Linux-Advocacy Digest #992, Volume #27 Wed, 26 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: windows annoyances (again) (Greg Horne)
Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Re: Which Linux should I try?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 15:09:15 -0400
Marcus Turner wrote:
>
> "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.
Not when the contract is so illegal that you also require a
Non-Disclosure
Agreement that even prohibits the signer from talking to law enforcement
because the very thought of your contract being scrutinized by law
enforcement makes you piss your pants.
By that logic, it makes perfect sense to offer Indentured Servitude
contracts to foreigners in exchange for sponsoring their immigration
here.
> That's what Exclusive Contracts are. They have been around for quite
> a while and they are very, very legal.
Not quite. If they were, Microsoft would not have settled out of
court with the ghost of Digital Resarch.
> The bookkeeping is easier. The payment calculations are easier, the
> return policy is easier...
Spot the idiocy.
Any bookkeeping overhead would be born by the OEM, not Microsoft.
Payment calculations:
With Exclusivity Contract Without Exclusivity Contract
1. Determine number of Microsoft 1. Determine number of Microsoft
Windows CD-ROMs shipped with Windows CD-ROMs shipped with
systems. Call this quantity "N" systems. Call this quantity "N"
2. Refer to contract to determine 2. Refer to contract to determine
per license price as a function per license price as a function
of N. Call this price "P" of N. Call this price "P"
3. Payment = N x P 3. Payment = N x P
Am I missing something?
--
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]>
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 15:14:25 -0400
void wrote:
>
> 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.
whoops. I didn't notice that you specified swap. Sticky bit
keeps the text image in core.
>
> >> 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."
My mistake. My understanding of BSD is based on the last time
I used it. Specifically, 4.4BSD with AT&T code still in it.
>
> 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.
Original sticky bit implementation only applied to directories
and executables.
> 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.
Traditional behavior is that if the execute bits are set, then
the text remains resident in core.
>
> --
> Ben
>
> 220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:19:26 GMT
On 26 Jul 2000 10:34:08 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> On 25 Jul 2000 13:19:51 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Install RedHat 6.2, Suse 6.4, Slackware 7, Mandrake 7.1, or any number
>> >of others, running the default FTP server and your box will be rooted
>> >as soon as a kiddie sees it. (ie, read up on wu-ftpd "Providing Root
>>
>> ...been running Mandrake, Redhat & Slackware with the default FTP
>> configurations for over 5 years, including under a static IP address
>> and domain name.
>>
>> If I've been rooted due to my ftpd configuration, then the script
>> kiddies in question have been rather discrete.
>
>You've been lucky then. 2 members of our Linux user's group have been
>rooted with the latest wu-ftpd exploit. One was a box on a cable
>modem, the other was a work desktop machine. Neither user had ever
>used the FTP service on their machines; it was only on because their
>distributions turned it on.
>
>Do you want to publicly post your static IP address right now to see
>how secure your box is? :)
I don't need to. My site shows up in some of the major search engines.
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Telnet, OTOH is a cracker magnet.
>
>I can't remember the last time any Linux telnet daemon had a hole...
Rooting a system is pretty meaningless without some way to access it.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Greg Horne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windows annoyances (again)
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 14:04:12 -0500
Windows can be installed over the network and using special configuration files
most of the individual settings for an organization's preferences can be
specified prior to installation and rolled out to all desktops. Yes, I have
verified this process myself back in the days when I was doing network support.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>Does Windows support network installs? I have my doubts,
> >>although it's theoretically possible (at some point, the
> >>user would have to key in a license number, mind you).
Gregory D. Horne L I N U X .~.
Systems Analyst The Choice /V\
Messaging Engineer of a GNU /( )\
Generation ^^-^^
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: No wonder Hackers love Linux
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:22:10 GMT
On 26 Jul 2000 18:14:30 GMT, JoeX1029 <[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....
>>
>>
>
>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?
Well yeah... if you install EVERYTHING... little things like
network services are bound to be installed and activated for you...
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Which Linux should I try?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:23:46 GMT
On 26 Jul 2000 06:30:52 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 21 Jul 2000 03:51:14 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:15:23 GMT, cpliu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>With all the hype about Linux, I'd like to give it a try.
>>>
>>>You'll find that hipe is just about all thear is to LIE-nux.
>>>
>>>>There are so
>>>>many vendors on Linux, red hat, mandrake, caldera, TurboLinux, etc. Which
>>>>one should I try? Are there any major differences? interface? How about
>>>>compatibility between different venders?
>>>
>>>Nonexistant. You cant' run a programmm from one distrobutian on another one.
>>
>> You are just so ignorant.
>>
>> Binary package excepted, there aren't any significant
>> differences between distributions. What differences
>> there are are more like the variances between individual
>> Windows machines.
>>
>
>So what your saying is that it's comtatibball if you compial everything.
It's even compatible if you don't.
[deletia]
My binaries span 3 distributions and several major and minor versions.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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, 26 Jul 2000 19:28:58 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 10:51:51 -0500, [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.
It also helps that there are no network effects to deal with
whatsoever. The Tivo is still just a PC, a PPC PC running
Linux. It's just doesn't have to worry about whether or not
the rest of the store it's sitting in is compatible with it,
or even it's own section.
It's a good example of a marginal product being successsful
and getting shelf space, primarily due to perfect replaceabilty.
>
>>>>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....
>>
>> There's quite a difference between admitting that few
>> people would ever be exposed to Linux and coming to the
>> conclusion that it would never suit them.
>>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> You can state the same of OS/2, Solaris, BeOS and to some
>> extent MacOS.
>
>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
You can state the same for OS/2 or Linux or BeOS. You can
even state the same for the Amiga or the ST.
>for Macs; I suggest there is little or no demand for Linux, and that's
>why they don't carry machines with it.
I could say the same for Macs. My own company would likely
consider a Linux version of our product before doing another
MacOS port...
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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, 26 Jul 2000 19:31:24 GMT
On 26 Jul 2000 13:42:36 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 23:23:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
[deletia]
>>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...
With Linux (and even MacOS), you have the problem of a well
connected userbase with alternate distribution channels and
insufficient notification of new retail alternatives.
If the CompUSA Linux section suddenly became twice the size
of their Mac section, I wouldn't know it as I don't now have
any real reason to go into a CompUSA.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:35:49 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:04:34 -0700, Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Irby wrote:
>
>> Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Why? Product tying is still illegal.
>> >
>> > OK, but where is the law that defines what may or may not go into the
>> > product called Windows?
>>
>> There's not one law that says this - there's a number of them that add
>> up to "a monopoly can't do certain things." It's all in the Findings of
>> Fact in the current case.
>>
>> > >A browser and an operating system are different products.
>> >
>> > Then why is every operating system vendor except Microsoft allowed to
>> > include a browser?
>>
>> Which OS vendor beside Microsoft includes only one browser, tied into
>> their OS to the point where the vendor says it's "impossible" to remove
>> without damaging the OS, while mentioning in internal memos that the
>> only reason they did so was to "cut off the air supply" of a competing
>> browser/server company?
>>
>
>How about any Linux distro with KDE, BeOS, Solaris, or Irix to name a few?
None of those fit the criteria specified.
It is quite certain that no Linux distro fits the criteria.
>KDE has the browser tied so tight into the interface that there is no way to
>remove it without replacing the window manager. BeOS only shipps with Net+.
This is pure bullshit. The KDE browser component is easily replaced
with any other file manager, browser or combination of the two.
Plus, kfm is automatically non-conformant to the Microsoft example
as it's a pretty much gauranteed to be a 2nd alternative to another
product on a system that likely has at least 3 web browsers to choose
from.
>Solaris installs the HotJava browser without asking if you want it. Irix
>installs Netscape Navigator by default and hooks it into the desktop and
>documentation system.
It's also a safe bet that all you need do is replace the browser
binary on Irix or Solaris in order to replace the browser
component on either.
The interfaces for such components on Unix are typically less arcane
and less low level than their WinDOS counterparts.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:45:01 -0400
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 17:52:23 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Why? Product tying is still illegal.
>>
>> OK, but where is the law that defines what may or may not go into the
>> product called Windows?
>
>There's not one law that says this - there's a number of them that add
>up to "a monopoly can't do certain things."
>
That's the law? "A monopoly can't do certain things"? Are you serious?
>
>It's all in the Findings of Fact in the current case.
>
I looked, but I couldn't find anything that justifies disallowing IE
in Windows while allowing Navigator in Solaris, Konqueror in Linux,
and whatever was the Web browser in OS/2. Did I miss it?
>> >
>> >A browser and an operating system are different products.
>>
>> Then why is every operating system vendor except Microsoft allowed to
>> include a browser?
>
>Which OS vendor beside Microsoft includes only one browser, tied into
>their OS to the point where the vendor says it's "impossible" to remove
>without damaging the OS, while mentioning in internal memos that the
>only reason they did so was to "cut off the air supply" of a competing
>browser/server company?
>
Hey, why don't you narrow that down with even more irrelevant
criteria, like "Which OS vendor beside Microsoft includes IE in a
product called Windows and is headed by a guy named Bill Gates?"
I mean come on, what possible reason can there be to insist that the
most widely used consumer software product may not include a Web
browser, at a time when the Web represents the #1 reason why most
people buy computers in the first place? All I'm asking for is the
general law or principle that justifies disallowing Microsoft's OS
from including a browser while allowing everyone else's to do the
same.
BTW, because Windows had shipped with a componentized IE for quite a
while before the case went to court, MS is *ENTIRELY* correct when
they say that removing it is impossible without damaging the product.
Also BTW, I still don't grasp the significance of the internal memos.
I mean, if hurting Netscape was really the only reason MS had to
include IE, then there would have been no reason to redesign the thing
from the ground up just prior to the integration. The fact that
Microsoft did redesign it as a set of reusable components, to the
benefit of users and software developers alike, shows that hurting
Netscape was most certainly *NOT* their only intention, but rather a
sweet little bonus. And yet the Judge chose to completely ignore all
that, focusing entirely on several lines of email. What ever happened
to "actions speak louder than words"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:45:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 26 Jul 2000 06:30:32 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>>on 21 Jul 2000 03:52:06 -0500
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:44:32 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote
>>>>> on Tue, 18 Jul 2000 22:31:40 -0400
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>[snip our stuff for brevity]
>>
>>> Full perphireal support for No Yes
>>> adcanced periphealls like
>>> scanners, printers, etc...
>>>
>>> Automatic hardware dittection
>>> that work's the first time,
>>> flawlissly No Yes
>>
>>That's *IT*???
>
>EAZY TO USE GUI No Yes
Unclear whether this is correct; KDE and Gnome are easy enough to use,
and even the CLI is easy to use, after a fashion. This is
an issue that admittedly needs clarification -- what does it
mean to have an easy to use GUI? And I have some problems with
GTK's key navigation with respect to lists; ultimately, I'll
have to figure out how to submit a fix. (It *is* open
source stuff, after all.)
>
>INTIGRATED printting from FAX mashine No Yes
Uh, first, one doesn't print FROM a fax machine; one prints TO
a fax MODEM. Unless you're referring to some package that
takes incoming faxes from a fax modem and spits them out
to a printer. (Does this come standard with Win98SE?
Anyone know?)
Second, as far as I know, there is a package for Linux (and
presumably other Unices as well) that can emulate a printer
sufficiently well to send OUT faxes from Linux. One can
also set up a mechanism whereby incoming faxes are
sent to a designated use.
That's about as integrated as one can get! :-) And, once set
up, it works reliably, too, unlike some operating systems. :-)
But nice try. :-)
>
>>Timmy, you need to do your homework. Surely you can find a
>>dozen things that Windows does right (*AND* prior to Unix).
>>
>>Can't you?
>>
>>Obviously, we (Aaron and I) have done ours. :-)
>>
>>(Besides, Unix was doing printers since before you were
>>born, probably. :-) Ever hear of a Printronix?
>>And that's a relatively recent one.)
>
>Nothing beet's Window's printing you stopid Lie-nux commy.
It's certainly better than your spelling. :-)
>
>>
>>[rest snipped]
>>
>>--
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yeah! Bring down da' man!
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 19:45:08 GMT
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:04:29 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] () writes:
>
>> >I'm not knocking Feeble Virtual Window Manager's flexibility. I am knocking
>> >the alarming tendancy of Linux programs to want to look like Windows programs.
>>
>> Just how do you propose to distinguish them without that
>> distinctiveness being entirely gratuitive? Besides, there
>> are plenty of applications and window managers that chose
>> to follow some other path.
>
> I don't know about Window Managers, I can change those and still use
> the same programs. But the programs are a different story.
>
> AbiWord is a clone of Word.
Word is a clone of WordPerfect.
> Gnumeric is a clone of Excel.
Excel is a clone of 123.
> StarOffice is a clone of Office.
This still doesn't point to a useful resolution of the problem
which is not merely limited to Linux.
Besides, there are other office apps that are either 'the original'
or make no attempt to be like Windows.
> Gnome and KDE are heavily copying Windows Explorer.
Explorer heavily copies MacOS and has glaring similarities to just
about any other desktop shell that preceeded it.
Just where in Windows are there anything like the gnome or kde panels?
> Evolution is a clone of Outlook.
Fortunately there are at least 10 other mail apps that aren't.
> GIMP is busily cloning Photoshop.
> XMMS is a clone of WinAMP.
Just how would you make a 'distinctive' tape deck?
Besides, xmms is only one of several alternatives that
DON'T strive to look like winamp (a good thing since
winamp is a UI train wreck).
> Killustrator is a clone of Corel Draw and Adobe Illustrator.
>
> It goes on and on. I haven't seen any true originality or creativity
> expressd on the Linux platform /anywhere/.
This is the bit that is really quite vexing. This is the
subtle bit of FUD: that Windows is somehow any less
derivative than anything else, or a useful source for new
ideas.
It isn't. Most of it's interfaces are just as 'stolen'.
>
> It's as if Free Software was good for only one thing: Copying the
> Proprietary.
>
>
>> So your whole premise is really just an excessively lame
>> troll, the rantings of someone unwilling to scratch the
>> surface or go beyond someone else's bad rumours.
>
> *squawk!* *twitch!* "TROLL!" *twitch!* *convulse!* "PaiD bY
> MIcROsofT!" *twitch* "WinTroLL!"
No, you're just another Windows running loser who hasn't
bothered to actually scratch beneath the surface of another
alternative. HELL, you haven't even scratched beneath the
surface of Windows apps.
THIS is the single most annoying aspect of Lemming culture.
You brag about how you can 'run everything' and then you
reduce the platform to single choices.
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
