out every facet of things we can know about the conditions, in listing
admin, user, and network.
So really what this comes down to is whether you are relying only on
generalizations for troubleshooting, and then back-tracking to the
supposed cause, when the true cause was Windows crashes randomly, and
all you've done is figure out what dead chicken you can wave (because
sometimes that 'fixes the problem', too, for precisely the same
reasons), or whether you are accurately identifying the particular thing
which can deterministically and in all cases correct a problem of a
known nature and extent.
Too much time is spent troubleshooting Windows to begin with, and that's
after everybody has been well trained that "reboot/reinstall" is
generally the optimum strategy. The simple fact that this is true, and
readily admitted in de facto admissions from those who do have the
resources for going further, the developer, simply underscores the
importance of the issue I seem to be badgering you about. I think a lot
of such time, and inadvertent defense of Windows by those even who abhor
it, is dedicated to this task simply because when people learn to
troubleshoot, nobody explains the importance of knowing the difference
between what is common and what is likely, and that it is their job,
quite often, to apply that knowledge in an extremely specific and
practical way.
Windows 'glitches' (can't really be characterized any better, for the
reasons I've explained) are the cause of Windows crashes, and they
cannot be prevented. Again I will re-iterate that while your comments
on "proper" approaches are, indeed, very very valuable, and I do not
mean to deny that in any way. I just don't like anyone thinking they
are anything but making allowances for the software's crappy design and
the fact that waving dead chickens sometimes works, because it makes it
all the harder to avoid having to troubleshoot Windows unless somebody's
got the balls to say "this software is crap". The fact is, there are
environments where stupid administration, finger-poking users, and
complete ignorance of networking do not result in Windows crashes, so if
you start with them, rather than crappy software, as you "most likely
because it is most common" cause, then you're throwing good money after
bad, and the baby out with the bath water.
That baby, by the way, is end-user empowered computing, as fueled by
Unix, which originated it, the PC, which brought it to hardware, and the
Internet, which opened it up to the whole world of networking. And the
dirty bath water called Windows has got to go, but that's a baby I want
to watch grow up and learn to run, personally.
>2. I said can never be sure of instead of non-deterministic, as in: You
>can never be sure of Windows stability. To you this is fundamentally
>different than saying Windows stability cannot be determined (unless I
>am completely hoarking up the meaning of non-deterministic). Again, see
>number one for what I see as the problem.
Oh, you can be sure of Window's stability, all right. You can be sure
its lacking. The fact is, Windows seems to be just as "stable" and
unchanging in its behavior as any other group of software. The problem
is it is perfectly stable when its crashing, as well as when it doesn't.
I'm sure everybody recognizes that Windows *can't* really be crashing
randomly, nor non-deterministically. But then again, the fact that the
clouds don't randomly determine they will produce rain, but occur in
apparent patterns, does not make the whether much easier to predict with
a great deal of accuracy. Windows is the ultimate "phases of the moon"
gripe, only it is more like an "is it raining?" failure. I think your
point is that it therefore makes sense to always carry an umbrella,
while I prefer the "look outside the window, and listen to the weather
report, or better yet, learn to understand barometric pressure" school.
>Now, the part that truly bothered me about your arguments is that you
>blamed me for four character flaws that even if I possesed them were not
>demonstrated by my statements or my arguments backing up that statement.
A conceptual glitch is not a character flaw. It is an artifact of
reasoning.
>1. I am narrow minded. According to you, not believing that there is
>only one way to say this particular thing is grounds for calling me
>narrow minded.
No, you seem to be level-headed for the most part. But you don't seem
to feel comfortable with someone trying to correct you, even when
they're trying to be very specific about the problem.
>2. I am a poor trouble shooter. Where did I give you grounds for saying
>this? I did not realize I demonstrated my trouble shooting skills (or
>lack thereof) at any point of the conversation. Poor trouble shooting
>is saying: That isn't possible because this little MS handbook says it
>isn't, therefore you are lieing. I've never done that. And I've worked
>with plenty of people that have.
You are generally a good troubleshooter, I figure. That's why you
seemed surprised that different results do in fact occur when applying
your troubleshooting skills to Windows. Not having had experience with
an operating system which was incredibly badly designed, and entirely
closed to anyone but a developer, at best, for the most part, your valid
troubleshooting experience misled you to assume that what is most common
is most likely, and since you saw very common cluelessness on
administrators, users, and network people's part, this is where you
indicated the "meta-gripe" was, when in truth it lies in Windows. That
you never considered that any product which could be so lousy with
faults and incredibly bad design could possibly be successful enough to
be so widely deployed, and assumed that the answer must be something
else is unsurprising, and again only underscores the importance of my
case, even if it doesn't support it directly.
>3. I blame others for my problems. You accused me of this and then
>supposedly quoted me as saying, "It's not my fault, so it must be
>someone elses." I never said that, and you insist that I did.
I meant to indicate that you were looking for answers to troubleshooting
situations which essentially "beg the question", and simply applied it
to the wrong result. I hope you see what I mean by now, and will agree
that it might have even been worth all this trouble.
>4. Your last attack on my character was that I was making up factually
>incorrect scenarios to back up my statement. According to you any
>company that installs Windows would be just as well off to hire a bunch
>of morons, not train them at all, and buy cheap hardware. It would be
>cheaper in the beginning and it wouldn't change the "randomness" of
>Windows crashes. I say that's bull, but this has basically been your
>argument.
No, it has been Microsoft's argument, and they've gotten away with it.
Partially because it is based on reality; properly *implemented* PC
systems *don't* need professional administration, explicitly trained
users, and expensive hardware. That is, in fact, the point of the PC.
I am not suggesting it can replace host-based systems, where these
things are not necessarily true, and I'm not trying to abdicate on
insisting on competency. But I will once again re-iterate that there
are, in fact, companies that hire a bunch of morons, not train them at
all, buy cheap hardware, and continue to gain much benefit from Windows.
It is not, in fact, "bull" to point this out, though it is certainly not
my entire argument. It is, however, one of the deductive justifications
for continuing to press my inductive argument, which is that Windows
crashes are Window's fault, and nobody else's.
>Now, you seemed to seize onto the idea that if you falsely accused me of
>something it would piss me off to the point where I would stop making
>sense and would therefore make myself look like a fool.
No, my theory is that if I continue to hammer you even if it pisses you
off (while always trying to mollify you for having to do so), you will
eventually stumble upon some other facet of the conceptual glitch you've
got that will reveal its existence to you in a way you will accept.
Then you'll start making even more sense then you already have been,
because you'll be willing to accept that it is, in fact, possible that
now, or at some time in the past, you have un-knowingly made a fool of
yourself. I don't think you have, personally, if that's any help. And
I'm sorry if I've been exploiting either possibility for educational
purposes of anyone else who may be reading this. I'm hoping it is a lot
more then I will ever know, but I realize that is, literally, a vain
hope.
>You are
>probably right about that. My greatest nightmare (and has been since I
>was a child) is to be accused of a crime I didn't commit (especially
>murder) and being put to death for it. Anyone that makes false
>accusations towards me is going to get my dander up. If you had
>actually tried to correct my statement rather than saying 1-4 above, I
>probably would have listened. As it was I blew my top.
I'm sorry I was the cause of that. I thought, and am still pretty sure,
that I was merely correcting your statement. Any possible indication of
the charges you've listed I gave were a response to your knee-jerk
reaction to being corrected, not any direct intent to get your dander
up.
>I still say that different words can mean the same thing. You still say
>they can't. Which of us is right? I don't know.
I do, because I am not saying that different words can mean the same
thing, in general. I'm saying that when you use specific words in a
technical discussion, they *don't* mean the same thing (or they wouldn't
be different words), even if they *could* mean the same thing. This is
the most common conceptual glitch I've observed, and its rampant in the
conglomeration of nomenclature which today we pretend is one big field
called "information technology".
>The only point I told
>you that you were wrong about was in saying my statement was false while
>yours is correct. I say we are both correct, each saying it slightly
>differently. You say this means I have a glitch in my brain and (see
>1-4). Very well.
No, not at all, if you're going to leave it at that. I'd much prefer
you recognize that if my point is not correct, it is not correct,
because I have no desire to maintain conceptual glitches myself even
less than I do to tolerate them in others.
>Everyone, I have a glitch in my brain. I blame others for my problems.
>I'm narrow minded. I'm a poor troubleshooter (I'm guessing this is
>because I actually try to solve problems instead of dismissing them as
>non-existant because they aren't in my little book of magic). And I lie
>to back myself up (because I actually think you can say things in more
>than one way).
If you still feel this was called for, then you are a fool because you
are over-reacting. Everyone, everyone has glitches in their brain.
They're common. The real question though, I hope you now realize, is
that when you're having trouble figuring out something and can't seem to
understand what someone else is saying, rather than assuming that
glitches are common and taking for granted they have one, you ask
yourself "yes, but is it *likely*?" Because otherwise, you still have a
conceptual glitch to begin with, and its going to be very hard to
troubleshoot theirs while yours misleads your troubleshooting instincts.
>I do know you cannot change the randomness of Windows crashing. But you
>can lessen the overall numbers of crashes by following some guidelines.
Only in instances in which these guidelines are effective, and sometimes
they're not. So why do you assume that it was waving the dead chicken
that caused something, that you just admitted you can't change, that
made the difference?
>If you could have stuck to that part of the conversation (and told me
>why that is completely incorrect), then I might have been a little more
>"open minded" about the entire thing. Somehow from that single
>statement, you took it upon yourself to determine that I posses all of
>the above character flaws.
You keep saying things like that, and I keep pointing out that this is
precisely what I have been doing the entire time. I have not diverged
from that one central comment, for the most part; it is incorrect (not
completely incorrect; why the straw man?) to say that you can lessen the
*frequency* of Windows crashes in an arbitrary population by following
some guidelines. You can lessen the *likelihood* of a Windows crash *in
one particular instance*, but that's because "non-deterministic" and
"random" are approximations in this context, not because Windows isn't a
piece of crap which conforms to any reasonable definition of reliable
software.
>I would not have stuck with this so long but I thought you actually had
>a point somewhere that you were just working your way around and not
>coming to.[...]
That's enough for now. You're only going on to insist that I have
accused you of grievous and horrendous acts of stupidity, and I have
not. That point is still sitting there, in plain sight, for you to
observe and examine, if you desire. Assuming that we've been able to
knock out that little conceptual glitch I've been telling you about, now
that you've read this message.
--
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 10:55:39 -0500
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:44:40 GMT, Passenger Pigeon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:11:25 GMT, Passenger Pigeon
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >> Poor Mac. When did the Mac get 256k or 512k?
>> >
>> >Now, I know this is a difficult logical leap, but somehow I just assumed
>> >that the Mac 512k had, oh, somewhere in the ballpark of 512k of memory.
>>
>> No shit. But when?
>
>http://search.metacrawler.com/crawler?general=mac+models&method=0&redirec
>t=web&rpp=20&hpe=10®ion=0&timeout=0&sort=0&format=beta99&theme=classic
>&refer=mc-search
When? Can you give me a year? That link leads to many other links,
having nothing to do with the subject at hand. I'm sure you know -
just tell us.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: 14 Jul 2000 16:00:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know what software costs to right, too, and I'm not even a developer.
>It costs about 1/100, at best, of what most companies sell it for. I
>think Windows9x has been calculated to be selling at 800% or 2000%
>profit margins, or something.
It depends an awful lot on the software. Windows has been sold to tens of
millions of people, many of whom didn't want it or need it. Niche market
software often sells for a fixed 25% cut over what it costs to write.
1/100th is a ludicrous number; if it were anywhere near there, software
companies would never go under.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
