Linux-Advocacy Digest #945, Volume #27 Tue, 25 Jul 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! (Loren Petrich)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Drazen Kacar)
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Loren Petrich)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm
ready! I'm not ready.)) (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Re: Microsoft (Loren Petrich)
Re: Microsoft (Loren Petrich)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Larry Kilgallen)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: 25 Jul 2000 10:14:34 GMT
Back to the main subject, some news stories have considered it odd
that Sun has been so successful while bucking the trend to
Microsoftization of the last few years. However, the rise of Linux may be
a vindication of Sun's strategy; I suspect that Linux is much more
helpful to Sun than Windows is, because Linux is much more
Solaris-compatible than Windows is. Is that a reasonable assessment?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Drazen Kacar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 25 Jul 2000 10:03:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> When was pkgadd created? IIRC, RPM was Erik Troan's baby, ~1995 or so.
It's part of SVR4; I don't know the exact date.
> I'm not sure _what_ proprietary Unices were using at that time, but
You don't want to know. :-)
> suspect standardized packaging came later. Ok, maybe I lied (see
> below).
>
> >> RPM installs, upgrades, uninstalls, queries and verifies. It also
> >> maintains a database to check for dependencies and conflicts.
> >> It automatically updates /etc/ld.so.conf after installing/upgrading.
>
> > Yep - same stuff as pkg{add,chk,del} etc.
>
> How about PGP/GPG signature checks (RPM) and/or anything resembling the
> Debian packaging system's policy, installation, and package querying
> tools (apt-cache, dselect, etc.)? Or the automated system update
> mechanisms via "apt-get update && apt-get upgrade --download-only"?
>
> I have to say that maintaining a Debian GNU/Linux system blows doors on
> any other OS I've touched (WinXX, WinNT, RedHat, SuSE (and other
> RPM-based Linuxes). Be interesting to see how the *BSD ports collection
> compares.
apt doesn't depend on one specific package manager, so you could (at least
in theory) have apt with rpm as a low-level package manager. I'm not
sure if pkgadd could be used, because pkgadd doesn't have some nice features.
Suppose you're in directory with packages A, B and C (unpacked), that
A depends on B and B depends on C.
So you use:
prompt> pkgadd -d .
which gives you a menu, something like this:
---
The following packages are available:
1. A Package A
2. B Package B
3. C Package C
Select package(s) you wish to process (or 'all' to process
all packages). (default: all) [?,??,q]:
---
So you type: "1 2 3". Then the installation starts, but pkgadd is too
stupid to find out the proper order, so it will try to install package
A first. Then it will print the warning message (about dependancy
on package B which is not installed) and it will ask you if you want
to proceed anyway. Since you don't know if proper installation depends
on package B being installed and configured, the only sensible thing
to do is to stop installation and try again, but this time you select
package B first. And then the same thing would happen, because package
B depends on package C.
Another fault is a restriction on size of package names: no more than
9 characters. That's SYSV ABI restriction, so I don't see it going
away soon. It means your system will have easy to remember packages names
like SUNWapchd, SUNWapchr and SUNWapchu. That's actually Apache bundled
in Solaris 8. You'd never guess, I suppose. :-)
Yet another problem is restricted dependancy configuration. Package A
can depend on package B AND package C, but it can't depend on package B
OR package C. There is no OR operator for dependencies. You can't have
meta-packages; something like "Provides" directive in dpkg. You can
specify conflicts, but conflicts AND replaces are not available.
All in all, pkgadd is OK if you use it for something like OS installation;
a bunch of files which you won't touch much. If you need it for something
like free software packages, then it sucks big time. rpm or dpkg are
much more suited for the task.
OTOH, pkgadd has some features which dpkg doesn't have. Like being able
to install package in user specified $prefix. And it's less buggy than
dpkg, which is rather important.
> Got some technical references on pkgadd?
Sun's documentation is available on <URL:http://docs.sun.com>. Choose
one of the Solaris releases (8 is the most recent), then Software
Developer Collection and then Application Packaging Guide.
--
.-. .-. I don't work for my employer.
(_ \ / _)
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: 25 Jul 2000 10:21:54 GMT
And another military folly: the battles of World War I. Generals
would sometimes order large numbers of their troops to charge enemy lines
-- lines with machine gunners in them. Rat-tat-tat-tat-tat, and large
numbers of troops would be slaughtered. IIRC, the battles of Verdun and
Gallipoli were particularly bad in that respect.
Also, the troops would often dig themselves into trenches, and in
the resulting stalemate, would become reluctant to attack the other side.
This displeased their superiors, who did not quite realize the stalemated
situation of the front lines.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 09:56:41 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 05:25:15 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:53:34 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
>> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:28 GMT, Daniel Johnson
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>> >Yes- they are free to tie whatever they want with their software
>>>>>(*including
>>>>>> >a ham sandwich), and it is their right to have their product distributed
>>>>>in
>>>>>> >a un altered state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are free to have that right if there motivation is benefit to the
>>>>>> consumer, not if there motivation is to limit competition.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am pretty sure that copyright law doesn't say anything about their
>>>>>*motivation*; And anyway, if being *greedy* were grounds for a
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the copyright clause of the US Consitution quite
>>>> plainly justifies intellectual property entirely in terms
>>>> of public good.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You want to show us the clause you say is the copyright clause -
>>>http://tn.areaguide.com/constitu.htm
>>
>>Article I, Section 8.
>>
>>The Congress shall have Power...
>>
>>....
>>
>>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
>>Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
>>Writings and Discoveries;
>>
>And that is what you should have provided in the first place.
I have repeatedly.
You just decided to be a ignorant smartass.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[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: 25 Jul 2000 10:31:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>MS Word has been getting *worse* since about 1995. The guy who came up
:>with that stupid paper clip wants to be shot. What *were* they thinking of?
: What?
: I love that thing!
: Not that I've actually ever _used_ it, but every time I see it dancing
: around in somebodys corner going "boink boink" and looking stupid and
: cute at the same time I _want_ it.
: Never mind the _rest_ of Word. Which I could (and can) do quite well
: without, thank you very much. But that dancing paperclip needs to be
: ported to Linux. Pronto!
: Linus
Can anyone imagine Bill Gates posting here, under his own name, and
telling us how much he adores the elegance of fork(), or some of the
awesome themes for the upcoming KDE2?
Almost every great leader has a sense of humor, and Linus is no
exception!
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonadab the Unsightly One)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready!
I'm ready! I'm not ready.))
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 10:40:38 GMT
"jmw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gees... the whole idea of Windows and the mouse is CONVENIENCE!
No, the idea is low learning curve.
- jonadab
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: 25 Jul 2000 10:38:08 GMT
In article <8limlb$ibv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8lbipl$pha$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> I have two internal and three
>> external SCSI drives attached to my Macintosh clone.
>Yes, this is the great thing about SCSI. You can hang 7 drives
>off a single controller. With IDE, you get 2 devices per ribbon
>cable.
Actually, those are just the standard hard drives. My Mac clone
has two SCSI buses that have the following:
Internal: 2 hard disks, 1 Zip, 1 Jaz, 1 CD-ROM
External: 3 hard disks, 1 CD-ROM
And all the hard disks were immediately recognized by the OS when I
rebooted after installing those that I installed (all but one internal one).
>IDE his "hit the wall" a number of times. First with 512 meg, then
>with 4 gig, then with 8 gig, and then with 40 gig. Each time, Microsoft
>has come up with a last minute "suprise" to perpetuate IDE ove SCSI.
Microsoft? Is M$ the main designer of these disks, or the main
driver writer?
>Apple is putting an IDE in the internal drive and using USB for
>expansion storage. I'm suprised Apple didn't opt for fire-wire,
>which would have given them about 40 times the bandwidth (400
>megabits/second vs 15 megabits/second - which is really only 1.5
>megabits/second).
Actually, Apple does support FireWire; all of Apple's current
Macs support it except for the cheaper iMacs.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Microsoft
Date: 25 Jul 2000 10:45:16 GMT
In article <8lin5r$ioi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8lbj9t$aa0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> First off, DOSEmu is not designed to host Win2000.
>True, but for games (a popular use of PCs), DOSEmu is faster than
>even Windows 9x.
That's one reason DirectX was invented -- to bypass most of Windows.
>> Also, Wine is not true virtual-machine software, as VMWare is,
>> but an emulator of Windows API's.
>Correct, this makes it possible to run a number of Windows 9x
>applications, (runs some 3rd party applications better than Microsoft).
Seems remarkable. I wonder how it does that. By being
intrinsically more stable? By being precisely tunable to which flavor of
Windows one wants to emulate? By maintaining multiple fake Registries?
>> And is there any *direct* evidence that Win2000 can detect that
>> it is running in a virtual machine?
>I'm not sure about that, but Windows 2000 does do some nasty things
>to the Master Boot Record, checks for any changes to either the MBR
>or the boot device each time it's booted. ...
So by doing screwy things, it can throw off virtual-machine software?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Kilgallen)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: 25 Jul 2000 08:21:30 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> RPM installs, upgrades, uninstalls, queries and verifies. It also
> maintains a database to check for dependencies and conflicts.
> It automatically updates /etc/ld.so.conf after installing/upgrading.
By "check for dependencies" do you mean that it will resolve them
as well (install the missing RPM on which this one depends) ?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:34:04 -0400
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> Max, again, demonstrates that he hasn't the first clue about the
>> reality of software, either development or anything else. (Hint: the
>> list of ingredients aren't copyrightable because they are *simply* a
>> list of common ingredients with measurements. There's nothing
>> 'functional' about them -- you can't use the list of ingredients
>> without the instructions, at least to make what the recipe calls for.
>> The instructions are both the literary and functional part of a recipe.
>> Recipes provide instructions to humans; software to computers.)
> I'm sorry, Austin. But apparently you might now much about software,
> but you don't know how to cook. Anybody that knows how to make bread
> can use a typical list of ingredients. But if all you have is the "now
> add the eggs", and no list of ingredients, all you can do is *learn how*
> to make bread. You can't make bread.
Actually, Max, I do know how to cook -- better than most folks. Don't
make a further ass of yourself, because the instructions *can* be
written in such a way as to make a list of ingredients unnecessary.
Additionally, if you have the description -- the procedural steps -- to
make pumpernickel bread, you're probably not going to be able to make
country white bread or honey wheat bread, either.
> The fact that the description is the "procedural steps", and the
> ingredients are metric amounts is contrary to my characterization of
> them as intellectual and functional. Possibly. But if so, it is still
> an adequate analogy.
Ah, but it isn't. A recipe can be written as:
Gather: [list of ingredients]
Prepare: Mix 1 cup of flour and 1 cup of sugar ...
The list of ingredients is only what should be gathered for the recipe,
and the recipe itself contains the measurements.
I realise that I'm about to go over your head, because I'm talking
about programs again, but most programs are written to operate on data
-- just as most recipes are written to operate on ingredients. There's
even what we would call subroutines (or library subroutines) in cooking
-- if the ingredient list or the recipe says that the carrots are to be
julienned, then you know that you are to cut the carrots in a
particular way.
The ingredient list is the input to the recipe, just as programs accept
input data and provide their output.
Thus, recipes are functional and copyrightable, as well as literary.
Just like programs.
> [...]
>> It is irrelevant; the vast majority of programs are not mere
>> command-line or GUI wrappers around libraries provided by third
>> parties. For those few that are, copyright law *does* have an answer
>> already.
> Then why on EARTH has everybody spent weeks (or months or years, for all
> I know) arguing such cases?
You're the only one who has, you arrogant prick. Roberto's example --
that progB uses libA -- says nothing about the amount of functionality
of progB that is provided through the functionality of libA.
You have insisted that progB is a derivative of libC -- regardless of
the creation order -- if libC is used in a dynamic linking situation
instead of libA. Reality and the law disagree.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:37:40 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> No, I said it was the teacher's fault if their explanation is not clear,
> >> though that is a very similar sentiment.
> >
> >You have not been clear.
>
> I have been trying to learn, not teach.
You have been trying to communicate (you said if a previous post that communication was
teaching) and have not been clear.
>
>
> >> Not being an expert doesn't
> >> mean you "have no idea what you're talking about". Even being ignorant
> >> doesn't mean you "have no idea what you're talking about". Everybody
> >> has an idea of what they're talking about. Check 'idea' and 'talking'
> >> in the dictionary if you are confused on this point.
> >>
> >
> >"Not being an expert" is too weak a phrase for how I would describe you with regard
> >to multitasking. How about if I say you have no understanding of the topic being
> >discussed. Is that better?
>
> No. Generally, anything with the phrase "no understanding" isn't going
> to work. I don't have *your* understanding. But I have no particular
> reason for presuming that your understanding is much greater, merely
> different. Your knowledge is certainly greater, but understanding is
> not required for knowledge, necessarily. I have very little knowledge
> of multi-tasking technology. How's that?
Ok, but I don't buy the idea that understanding is not required for knowledge.
>
>
> [...]
> >> You confuse the concepts of humans performing multiple tasks
> >> simultaneously (which they don't generally do on desktop systems),
> >
> >Yes they do. Perhaps it is your bias towards CMT that causes you to not think
> >about performing multiple tasks simultaneously.
>
> I don't have a bias towards CMT. I have a bias against the status quo.
> Since PMT is the status quo, it looks quite similar from your
> perspective.
But CMT + PMT covers the entire universe of possible forms of multitasking.
>
> You misunderstand the meaning of the term "simultaneously"
> in my statement. Computers perform tasks for humans simultaneously.
> The human is interfacing with one of those tasks at a time.
No, the human can interface with more than one of those tasks at a time.
>
> >> humans performing multiple tasks serially (which they do regularly on a
> >> desktop system, known as task-switching), and computer's ability to
> >
> >Wrong. As an example, suppose I am video conferencing with someone and also have
> >a word processor running. While talking with him I am also typing in the word
> >processor window.
>
> While certainly technically feasible, I wouldn't go so far as to say
> this is a typical activity in real life.
Really? How many times have you been on the phone while using the computer? What if
that phone is now a program - a very popular thing these days since you can get much
lower rates. I know many people who do this.
>
>
> [...]
> >No one I know runs only one app at a time. You have a very limited experience with
> >computer users. As I said, I think you are biased by you preference for CMT and
> >its poor ability to allow such things.
>
> Apparently, my experience is a bit broader than yours. I can say
> unambiguously that *many* computer users on desktop systems run only one
> app at a time. Full screen, and you Exit when you're ready to do
> something else. Seriously. This is the default behavior; you're just
> so far beyond it, and generally work with people who are also beyond it,
> that you can't even imagine how typical it is.
>
I am sure there are some people that do one thing at a time. But there are many people
who use a computer for multiple tasks. To design a system without planning for those
people is ludicrous.
>
> >> You'll have to check deja news; you must have missed it in your haste to
> >> insult me. But given your attitude, I wouldn't bother; I'm sure you'll
> >> be unable to consider it worth your time. It has the word 'engineer' in
> >> it, and you seem to think that's a bad word. It also mentions the fact
> >> that technical efficiency (is that one OK?) is *not* of sole and
> >> transcendent value in consumer technology.
> >
> >Actually it is you who seems to think engineer is a bad word and engineering to be
> >beneath you.
>
> I think the key term in that sentence is "seems".
You have used to term in what "seems" like a derogatory fashion repeatedly. You have
been told repeatedly that this offends many people, including myself. Yet you persist.
>
>
> >You have never explained any ideas you may have for improving multitasking.
> >All you have done is ramble on about how you hope someday someone will come up with
> >something better and how CMT must be better because it contains the word
> >cooperative and , after all, cooperation is a good thing. For once why don't you
> >answer these questions:
> >
> >1. What do you think is wrong with PMT
> >2. What would you do to improve it
>
> Nothing, nothing at all. I'm certainly not knowledgable enough to
> second-guess those who design such things. I'd prefer something like
> "inheritance scheduling", if it could be made to work, as it might
> provide an easier method of enhancing the performance of an
> inter-related set of jobs/tasks/process of great concern to the user,
> without "wasting" cycles 'being fair' to those of less importance. But
> there's little point in bothering when the real bottlenecks are disk
> access and RAM, not the CPU. Someday, perhaps people *will* routinely
> use 70%+ of their cycles, and then something more effective than "most
> of the time its round robin" PMT might be needed.
>
What is "inheritance scheduling"? And where did you get that idea that PMT is "most
of the time its round robin" ?
>
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps. ;-)
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:44:40 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>That's bullshit, and I won't buy into it. Success does not require or
>mandate or encourage unethical behavior. Ambition does not require
>greed, and history is overflowing with people remembered for ethical
>conduct, even in business.
>
>It will always be easier to make money unethically then ethically. Such
>is the nature of man. The religious crowd note with glee that the path
>to damnation is simply a choice of taking the easy way. I say we have
>to simply demand better, of ourselves and of each other. I refuse to
>bow to cynical delusion, and I will not assume that money, fame, and
>even power are generally reserved for unethical people. Because that is
>a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it is simply taking the easy way out.
>
Perhaps I am too cynical. But in a market where many of the other major
players are unethical to some extent, it is difficult to competly fairly.
MS is not the only company to have made shady deals, poached staff from
other companies, abused the naivity of the US patent office, or used other
unethical tactics.
>>>You've admitted that he's a megalomaniac, and all but admitted that MS
>>>(whatever MS) doesn't write good software; they just sell software good.
>>>So where again does the 'able to compete in a free market' part come
>>>from?
>>>
>>
>>MS took the easiest path to success. All I am saying is that if that was
>>blocked off, they would take a different road. We all agree that they do
>>not write good, competitive software at the moment. All I am saying is
that
>>if they had to, perhaps (note - I am entertaining a possibility, not
trying
>>to claim a fact) they *could* if they *had* to.
>
>Not with BG at the helm. He'd rather be destroyed than act ethically,
>as dramatically evidenced before our very eyes.
I am not sure that he feels that way. Your statement implies that he knew
what the final verdict would be. Most of the rest of us were confident that
he would be found guilty, but I think BG thought, right up to the end, that
he would be found innocent, or at least the punishments would be of the
"promise not to do it again" style.
>
>Either way, we must agree on the entirely imaginary nature of our
>dispute. The question is not whether it is an intellectual
>consideration, but whether it is more likely that MS would be successful
>without anti-competitive behavior, or whether they would be unsuccessful
>without anti-competitive behavior. And I'm afraid all evidence points
>to the latter. It is certainly not an argument from ignorance.
>
>>My theory is
>>that BG will do what it takes to succeed. If he were put in a situtation
>>where the only way to succeed were to compete lawfully, then he would try
>>that. As there is no evidence to the contrary, my theory must stand as a
>>real possibility. I don't claim it to be anything more than a
possibility,
>>but you have no proof against it, as by your own admission, the situation
I
>>suggested has never arisen. We can disagree on how likely it is, but you
>>cannot reasonably claim it to be impossible.
>
>Acting unlawfully is *always* an option, so your theory is
>unfalsifiable, and therefore meaningless. There is evidence to the
>contrary, as well, since BG has been caught and convicted, and still
>insists that he will not change his behavior in the slightest bit, and
>seems all the more convinced that it is lawful. I'm afraid your theory
>can only stand as a 'real possibility' in the context that it is a real
>possibility to teleport through walls using quantum field theory. There
>is much to guarantee it won't happen, so there's no sense calling it
>anything but "impossible".
>
I am not sure that we are going to get any closer to argreements, and I
don't think there is so very much more to be gained arguing this line.
We'll see how things go as the breakup is implemented - perhaps there will
be some more competition and we will see how well MS weathers the changes.
But for now, I think we will have to agree to differ.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
