Linux-Advocacy Digest #779, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix (No Name)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps (No Name)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Craig Kelley)
Re: I had a reality check today :( ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: I had a reality check today :( (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Craig Kelley)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: 19 Jul 2000 15:44:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:25:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>Linux = Yet Another Unix. I think that every one of these Linux cult
>members should be sentenced to one year of having to perform tech support
>for end-users of that OS. Then they could explain to the average user why
>Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a S3-based
>graphics. Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
>SVGA kernel. Expain what a modeline is...Need a parallel port ZIP drive?
>Say the magic words and type the completely cryptic commands and no
>problem!! Right?? Red Hat vs. Mandrake vs. SuSE vs. whatever....standing
>in MicroCenter and seeing the puzzled looks as normal people try to decide
>WHICH Linux is better. Just bought Code Warrior? Doesn't work with your
>X-Server because you have an S3 Trio 3D video card and have to use frame
>buffering? Oh well....explain THAT one. Just purchased Accelerated X and
>it also does not function, even though there is not a HINT on the box of
>unsupported hardware? Oh well....
Sorry to hear you are working with WindowsNT....
>
>Linux will NEVER succeed in the common marketplace until it can LOSE THE
>HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY LIST!! PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT HCLs!!! THEY JUST
>WANT IT TO WORK!! MICROSOFT WORKS!! GET IT YET????
Like WindowsNT
>
>Unix has been around for 30 years and has not "revolutionized" the computer
>world.
Yes, I remember when the Internet was started, thanks Windows for all the
Internet infraestructure. Bill didi not write about the Internet in his
book "The road ahead" out of syhness, he didi not want to brag
unecesarily about the greatest revolution since the PC.
> It never will because the Unix world is run by cultists rather than
>business people.
Yeah! McNeally and all those weirdos are poor garage hobby programmers.
>
>What a JOKE!!
You are right, what a joke ..... you are.
>
>--
>Identity is of no importance
>or relevance. Get over it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apps
Date: 19 Jul 2000 15:35:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:46:25 +0400, Ferdinand V. Mendoza said:
>If you can get good, free sex from a friend, why pay a whore?
>
>Ferdinand
>
>Tony Davis wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Does anyone here think that Linux will become more popular if Windows and
>> every other Microsoft app goes to a rent basis?
>>
>> Tony
>
>
>
Because she is in all the glossy magazines and does not have any morals?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jul 2000 10:00:19 -0600
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > If you knew anthing about RDBMs you would know the os makes no
> > difference on
> > the outcome, THe RDBM doesn`t really use the os.
>
> HAHAHA - excuse me? I think that you are completely misinformed. You are
> wrong. Totally. That's like saying: RDBM doesn't use files or memory.
Actually... He's right. More than 90% of the performance in these
tests comes from the database engine, not the OS. I'm sure that an OS
that doesn't scale well would *hinder* the engine -- but DB2 even
out-performed MSSQL even on Windows 2000 machines.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:01:56 -0400
David Brown wrote:
>
> Tim Palmer wrote in message ...
> < snip >
>
> Sorry, was there a point hidden within that huge mass of quotations?
its on top of Timmy's head.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:06:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, MH
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
on Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:58:49 -0400
<8l25q8$a44$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Like most (L)users, I have just the sort of time to try and parse a core
>file to determine why the applet dejour barfed. A better question might have
>been why do these "bullet proof" linux distributions have the propensity to
>leave these core droppings littered about in the first place?
Two words: post-mortem debugging, otherwise known as "why
did this core dump get dumped, and how do we fix it".
Many debuggers -- Gnu DB among them -- support
'gdb executable core' in order to at least get a traceback.
No need to soil one's hands with the actual data. :-)
But no, it's soooooooooo much easier on a Windows machine
to transcribe the relevant values from the Blue Screen Of Death.
(At least on an NT box one has some values to copy down.
Win95 doesn't even have that. I don't know what Win98,
Win98SE, or Win2K has; Win2K is probably similar to NT, though.)
Or, if you're like yours truly, you do something extremely
brilliant like leave off a "CALLBACK" declarator to a function
that ultimately gets passed off to a dialog callback, and the
whole screen literally scrolls up jump .. jump .. jump ..
(this on Win95). Fortunately, I had half a clue at the time as
to what was going on (I do software development for a living)...
but could you imagine some clueless newbie trying to
figure out what's going on, and explaining it to Tech Support? :-)
At least with the core droppings, one has a chance. If you don't
like 'em, delete 'em; you can use
find . -name core -type f -size +0
to find them, on occasion. (It is notable that the Windows NT Find
applet can in fact do this -- although Windows applications do not
dump core files.)
Or, you can blindly delete them:
find . -name core -type f -size +0 -print0 | xargs -0 rm
(The '-print0' and '-0' are so that directories with spaces in their
name are processed properly; otherwise, xargs has troubles with file
or directory names like "/c/Program Files/Outlook Express" -- thank
you, Microsoft, for making your system more comprehensible and enjoyable
for us techie types for using that pathname instead of something
less reasonable such as "/c/Programs/Express" (and yes, that's
dripping with sarcasm!). It's a weird flaw, and it was probably
so that xargs can support multi-token input from way back. [*]
The '-type f' restricts it to files -- the Linux kernel source has
a 'core' subdirectory, for example.)
One can even run this script daily or weekly from a root account on
all user accounts -- although I for one wouldn't recommend it (it's
probably better to use quotas and have a FAQ somewhere on tight disk
space).
>
>
>> > > Are you saying that causing system-crashes is "good programming"
>!?!?!?
>
>> > Having to write script to remove almost daily Core files is?
>
>> You're right...it's better to do it the MS-way...
>> NEVER generate a core file, so NOBODY can ever figure out why
>> the program crashed.
>
>
>
[*] See, however, http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm for a view
on some of the "weird flaws" of the Find applet, among other
things.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:07:24 GMT
On 19 Jul 2000, Phillip Lord wrote:
> Well you have me there. What precisely does the National
> Institute of Health have to do with this?
Just in case this isn't a troll, NIH == Not Invented Here.
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:04:44 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Spud wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > No..he also replaces big, ORACLE databases servers on Unix with
> > > > > > Microsoft
> > > > > > Exchange running on LoseNT....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > NOT!
> > > > >
> > > > > "NOT" is absolutely correct. Only a complete idiot would even
> > > > > *contemplate* replacing a database server with a messaging server.
> > > > > Whoops, someone did contemplate it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that would be resident troll, Drestin Black, who claims to
> > > > do exactly that.
> > >
> > > WHAT?!!! What the HELL are you talking about. I suggested no such thing.
> > > Withdraw your lie.
> >
> > Obviously, you aren't communicating coherently.
> > Care to revise your earlier statements.
>
> ok Aaron - show me where I suggest replacing an oracle database with an
> exchange server. Please, be very specific.
You were telling us about how you regularly replace Sun servers
with LoseNT 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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:08:37 GMT
On 19 Jul 2000, Phillip Lord wrote:
> I think that its unlikely that a standard scripting language
> will ever happen. Look at how many people still use sh.
Err, that's because sh *is* the standard UNIX scripting language!
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:17:06 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >I know you said you had not followed the example I gave, but this is
> >silly.
> >
> >I'll rephrase it for you here.
>
> Apparently, you posted this before you got my message relating to this
> example's presentation. Allow me.
Please.
> >There is a library called [Lib #1], in the public domain. It's buggy.
> >There is a program called [Program], proprietary, that links to [Lib #1].
> >[Program] doesn't quite work, because of the bugs in [Lib #1].
>
> [It's worth pointing out this isn't a 'rephrasing', but a general
> overhaul, of the example.]
I didn't copy the example, but unless my memory betrays me, I think it
was esentially the same both times.
> >Someone reimplements [Lib #1] in a binary compatible way, and without bugs,
> >calling it [Lib #2].
> >[Lib #2] is under the GPL.
> >The author of [Lib #2] (or anyone, really), links [Program] to [Lib #2]. That's
> >trivial to do.
> >
> >You have stated a dozen times to have read that example, and that [Program]
> >is a derived work of [Lib #2], thus forcing [Program] to comply with the [Lib #2]
> >license requirements for derived works.
>
> Yes.
>
> >Now, there you have a program that links to a libC, which is not
> >preexistent.
>
> The linking of the program to Library 2 makes the program a derivative
> work of Library 2, yes.
The program is not changed by linking. How can the unchanged program be
a
derived work sometimes, and a not derived work sometimes? How can
someone
that is not the author of the program change its status as a derived
work?
> I don't really care how you justify it in your
> mind, but if the program needs the library to perform its function, then
> it is a derivative work.
Proof by assertion. Not good.
> The linking may appear trivial to you,
It is trivial and can be performed by anyone having a copy of the
program and the library, without knowledge from the copyright
owners of any of them.
> but I
> would surmise that eventually if it would come up in law, the court
> would agree that it is anything but.
cp libC.so libA.so
So non-trivial.
> The ease with which you perform an
> act, particularly in software, is not necessarily related to how legal
> that act is.
Are you saying that renaming a file is illegal? What license am I
breaking by renaming libC to libA? Not libA's because libA is PD.
Not libC's because libC is GPL.
> The intellectual property of the program doesn't exist
> unless it has a library to perform functionality for it, so it is
> dependant, and it is derivative.
Now that's some statement. Are you saying that if I write 2 million
lines of code that depends on Motif it is not IP unless I link it
to motif? Since that code is not IP, what prevents others from
copying it?
> >Happy? Now, since the program can not be a derived work of something
> >that is not preexistent, the program can not be a derived work of libC.
>
> Once again, you mistake the coding process for the creation of
> intellectual property.
The coding process IS the creation of IP, specifically the code.
> In this case, the "work" is essentially the
> creation of a link from a non-functional program to a library.
Are you saying that programs that are not linked to all its libraries
are not IP? Good. Remove gdi.exe from windows, and windows is not
IP. I find that, unless you can show some reason for it, ludicrous.
> If
> that's the only library that would work, there is little doubt that the
> program's IP is a derivative of the library's IP.
No, because the library would have to exist before (preexist). At least
according to the law.
> >Do you get it?
>
> Yes, but I am afraid that you probably still don't. I'd like to know if
> anyone else does, though, just to see if any of this tracks.
I would like you to show some backing for your statements beyond
"it's true!".
> >Can you explain in what way is progB derived from the preexistent work
> >libC, when libC is not preexistent?
>
> By the action of the linking.
Linking can be done by anyone. How can someone else turn my work into
a derivative work of something without modifying my work?
> It is a mass of letters and numbers previous to that;
It is still such a mass after that.
> not intellectual work as software because it is not
> functional as software.
There is no requirement in the law that software must be
functional to be intellectual property. If you say there is,
please quote.
Simple example: example code in a help system. It's IP, it's code,
it's non-functional.
> It is only an idea you have for a program,
> until you get it to work.
Define "get it to work".
> If the linking is what does that, then
> whatever you link to is the source of some of your IP, and that makes
> your work derivative.
>
> >> Apparently the fact is that what, precisely, is meant by the concept
> >> "intellectual property". The "work of authorship fixed in tangible
> >> form" might work as a definition, but as a meaning it is lacking in
> >> context and purpose.
> >
> >And what is that supposed to mean?
>
> Meaning. Real concepts, which can be reasonably applied in varying
> circumstances. Meaning.
The context is the law in which it says "work of authorship fixed in
tangible
form". The purpose is described in the same law. The meaning is obvious
to
at least those who write tha law, and, honestly, it doesn't seem very
hard
for me, either.
> >> I have my own ideas, of course, but the only support they have is my
> >> best effort to ensure that they accurately, consistently, and
> >> practically reflect nature and observations.
> >
> >Oh, yeah, derived works of unexistant works are so natural and
> >observable.
>
> I didn't say it was easy; only accurate, consistent, and practical.
Not "only". You claim your view reflects nature and observations.
Please explain what observations would those be.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.alpha
Subject: Re: Linux = Yet Another Unix
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:11:04 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:25:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux = Yet Another Unix. I think that every one of these Linux cult
>members should be sentenced to one year of having to perform tech support
>for end-users of that OS. Then they could explain to the average user why
>Linux STILL does not seamlessly support common hardware, such a S3-based
>graphics. Explain to the end-user how to compile/install a framebuffer
Get a grip.
Many of us still have to do that sort of thing for WinDOS despite
all the hype about it being easy and running everything...
>SVGA kernel. Expain what a modeline is...Need a parallel port ZIP drive?
"Need" isn't exactly the category that any paraport device falls into.
[deletia]
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 12:11:28 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l0q4d$gub$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >> >oh, grow up and get a life child. You couldn't possibly know how
> > >> >much code I've done and copyrighted in my life. Yep, as in
> > >> >registered at the copyright office, not just a little (C) in some
> > >> >remarks somewhere.
> > >>
> > >> Then how come searching for "Drestin" at locis.loc.gov (that's a telnet
> > >> address) does not reveal a single entry with your name on it?
> >
> > >because smarty, the copyright isn't under the name "Drestin" - sheesh...
> >
> > Sheesh --- so what name *is* it under? I mean, if you are willing to
> > register your stuff with the copyright registrar, you surely aren't
> > ashamed to own up to it, are you?
>
> perhaps I wish to remain anonymous - given the types that occupy COLA and
> troll COMNA would this suprise you?
>
Pfft! COLA and COMNA present no threat to anybody.
On the other hand, soc.singles is infested with people who make
anonymous phone calls to employers, send anonymous packages of
Usenet postings taken out of context, etc.
us.military.army has people threatening to call my army unit.
When has anyone in COLA or COMNA threatened or committed such
acts against you or anybody else?
The fact of the matter is...you're anonymous because you're a
cowardly troll who doesn't want anyone to be able to demonstrate
that your ludicrous claims are merely figments of your imagination.
Replacing 10 Sun servers with NT boxes....right.
More like 1 ****OLD*** Sun server replaces 10 NT boxes.
--
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.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jul 2000 10:15:49 -0600
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > NT4 Server with latest Service Packs is very stable. I worked at
> > > .COM site; now dead (but reasons are purely economical rather than
> > > technical) where most servers were NT4 (with exception of Oracle on
> > > Sun and a couple of DEC systems). There were > 100 NT4 servers in
> > > NOC. There used to be NT crashes ~2 years ago or so, but eventually
> > > they virtually eliminated them. And they didn't reboot NT
> > > either. They did restart speech-processing apps every night because
> > > of memory/resource leaks, but it had nothing to do with NT. NT4 was
> > > buggy when first released ~ 4 years ago. But it's fine now.
> >
> > Maybe you could've saved some money by using free software instead of
> > "> 100 NT4 servers". ;)
>
> Maybe if you've actually run "> 100 servers" you'd know that the cost of the
> OS is relatively insignificant compared to the cost of the hardware and the
> administration costs. (and please don't reply with retail pricing on NT vs
> $0 for Linux - that is BS and everyone knows it)
It was mostly a *joke* (hence, the winking smiley)... but anyway, for
those who are humor-impaired:
I *did* run more than 50 servers while working at Lockheed Martin.
The NT machines were the *most expensive* in *run time* costs. We had
to go out (some of our machines were up to 150 miles away) and
*babysit* them more often than the UNIX machines, which we could
control remotely.
The NT machines had more problems staying on the FDDI backbone (as
compared to the UNIX machines which never had problems) -- and this
was all on NT4 certified hardware.
Not to mention initial costs:
NT4/Server => $900 (*100) = $90,000
+ custom software to replicate and update machines * 100
+ remote access software for machines * 100 + any client costs
+ CAL costs * #clients * #servers
would be quite hefty as compared to free UNIX:
Free UNIX => $5000 for full, on-site support contract
+ all replication and update software comes with for free
+ all remote access software comes with for free
+ no CAL costs at all
You could put in an additional 50 clients for free, or hire someone
for $100k/year with all the leftover money!
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:19:16 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:07:04 -0400, Larry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
><snip>
>
>> There is no discussion of anything else, and I think you have heard too
>> many scare-stories. Government bureaucracy is never attractive to a
>> reasonable person. But so long as it remains bureaucracy and does not
>> progress to tyranny, a result unlikely given our system of checks and
>> balances (where the court can over-rule attempts by Congress to inhibit
>> liberty, and the Congress can write new laws to save the citizens from
>> unfortunate applications of jurisprudence), it is unreasonable to oppose
>> it prima facia.
>
>Yes, this worked quite well at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Not some local sheriff
>but the feds and, in the case of Waco, the US Attorney General. All still
>have their jobs. Given the same electron microscope examination, a large
>percentage of US corporations would fail these tests in many of the same
>ways that Microsoft purportedly did. Where's the interest in them? Further,
They tend to be bright enough to keep a low profile and at least
give the consumer the illusion of choice. Not only is Microsoft
a monopolist but it is an incredibly arrogant one.
Considering that the US courts are stacked in favor of the rich,
there's no good reason that Microsoft could have gotten out of
this prosecution relatively unscathed. Yet throughout the entire
proceeding they showed a blatant disrespect for the court that
you wouldn't expect from someone on a prostitution or drug charge.
Bill has been his own worst enemy for some time.
>I've yet to see any serious examples of industry stifling caused by
>Microsoft. On the other hand, there are countless examples of whinny
>"competitors" that couldn't or wouldn't, many of whom have spent large
>amounts of money in Washington DC. Imagine that.
[deletia]
You mean "whiny competitors" that couldn't or wouldn't overcome
the fact that Microsoft is entrenched, with several competitive
barriers in place to undermine any new competitor such that not
only they have to replicate Microsoft product successfully but
they have to successfully replicate an entire array of 3rd party
support products producted by hundreds of firms.
Case in point: the troll whining about paraport zip drives when
the SCSI variant is faster and not significantly more expensive.
(Add $30 for a SCSI2 adaptor)
--
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
******************************
