Linux-Advocacy Digest #751, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Barry Margolin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[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, 18 Jul 2000 09:05:50 -0500
> >I don't know anyone who is not a cynic about government. Yes, of course we all
>know that
>
> You mean to tell me that you don't know any Democrats? <snortle>
Ah, they're all cynics, too. They know they're using government like a sledge hammer,
but
they don't care because they think it's worth it.
> >politicians act out of selfish interests much of the time. And, within certain
>areas,
> >that should be a crime, too. (E.g. taking bribes.) But I also know some people
>who have
> >gone into politics and happen to know that there are those who do enter the field
>because
> >of the desire to serve and promote that which they believe to be right.
>
> Government should be able to run effectively on graft. We have
> embraced the dark side of man when it comes to core economic
> philosophy. We should probably try to harness that negative
> energy when it comes to government.
I'm not THAT cynical.
--
Mark Kelley
Agriculture Information Systems
Purdue University
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:12:00 GMT
In article <QFRc5.399429$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If Unix is an open technology, then how come we must call GNU/Linux a
>Unix-like OS rather than an actual version of Unix?
The technology is open, but the name "Unix" is trademarked.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 09:12:28 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Mark Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >As bad as Microsoft is, though, and as lousy a job as they did on this, there is
>one group
> >who would do worse: the government.[...]
>
> But all your argument is for naught, Mark. The government isn't making
> business decisions. Its making legal decisions. Microsoft (both of
> them) still get to make all business decisions regarding their products.
I hope that is how it stays. If it does, I'll be happy with it. I'm skeptical,
though. But
I'm willing to wait and see what happens. I have seen the government get involved in
business
decisions, and it's very ugly. And stupid.
> The government is going to ensure that Microsoft does not maintain an
> illegal monopoly by a) restricting the negotiations Microsoft can pursue
> with their customers, and b) ensuring application developers have equal
> access to Windows.
I'm in favor of that, in theory. The means concern me, however.
> The last requires a breakup of the company so that Office developers and
> Windows developers cannot use trade secrets to lock out application
> developers. The government is not designing software. The allusion to
> this which confuses some people would be that the government insists
> that the market designs software, and the developers merely do as the
> market dictates.
If this is what comes to pass, fine. That is how I'd like it to be. But my
experience has
been that government tends to involve itself at a far deeper level, and that is
something I do
not wish to see. I hope your description of this is what will occur.
--
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 18 Jul 2000 14:24:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Hauck <bobh{at}haucks{dot}org> wrote:
> I don't think NT was GA 8 years ago.
Eight years ago (July '92) NT was known as "Not There" in the trade
with very good reason...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[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, 18 Jul 2000 09:36:15 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this sort of
> >thing than a government. Government may correctly provide some oversight to
> >business, but when the government itself gets involved in business you can
> >bet the bank on failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
>
> The list of failures from government is far smaller then the list of blunders
> and failures from business -- and even then, the list of government failures
> is often one of things the market place didn't do or couldn't do in the first
> place.
Even a cursory reading of history should convince you otherwise.
--
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:42:48 +0100
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 17 Jul 2000 19:38:08 -0500,
>
> Really?? According to this Microsoft promoted study:
> http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html Win2K is only
> 13 times more reliable that win98, with an average of 2893 hours of
> use per crash. And this is in a strictly controlled environment, i.e.,
> common desktop apps, with regular reboots. A more intersting test
> would be continous use in a multiuser software development
> environment, where the behavior of undebugged apps can't be predicted.
The document said multiple customer sites, so your theory on "strictly
controlled" is out the window. Regular reboots aren't mentioned either, so
that's also crap. They also used multiple versions of Win2K - Beta builds
through to released builds so that's also likely to skew the results. But
don't let the facts get in the way of a good story...
>
>
> >W2K is as stable as any *nix you
> >could name.
>
> Well 2893 hours =~ 4 months. I couldn't imagine IRIX, Solaris, and
> even Linux crashing every four months. Even a properly configured
> Linux machine will crash far less than once per year, in my
> experience. And that inlcudes extensive application software
> development use as well. Face it Dristan, W2K is still not as stable
> as UNIX.
>
That's Win2K Professional by the way...
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[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, 18 Jul 2000 09:50:45 -0500
Ah, we have a socialist! Want some examples? Okay ...
1. Slavery in the U.S. was a business decision. I probably don't need to recount the
sufferings of a large group of people and the final termination of the practice in the
bloodiest war in the nation's history.
2. Japan's war in Asia before and during World War II was the result of business
decisions by government.
Ah, you think I've gone too far! Well, let me remind you that governments have
whatever power they claim and can compel obedience. Business cannot, except in rare
circumstances. Some of the examples you site are or were mandatory monopolies and have
not had to compete in the business world. But that is the socialist way, isn't it?
(Another example of a place that really tried it: The Soviet Union. Wasn't that whole
failed experiment just the wedding of government with business?)
Government has a purpose and there is a good reason to have it. I am not
anti-government. Regulating business is one of the appropriate activities that
governments do. However, I do not trust the altruism and capabilities of those who
work in government any more than those in the business world. The power motive is not
holier than the profit motive.
Arthur Frain wrote:
> Mark Kelley wrote:
>
> > History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this sort of thing
> > than a government. Government may correctly provide some oversight to business,
> > but when the government itself gets involved in business you can bet the bank on
> > failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
>
> Since history has shown nothing of the sort, this is
> just ignorant prejudice. I will offer as examples:
>
> 1. The Wisconsin State Life Insurance Fund, which
> pays me to take their life insurance (the dividends
> were greater than the premiums, not to mention the
> increase in cash value and interest) - it's paid up
> now, so I don't even pay premiums anymore. No
> government subsidies. Has been around since the
> 1920's. IIRC, there is no private insurer rated
> as highly.
>
> 2. Any public utility district in the state of
> Washington. Mine charges less than $0.03
> per KWH. Negative subsidy - they pay for
> most of the parks and waterway improvements
> around here too. Hopefully they'll be running
> fiber to my house soon, too. Been around since
> the '50's. Not to mention the entire Bonneville
> Power Administration, which markets power
> throughout the Northwest.
>
> 3. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - both highly
> successful businesses started by the government
> but now quasi-public. Warren Buffet is a major
> Freddie Mac shareholder - hardly a man to
> invest in unsuccessful enterprises. Despite
> the fact that the mortgage market is free
> to any entrants, they have virtually no
> competition.
>
> 4. Milorganite - Milwaukee's sewerage on
> your lawn by the bagful. Probably started
> as a business when Milwaukee was still
> run by Socialists.
>
> Your turn - name some failed government attempts
> at businesses. Hint: even the USPO is profitable,
> and I believe Amtrak is also, although I wouldn't
> hold either up as a shining example.
>
> Actually, "betting the bank" on failure is a
> rather ironic turn of phrase also, since it
> is the government (through the FDIC, FSLIC
> RFA and others) which has bailed out failing
> banks and S&L's since the depression. Remember
> the 80's?
>
> Arthur
--
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:01:04 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:23:26 GMT, Victor Schneider, Ph. D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:49:15 -0600,
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:36:24 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Steve Mading wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Tell me, did you "Win" with the winmodem?
>>> >A) Yes
>>> >B) No
>>> >
>>> >If the answer is B, then it is a LOSEmodem.
>>>
>>> I think the term UNmodem works much better...
>>
>>In keeping with the lastest advertising fads, I suggest:
>>
>>Modem!Not
>
>If that were all that is wrong with Linux, there would be no problem.
>But, Linux doesn't support the latest sound cards fully, or supports
>them without the midi synthesizer interface, which is a "win", i. e.,
...which is completely transparent to the bulk of end users.
>software, interface that obsoletes completely the old OPL synthesizer.
>And, the new X-Windows desktops are ridiculous space hogs that do
>nothing but add twenty seconds to the bootup time for X-Windows and
Those desktops are no worse than what they are replacing and
to claim that they take 90 seconds to load is to simply
demonstrate just ho meaningless your biases make any comment
you make.
[deletia]
Besides, none of the frills of a modern desktop actually require
gnome or kde to be running as the active desktop or even any
gnome or kde apps to be running either.
--
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] ()
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:04:00 GMT
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 01:14:10 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 20:33:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Yep, just like Ford considers anyone else making cars besides
>>>themselves to be a threat. Welcome to the business world.
>>
>> Fortunately, Ford is considerably less able to exert their
>> will on the rest of the industry and there are no natural
>> barriers making it difficult for someone to buy Ford one
>> year, Nissan the next and Oldsmobile after that...
>
>Everyone always says Microsoft prevents people from buying
>non-Microsoft products. What is stopping anyone from buying non-MS
>hardware/software? Nothing at all. There never has been.
...corleone style distribution agreements, natural barriers
to entry that center around interoperability and the
consipicuous lack of any of those alternatives where a consumer
might actually be expected to stumble upon them.
>
>If you don't want to buy a computer with Windows... don't. There are
>hundreds of vendors willing to sell you a machine with no OS. I don't
>even think I've bought a system with an OS.
OTOH. If I don't like Fords I can go to the world's largest Ford
dealer and have my choice among 9 other competing brands of car,
truck and RV.
Another moron already lost this argument with me.
--
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:13:02 +1000
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> From http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~bergmann/history.html
>
> "BASIC (standing for Beginner's All Purpose Symbolic Instruction
> Code)...the designers wished it to be a stepping-stone for students to
> learn on of the more powerful languages..."
>
> 'nuff said.
And this stops it being useful.........how ?
------------------------------
From: [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, 18 Jul 2000 15:06:25 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 23:53:44 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well we could start a large circular argument in which we both eventually
>waste 8 hours of our lives comparing and quoting "documents" I really don't
>wish to do this.
>I will tell you one thing. Government made a huge mistake when they decided
>to try and help Netscape compete and get on the evening news all at the same
...you mean "help Netscape counteract the large war chest and
lateral market dominance that allows Microsoft to force their
product onto every desktop and essentially do it all for free".
>time. I'll just go on record by saying the appeal will result in the whole
>judgment being thrown out.
>
>But if it were upheld....
>
>Splitting up Microsoft will not punish the principal shareholders at all, in
>fact it will most likely increase their wealth beyond belief! It will not
>benefit the consumer in the slightest because the price of the consumer
>operating system will surely go up. The software market will still be
>incredibly competitive, so it will not help anyone at all. You'll just have
>Uncle Sam with his bureaucratic grasp on something he has no business being
>involved in.
>
>All you Anti-MS people who are embracing uncle Sam as your savior are
>insane!
What else is going to check Microsoft, "the invisible hand"?
>
>
>"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 11:35:38 -0400, JS/PL
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >Let's have your take on it.
>> > >
>> > > The oversight of an elected body rather than the whim of a
>> > > Robber Baron that is in a position to do anything it likes
>> > > being rather out of the control of the "invisible hand" at
>> > > this point.
>> > >
>> > > Government is occasionally a necessary evil, usually to
>> > > counteract some other evil. Hopefully, all such evils
>> > > are checked in the end. This includes corporations.
>> >
>> > The statement above has absolutely no facts to debate. Instead of
>reciting
>> > the anti-MS "evil Microsoft" line try laying down some proven incidents
>of
>> > wrongdoing on Microsoft's part.
>>
>> Are you seriously implying you don't think Microsoft has done anything
>> wrong? I've got a 150 page document that disagrees with you....
>>
>> --
>> The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
>> -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
>>
>> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
>
>
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
