Linux-Advocacy Digest #991, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux (JoeX1029)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows98 ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
How Can I contribute? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Marcus Turner")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (John Sanders)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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, 26 Jul 2000 12:07:48 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:35:42 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Sorry, DC, but you just don't understand that the average consumer is no
> >more going to seek out an patronize one of these little shops, than they
> >are going to seek out an patronize a consumer electronics repair shop.
>
> The issue, though, is that it's out there, local to customers, and
> available to them.
No, that's not the issue. Refer back to the snipped bit about consumer
electronics repair shops . . .
> Now, do you suggest this same JoeAverage customer
> would ever buy Linux?
Yes, they would, when it comes pre-installed and pre-configured, on
hardware integrated by the seller to run Linux.
> >Jedi is right. So are you.
> >
> >Yes, you can go to a small, local store and get exactly what you want.
> >But Jedi is right in pointing out just how small a segment of the market
> >those kind of people are.
>
> And how small is the population that would ever buy a box with Linux
> on it?
That population is variable, based on what I said above. So long as
Linux must be installed by the end user, on hardware designed to run
Windows, on a disk that is already occuppied by Windows, then configured
by said user . . . Linux will remain a hole-in-the-wall OS.
> >You, me, Jedi . . . we might all be willing to put together our own
> >systems, or patronize a trusted "hole in the wall shop", but the average
> >consumer wants an information appliance, which is why the iMac sold so
> >very well ("Step three . . . there is no step three . . . imagine
> >that!").
>
> :)
>
> Then Jedi can't really suggest these people would ever run Linux....
Sure he can. *YOU* are assuming that pre-installed and pre-configured
Linux boxen will never be made available on BB shelves. . .
> >Pre-built to run a specific OS, pre-installed with that specific OS,
> >pre-configured, and sold by a major retailer, preferably with all of the
> >basic applications they'll ever want to run, applications that are well
> >known by friends or family, and that are compatible with the
> >applications run by friends and family . . . that's what your average
> >computer buyer wants.
>
> Agreed.
And there is nothing to stop Linux from being the OS installed on the
above system.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: 26 Jul 2000 18:14:30 GMT
>Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
>setting and install option of everything.
>
>Port 21 ftp WIDE OPEN.
>
>Port 23 telnet WIDE OPEN
>
>Port 110 pop3 WIDE OPEN
>
>Port 113 ident Wide open....
>
>
Why the hell would you even put a default install of anything on the net for?
If you are smart enough to install Linux you should know that besides creating
a new user you need to edit inetd.conf and take out all the processes you don't
need. And what did you expect with the full install with medium security?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:17:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> You have not only proved you're a troll, but you are one that is too hot
> headed to make a coherent statement. Rephrased: You are an Now, wsshole.
> When are you get smart enough to not look for trouble?
MMUSStttTtt CCOnnnNtTTttorrrOllLLl uuuRRrrgGGggeee ttottotttoo
SSsassSSsaayy TtTttttRroolll!!! *bzzt!* *short circuit*
*compulsive-obsessive reactions kicking in*
"TROLL. TROLL. TROLL. *BZZT* TROLL. *SPARKLE* TROLL..." [clank clack
clank clank clank.....]
HEY, THERE's A TROL IN CONTROL!
NOW YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP CONTROL, ED!!!
Say, Ed, if I gave you a drug that shut down only the part of your
brain that comes up with ad-hominem attacks, would you cease to
function in Usenet?
Actually, if I sprayed Deja with magic Invective-GoWay 99.9% of your
posts would vanish!
Hey kids, tell this one to your classmates!
Q: What rhymes with "Nbsolutely Aothing" and is also the entire body
of proof that "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" has provided so far to prove
/anyone/ is a troll, working for Microsoft or even cheerleading
for them?
A: DIDDLY SQUAT!!!
Q: When faced with an unpopular technical assertion that has been
backed up with published references, what does [EMAIL PROTECTED] do
nine times out of eight?
A) Calmly and quietly provide counter-arguments like a gentleman
B) Sarcastically provide a valid counter-argument
C) Revert to R-complex grade ad-hominem attacks that include
compulsively accusing the opponent of working for Microsoft
and/or being a troll and thus changing the subject and
completely avoiding the issue altogether because he doesn't
know any other way how.
D) CmdrTaco Sucks.
The answer is: TROLL! MICROSOFT WHORE! WHY ARE YOU HERE??? YOU'VE
JUST PROVED THAT YOU'RE A TROLL!*
Regards,
Chris Wenham
* "You've just proved that you're a troll" (tm) is a registered
trademark of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patend pending. Void where
prohibited. All rights reserved. Not valid where inapplicable**.
** - Inapplicable everywhere. Use Denial (tm) instead***.
*** - Denial (tm) available in mass quantities. See your bulk
purchasing agent for details. Available only in astronomical
units. Coming soon: New 32-oz size!
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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, 26 Jul 2000 12:10:26 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:17:05 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >A simple set of governmental regulations, and one Federal law, would
> >have solved the whole thing.
>
> The US Government spends quite a lot of money on software.
> They are one of the few entities large enough to demand
> compliance to open standards.
And, sadly, the USDA recently violated its own purchasing guidelines by
going almost entirely MS . . .
But both the FTC and the FCC have the power to step in and create
regulations that could go a long way towards stemming the tide.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:18:33 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I don't have a bias towards CMT. I have a bias against the status quo.
That is a strange stance to take, considering your beliefs re: the
market. . . the market prefers, and in fact actively helps to maintain
the status quo.
> 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.
Which, as I've already pointed out, says absolutely nothing about how
many tasks are running withint that processe.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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, 26 Jul 2000 12:13:50 -0600
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:09:43 -0600, John W. Stevens wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> >Neither is the use of elite Federal swat teams against citizens.
> >>
> >> Depends on what the citizens are doing now doesn't it. If the
> >> citizens are armed and dangerous, that's all the more reason to send
> >> in an elite who can stay *calm* when confronted by someone who's
> >> armed and dangerous.
> >
> >And if the British had done that, we'd still be a British colony . . .
> >to bad, eh?
>
> IIRC, the British fought fairly hard to hold on to the colony.
Yes. Imagine how much more effective they would have been had the
colonists first been disarmed . . . if neccessary, one "criminal" at a
time.
> I mean,
> isn't that what that "war of independence" thingy was about ?
If you are looking for a deeper analysis, the fact that the British had
other things to occupy their attention is also meaningful.
> If
> Britain had demonstrated the level of restraint shown by this swat
> team, and the same willingness to negotiate showed by the
> administration, instead of just taking pot shots at the people,
> perhaps there would not have been a civil war in the first place.
In retrospect, the British weren't much less "civil", or any more
barbaric, than the current government . . . such movies as "The
Patriot", after all, exaggerate for the sake of art.
> I don't really understand what your point is.
My point is that the difference between a traitor/criminal, and a
Patriot, is:
Who Won!
> I don't see what ousting a
> colonial power has to do with harbouring illegal immigrants, apart
> from the fact that you can use guns to do either.
Hmm? I wasn't refering to the Elian thing . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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, 26 Jul 2000 14:22:42 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Platform-endian to neutral conversions and back, however, are very
> > > handy things. Example: I have to send data from a big-endian box
> to a
> > > middle-endian box; what use is a big-to-little endian here? None
> at
> > > all. However, a halfway well written snippet of C code with a
> defined
> > > neutral format doesn't care what the endianness of the platform
> it's
> > > compiled on is, it just works. :)
> >
> > Try dumping a jpeg from a big-endian platform onto tape, and then
> > loading it up onto a little-endian platform, and get back to me.
>
> Simple; write it out in an endian-neutal format, and have your
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is no such thing.
A number is either stored in Big-Endian, or Little-Endian format.
There are no other practical alternative.
> conversion routines convert to whatever's native. I've done lots of
> this sort of thing, the mechanics are pretty basic.
Translation: one MUST do a Big-Endian => Little Endian *or*
a Little-Endian => Big-Endian conversion if the platforms
differ in this respect.
GAME
SET
MATCH
I WIN.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:24:34 -0400
Spud wrote:
>
> [snips]
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > Oh, it is revelent because it put the lie to that blanket
> statement
> > > that is
> > > > so oftern used that "Linux lags behinds Windows"
> > >
> > > Fine; take it up with them; it's hardly a position I espouse.
> >
> > Yet you keep proclaiming it.
>
> Really? Where? Do please feel free to point it out. I can't recall
> having _ever_ made such a statement.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> Because you're smoking too much loco weed?
>
> > > Is it that easy? Perhaps,
> perhaps
> > > not. Is that relevant? I doubt it; ask your typical home PC user
> how
> > > many times a week they have a need to do this.
> >
> > You're failure to see the utility of such methods indicates a
> > lack of experience.
>
> Indeed; I've only been in the computing field 21 years.
yet you write like a novice Windroid.
Why is that?
--
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:23:42 -0600
Lars Träger wrote:
>
> I thought we were discussing buzzwords, not implementations ;-)
Both have been raised as points of discussion.
> Apart from the PMT systems that never pretended to have protected
> memory, there always is Win9x
Which is less likely to crash than Windows 3.1 . . . a CMT system.
> (and the increased stability of theMacOS
> against crashing apps despite *not* having prot.mem.
Sorry, but you are incorrect. In actual fact, the increased ability of
the MacOS to protect against crashing apps is almost entirely due to the
implementation of a limited amount of protected memory.
It is, in fact, the legacy of CMT that keeps the MacOS from implementing
much more PM than it currently does.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:28:52 -0600
void wrote:
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:29:51 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >MkLinux == Linux on Mach
> >
> >Mac OS X == BSD on Mach
>
> Darwin == BSD on Mach
> MacOS X == high-level UI and APIs on BSD on Mach
>
> But that's a nit-pick.
MacOS X actually implements several independent UI and API sets . . .
Another nit pick.
> >So, a little bit farther apart, but I will bring to your attention the
> >fact that the GNUstep developers have been bending their efforts towards
> >compliance with the Apple changes to the spec. . . and Aqua is, in the
> >end, a sub-system that could probably be pretty easily coded.
> >
> >So, I stretched the point a little, but when you look under the hood,
> >not all that much.
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you think that eventually there
> will be a Mac-alike OS composed of Linux, GNUstep, and some free clone
> of Aqua?
Yep. There has already been discussions about how easy it is to compile
and run a very small set of apps on both. Source code compatibility is
going to be a lot better re: Linux + GNUStep <==> MacOS X than you might
expect.
> I'm not too familiar with GNUstep, but it's my impression that it (and
> the OPENSTEP software that it clones) addresses a lot of the same
> problems as GNOME and KDE. Does anyone here know how GNOME- and KDE-
> compatible GNUstep is?
There is a concrete implementation of the GNUstep app kit on GTK, though
I don't know how complete or how well maintained it is . . . there is
some discussion of adding Display PDF capabilities to GNUstep.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:27:53 -0400
Steve wrote:
>
> Possibly, but every single resource I have been looking at mentions
> closing those ports completely, as well as others because of the
> internet security risks. I am not familiar with the how and whys, but
> simply am taking the advice of several respected security sites.
>
> I merely pointed out what a default install of 2 popular distributions
> looks like to a hacker on the net trying to look in.
Can you say "hype" ???
>
>
>
> On 26 Jul 2000 13:09:25 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >-Just installed Mandrake 7.1 with medium security
> >-setting and install option of everything.
> >-
> >-Port 21 ftp WIDE OPEN.
> >-
> >-Port 23 telnet WIDE OPEN
> >-
> >-Port 110 pop3 WIDE OPEN
> >-
> >-Port 113 ident Wide open....
> >-
> >-Not to mention all of the other security holes due
> >-to inetd running every service known to mankind.
> >-
> >-Windows 98 se with ICS installed closes all of
> >-those ports and several are in stealth mode.
> >-
> >-No wonder the script kiddies seems to love
> >-Linsux.....
> >-
> >-Typical newbie will install it with defaults and
> >-be hacked within a couple of hours.
> >-
> >-
> >-BTW SuSE 6.4, Install Everything did somewhat
> >-better in that only ports 80 and 113 were open.
> >-
> >-I only checked via www.grc.com which does not
> >-check all ports.
> >-
> >-God only knows what else is wide open.....
> >
> >Steven,
> >
> >You may be just a bit hasty in your generalization.
> >
> >www.grc.com shows all of my ports as open also. However I have my tcpd daemon
> >configured (via /etc/hosts.allow and /etc/hosts.deny config files) to only
> >allow certain IPs to have actual access.
> >
> >An open port that doesn't have a server attached or denys certain IPs
> >isn't much of a security risk.
> >
> >BAJ
> >-
> >-Steven
> >
--
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]
Subject: How Can I contribute?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 18:33:07 GMT
Hello,
I am working for a company which already have open sourced device
drivers and applications for linux. We have certain kerna patches
and device driver enhancements that we like to contribute to Linux
community in general. Who should we contact? Thanks for any
pointers!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 26 Jul 2000 18:21:29 GMT
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:13:10 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>void wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:58:09 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Matthias Warkus in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> [...]
>> >> >This issue is adressed by multi-threaded X servers, where your mouse
>> >> >handling thread is just a couple of pages; on a sufficiently
>> >> >sophisticated system, you can tag those pages as "keep in core no
>> >> >matter what".
>> >>
>> >> Is Linux such a "sufficiently sophisticated system"?
>> >
>> >Yes. Unix implemented the "sticky bit" as part of the file permissions
>> >field, to tell the kernal to do just exactly that in the late 1970's.
>>
>> I believe that the sticky bit used to tell the system to keep a
>> process's text section in swap even after the process terminated, to
>> expedite starting up the program again.
>
>Yes.
This doesn't gibe with what you said above -- the sticky bit didn't
keep things in core, it kept them in swap.
>> I further believe that this
>> functionality's been removed, as a buffer cache does the same thing but
>> better.
>
>My understanding is that the functionality was never removed, merely
>that most "sticky bits" were turned off after memory got cheap and
>larger buffer cache became standard.
>From FreeBSD's chmod(1):
Under FreeBSD, the sticky bit is ignored for executable files
and may only be set for directories."
On Solaris, the sticky bit does affect the behavior of the VM/buffer
cache, but in a different way. From sticky(5):
If the sticky bit is set on a regular file and no execute
bits are set, the system's page cache will not be used to
hold the file's data. This bit is normally set on swap
files of diskless clients so that accesses to these files do
not flush more valuable data from the system's cache. More-
over, by default such files are treated as swap files, whose
inode modification times may not necessarily be correctly
recorded on permanent storage.
The page says nothing about what happens if the execute bits are set.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 26 Jul 2000 13:42:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:23:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>>Yes, you can go to a small, local store and get exactly what you want.
>>>>But Jedi is right in pointing out just how small a segment of the market
>>>>those kind of people are.
>>>
>>>And how small is the population that would ever buy a box with Linux
>>>on it?
>>
>> My colleagues are just going nutz over Tivo's at the moment
>> actually...
>
>That's a completely different market. They're buying Tivos because
>they want to record videos, not use a computer. Your point is
>completely meaningless to the discussion.
No it isn't. People have been buying Intel boxes with windows
because they want a wordprocessor or a web browser or spreadsheet
for years now. They want a few specific apps - they aren't
interested in operating systems or all the possibilities of
a computer. The reason it is relevant is that in the timeframe
we were discussing, these apps required MS-windows to run on
cheap Intel boxes and MS did everything they could to exploit
that dependency. Times are changing rapidly but it doesn't
excuse the behavior.
>Not at all true - MacOS in particular has consumers that like it and
>ask for it; this forum is proof of that. (CSMA). CUSA has demand
>for Macs; I suggest there is little or no demand for Linux, and that's
>why they don't carry machines with it.
That is a rather odd conclusion if you have actually been to
one of the stores recently. The ones I've seen have a very
large Linux software section which doesn't mesh well with a
claim of 'no demand'. Perhaps they are still under one
of those 'per-CPU' contracts with MS...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:43:17 GMT
"Loren Petrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lmuch$fa1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <r0Cf5.58$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Marcus Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Then why did the OEM go after these contracts?
>
> Which evades the question of why M$ did not make there to be no
> rate difference between 95% preloads and 100% preloads. Are you saying
> that the PC makers made them charge significantly more for 95% preloads
> than 100% preloads?
It evades nothing Loren. Once again you subscribe traits to others that you
do not recognize in yourself.
Yes, It makes perfect sense for Microsoft to charge an OEM less for a
exclusive license than for a 95% license on a per unit basis. That's what
Exclusive Contracts are. They have been around for quite a while and they
are very, very legal. The bookkeeping is easier. The payment calculations
are easier, the return policy is easier...
------------------------------
From: John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 13:19:44 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> None of that is in question. The question was about WRITING an OS in BASIC,
> not using a BASIC interpreter written in another language AS the OS. That
> is the source of your confusion.
Sure. You write your OS in BASIC, and never run it, you can always
claim that you did a great job on it and BASIC is the _ideal_ tool for
OSes!
--
John W. Sanders
===============
"there" in or at a place.
"their" of or relating to them.
"they're" contraction of 'they are'.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
