Linux-Advocacy Digest #792, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Will SUN be allowed to opensource? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Open letter to T. Max Devlin
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (sandrews)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Tell me about Gnome.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Isaac)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Will SUN be allowed to opensource?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:56:17 GMT
Assuming file formats is the key to the kingdom, and assuming that
StarOffice has as one of its features a translation to and from MS file
formats, and assuming they didn't figure out how to do this through
reverse-engineering, why would Microsoft allow the open and free
publishing of code that would explain how to translate their Word and
Excel files? Wouldn't that ruin them?
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 22:57:13 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:00:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:45:23 GMT, Paul E. Larson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>In article <8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>-- snip --
> >>>
> >>>> Given the only reason people are "forced" (and I use the term
> >>>> very loosely) to buy MS software is because everyone else also
> >>>> uses it.
> >>>
> >>>Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue. Unless you
> >>>built your own machine from parts, or went to the most obscure
> >>>hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county, there was
> >>>no way to not buy Windows bundled with your computer. This is fine
> >>>for hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average Consumer, this
> >>>meant that there was no choice.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Hmmmm.... you are new to this whole computing thing aren't you!
> >
> > You've got to go back awhile before you start to see
> > multiple brands of computers/OS supported by more
> > than just the 'hole in the wall' types of stores again.
>
> Like Compaq, which explicitly supports half a dozen OSs on their
> servers? And if I looked, I'm sure I'd find plenty of others, too.
Can't you people read? We're talking desktop, not servers. Don't you
understand who Joe and Jane Average Consumer are? And of course you
will find non-Windows OSes available on servers, since Windows (apart
from NT) makes a shitty server OS.
Get real.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open letter to T. Max Devlin
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:10:38 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This is a follow up to the original "Open letter to T. Max Devlin" it is
being posted to the comp.os.linux.advocacy newsgroup (COLA) and is being
carbon copied to T. Max Devlin just as the original.
Hello,
This is in response to the email you sent me reguarding the Open letter.
You know that the original was posted to COLA. Why did you send your
response to me me by email? Was this was an error on your part? This being
a public discussion and since nothing in your email reply was private in
nature, I intend to post it to COLA on Thursday. I would prefer it if you
post it yourself, but if I don't see any objection from you by noon Thursday
(my time zone) and if you have not posted it already, I will proced to post
your response.
.
Good day.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:19:47 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Drestin Black wrote:
>
>
> So, RedHat 4.2 is perfect. NO bugs whatsoever. AND it will always run ALL
> the software you'd ever want to run and will always support all the hardware
> you'll ever own. You'll NEVER need another OS ever again cause 4.2 is
> perfect right? Is THAT your claim? Whoa! crazy mon...
RedHat 4.2 is perfect for my installation, hasn`t crashed in 3 years and
yes it runs all the software I need it to run, and it isn`t likly it
will
need a hardware change in a long while. The box is a
firewall/news/email
and http server. Workin for over 3 years no need to fart around with at
all.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 19 Jul 2000 23:24:12 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:07:45 -0700, Pan wrote:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> That said... Tcl and Perl are both interpretive languages (note that
>> Perl is compiled into an intermediate form).
>
>I thought that Perl is interpreted entirely at run-time.
Nope. It's partlially compiled into its intermediate form at run time.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 19 Jul 2000 23:27:07 GMT
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: The total cost of switching from a CMT based system (MacOS) to a PMT
: based system (such as, say, Windows NT), vs. the return on that
: investment, did not reach break even until about 4 1/2 years ago.
I don't know how we could seriously calculate any kind of return on
investment for Apple's OS transformations. There have been far too many
twist, turns, and canceled projects to come up with a reasonable measure
of "investment". Beyond that, when a PMT system is finally introducted,
it will be difficult to allocate some portion of the resulting revenue to
that feature alone and call it "return".
So sad. All kinds of other paths might have been possible to the same
goal. For instance: If Apple had continued to build A/UX as a workstation
OS, and then migrated slowly to it, much of their OS evolution could have
been abridged.
John
------------------------------
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 23:22:03 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:17:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 13:47:42 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:00:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:45:23 GMT, Paul E. Larson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>In article <8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>>>In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>>>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>-- snip --
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Given the only reason people are "forced" (and I use the term
> >>>>>> very loosely) to buy MS software is because everyone else also
> >>>>>> uses it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue. Unless you
> >>>>>built your own machine from parts, or went to the most obscure
> >>>>>hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county, there was
> >>>>>no way to not buy Windows bundled with your computer. This is
> >>>>>fine for hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average Consumer,
> >>>>>this meant that there was no choice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Hmmmm.... you are new to this whole computing thing aren't you!
> >>>
> >>> You've got to go back awhile before you start to see
> >>> multiple brands of computers/OS supported by more
> >>> than just the 'hole in the wall' types of stores again.
> >>
> >>Like Compaq, which explicitly supports half a dozen OSs on their
> >>servers? And if I looked, I'm sure I'd find plenty of others, too.
> >
> > That's certainly relevant (NOT) to the common consumer.
-- snip --
> Hmm...local shops around here put whatever OS you want on it
And I'm willing to wager that, at least in the majority of cases, your
local shops will toss in a copy of Windows with your box regardless of
what OS is installed on it, and yes, even if it's only ten bucks, you
*will* have paid for that Windows license.
> although I agree with you MS has the "easy stores" (BB, CC, CUSA,
> etc.) sewed up pretty tight.
So you agree, then, that Joe and Jane Average Consumer had no choice in
OSes, since it's the "easy stores" at which Joe and Jane Average
Consumer shop. Joe and Jane Average Consumer aren't interested in
buying a $1500+ item from a hole-in-the-wall staffed with thick-accents
and lacking a Return Policy and Customer Service Department.
-- snip --
> And at the retail sector I'd be interested in any data you've
> got showing that HP, PB, IBM, and the other big players have colluded
> and forced retailers to stop selling anything but WinXX. At that
> level I think it's a pure pull-demand model - WinXX is the only thing
> there because that's all that sells there.
Interesting, considering how this contradicts what you said earlier
about *MS* having the retail channel "sewed up pretty tight." The above
comments have it wrong; it's *MS* who has forced the HPs, PBs, IBMs, and
the other big players to only offer Windows on their consumer desktop
machines.
And no, not because "that's all that sells there," but becuase that's
all that MS *allows* there.
As you have essentially admitted already.
> Anyone else who wants Linux or Be can get it at a local PC shop and
> have a custom-made PC put together for less $$ (sometimes) and more
> performance & expandability (almost always).
Which is essentially what I've been saying all along. See "> >>>>>"
above.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: 19 Jul 2000 23:31:32 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:04:56 -0700, Pan wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>Don, what do you mean when you say that Perl doesn't have any privacy?
>Is that OO_speak for parent->child relationships? Or did you mean that
>you don't like that anyone can read a script? Not needing to compile
>text is a benefit.
What "privacy" allows you to do is declare class data and class methods
"private". Once the data or method is "private", nobody -- not people
using the data and not even derived classes -- it allowed to call these
methods or see this data.
This means for example that if I write a perl class derived from your
class, there is a danger that my class data will stomp all over your
class data. The data members are not properly "encapsulated" in their
classes.
This can be circumvented, but it's inconvenient enough that you're better
off just using another language ( like python ) if you really want privacy.
As for parent->child relationships, perl certainly has this ( though they
do not work very well *because* of the fact that privacy is broken )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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 23:33:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And only one law, too. The Sherman Act, in fact. Two charges, one on
> section 1. (Tying, 'integration' of IE) And one on section 2.
> (Monopolization, coercion of OEMs, etc.)
>
> The first one, tying, is actually a bit dubious. If the Supreme Court
> *doesn't* over-rule that conviction, then its going to have a lot bigger
> of an affect on the software industry and technology as a whole,
> possibly even media and entertainment, then the breakup of Microsoft
> itself is going to have. This is because it would throw out the
> fundamental *per se* rule concerning all tying cases, essentially.
Not really. See the court records and news coverage of the case.
Microsoft tied products to their OS for just the wrong reasons, and with
just the wrong results.
> The particular rule, which qualifies the activity as criminal regardless
> of any other considerations, has always been that bundling is either
> implemented to deter competitors or of benefit to the user. This
> dichotomy was valid, because it was assumed that producers could not
> afford to re-engineer and re-package two products together and then sell
> them at the same price as one of the originals, because of the cost
> involved, which would depreciate their own ability to compete.
This applies very directly to the Microsoft case.
Microsoft didn't bundle Explorer with Windows as a direct competitive
advantage (making better products). Their own internal memos say, very
directly, that they had a second-rate product in the version of Explorer
they were producing at the time. They first tried to "cut off
Netscape's air supply" by giving away Explorer for free, forcing
Netscape to do the same with Navigator or lose the market completely
(selling the server software was supposed to make a profit).
Then, when Netscape started giving away Navigator (and Explorer was n't
growing in market share at a high rate, like MS wanted), Microsoft
decided to tie Explorer to their monopoly operating system as a method
of directly attacking Netscape. After all of that, MS also tried to
tell people that they couldn't remove Explorer from the OS without
severely damaging Windows - a lie that cost them dearly in the trial.
This was all detailed quite clearly in Microsoft's internal memos, and
is a big part of why the judge found against them.
So in this case, at the very least, the strict definition of tying does
apply.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[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 23:35:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And I'm willing to wager that, at least in the majority of cases, your
> local shops will toss in a copy of Windows with your box regardless of
> what OS is installed on it, and yes, even if it's only ten bucks, you
> *will* have paid for that Windows license.
That's another issue.
One of the big reasons Microsoft has been behind the Software Piracy
Association is that the most-pirated software is... Windows.
A lot of those little garage shops *don't* pay for that copy of Windows
they "sell" you. If someone charged you $10 for Windows 98, it was
almost certainly pirated.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Tell me about Gnome....
Date: 19 Jul 2000 23:44:28 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:17:32 GMT, piddy wrote:
>
>What are its limitations? Is it better than KDE?
In terms of its design, it's awfully similar. Personally, I prefer KDE.
There are others that prefer GNOME. I don't think it's clear that either
are better.
However, I'd say without any doubt in my mind that GTK and QT are the future
re GUI development on UNIX.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:49:09 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:14:24 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I'd like some clarification on how your idea of 'clean room replication'
>relates to "reverse engineering", as I don't think they're quite the
>same thing. Clean room replication has access only to the API; any
>derivative work is merely a novel way to create intellectual property in
Perhaps we do not agree on what constitutes clean rooming.
In clean rooming one group generates a specification. That group is free
to read source code if available or to reverse engineer a binary if source
code is not available. I believe this to be exactly what happened in the
case of Sega v. Accolade. This is pretty much settled law.
The specification should be reviewed to make sure it does not contain the
copyrightable elements.
A second group takes the specification and generates the clone of the
original program. Because the second group never has access to the
original code, any duplication in the final product represents independent
recreation rather than copying.
Since independent recreation is not a defense to patent infringement,
clean rooming is not a viable means of working around a patent. Note
that reverse engineering can be an integral part of clean rooming.
>the API. I'm not sure which you are thinking of in your statement. If
>you perform a "clean room replication", and your code just happens to
>come out *precisely* the same as the original, I'd say you're going to
>have a tough fight on your hands trying to claim ownership in court.
Portions of it may be identical or show similarities. Those similarities
might be either because there is a natural way to express certain
functionality or because the original was copied. But if you can prove
you never had access to the original, then you could not have copied it no
matter how similar your code is.
Clean rooming by definition uses a group that never has access to the
original. Presumably a party using clean rooming will be careful to
ensure he can document the process in court.
>But you might be able to bring an argument over from patent law; there's
>something about if a solution is too obvious, it can't be patented even
>if no prior art exists, I think.
>
Ouch. Another IP concept gets abused.
>
>preference all along, as it would RMS's. If people are free to read and
>learn from source code, and create software which interoperates with or
>even replaces other's software freely and without trade secret
>restrictions, then you can treat software as protected only in its
>literal aspect. Trying to treat software as literature on one hand to
Other than the fact that software functionality can be protected by patents
this horror you fear happening seems to pretty closely reflect the real
world. People are free to write clones of software written by others.
There are lots of gpl'd programs that are exactly that.
Isaac
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
