Linux-Advocacy Digest #92, Volume #28 Sat, 29 Jul 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> 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
> >company to be broken up, there would be no more companies *left*. :D
>
> You don't actually think this has anything at all to do with copyright
> law, do you? Or simple "greed", as in profit motive?
Hard to be sure. People keep saying what MS does is wrong because
of their motives. Sometimes even that it is illegal because
of their motives.
> >I realize you don't *approve* of this sort of large scale for-profit
> >moneygrubbing- but some of us *do*, so I think you really are
> >taking a bit too much for granted.
>
> No, you don't approve of profiteering any more than anyone else would.
> You are simply ignorant of it.
I think that if your argument depends on your telling me what
I approve of, you are already lost.
> >> >Every software maker has the right to insist that 2nd
> >> >party distributors not re-write the software before distribution.
> >>
> >> Copyright owners have the right to their property.
> >
> >This would seem to cover Microsoft.
>
> Now if only they weren't an imaginary abstraction themselves...
Well, now, you can say that we shouldn't have these
abstractions called "corporations" that have property
rights like individuals.
If you do say that, I guess you could justify a lot of htings.
I happen to disagree with you on the point, however.
> >> Trade secrets are not property.
> >
> >I was not aware any trade secrets were at issue here.
>
> The EULA is not a copyright license.
Nobody is talking about the EULA but you. Microsoft
has been saying that MS's *distributors* (ie, OEMs)
can't change Windows without permission, then
sell the changed version. The EULA is not the license
agreement the OEM's use, I'm sure.
Clearly I've gotten you onto some kind of hobby horse
of yours, and I think it safe to assume that no
constructive discussion can take place with you
on that subject.
[snip- lots and lots and LOTS of irrelevant EULA stuff]
> >I do not think we should accept Microsoft's assertion that IE is
> >somehow inseparable from Windows. But we *should* realize
> >that nothing in Windows *is*; it is nothing *but* a bundle of
> >different products, many of which were in earlier times sold
> >separately.
>
> You confuse product and program.
I was using them interchangably; I'll try to be clearer.
Operating systems are made of things that can be sold separately.
This is nowhere more dramatically evident than in Window's case,
where many, many components, including 'fundamental' ones
were, in fact, sold separately at one time, and some
*still are*.
Windows is a bundle of different products, some available
separately (IE, Windows Media Player, Windows Installer),
others that were available separately but no longer are
(the GUI, MS-DOS, DiskDoubler) and others that were never
separately available but certainly could be (Internet Connect
Sharing, for a recent example)
If bundling is out, then Windows *itself* is out, and in my view
this applied to any OS. Suchg a product is not appreciably different
just because historically it wasn't ever unbundled.
> It is not because IE is a separate
> program that they cannot combine them the way they did. It is because
> it is a separate product.
Like DiskDoubler. Like the Defragmenter. Like the GUI. A separate
product, once upon a time, in actual fact- now bundled with Windows.
> And obviously IE is a separate product,
> because it competes with Netscape, and Windows does not.
Obviously the Windows GUI is a sparate product, because
it competes with GEM, but Windows 95 does not.
Windows includes also MS-DOS 7, and for some time MS sold
both MS-DOS 7 and Windows 95. It comptes with DR-DOS. *And*
this product preceeds Windows outright- *clearly* a 'separate product'
if anything is.
Basically, you are saying that MS isn't allowed to produce an OS because
OSes and bundled software, and bundled software is Not Allowed.
You may be right that Bundled Software is Not Allowed, but that
outlaws Operating Systems, and I find it hard to see that as a good
thing!
> In fact,
> Netscape is reliant on fair access to Windows. Which is, of course, why
> Microsoft's assertions concerning IE begin and end with "cut off their
> air supply".
Microsoft has not even been accused of cutting off Netscapes
access to *Windows*.
> >This is really true of OSes in general.
>
> All OSes, for instance, have kernel, and GUI. Let's say.
This is definitely false.
> But are there
> any other OSes where the kernel (DOS)
DOS is not a kernel. Windows 95 does not
have a kernel in the sense that things like Unix
do.
> and the GUI (Windows) were once
> both separate products?
Yes. Unix is available separately from its GUI, and
it's GUI from it. This is actually more the rule than
the exception: MacOS is the oddball here.
> Did Apple ever sell the Toolbox separate from
> the Finder?
No.
> (Or sell either; Apple sells computers, not software
> delivery systems.)
Apple does in fact bundle a ton of software with their
computers, including 3rd party stuff, like many computer
makers.
> Windows was as much a violation as IE is to begin
> with.
I'm glad you realize this!
May I ask if you think Windows is no longer in violation, and
if not, why not?
> Microsoft snuffed both OS developers (including DR-DOS) and GUI
> innovators (Was it DeskView? I can't recall any more)
No. DeskView produced a multitasking engine for DOS, however,
so it probably counts for your argument.
Digital Research had the GEM GUI for DOS.
> with that one.
Exactly. (Though 'snuffed' makes it sound like something you,
um, wouldn't be able to get in Canada... :( )
> And then after deploying Windows along the same "bundle or die" pre-load
> lines that Office would someday employ,
It isn't clear to me what you mean by this. It's true that Windows and
Office are both examples of MS's bundling strategy.
> they negotiated a consent decree
> with the government. In which they derived special dispensation for
> their forthcoming "Chicago" project, which they insisted was a
> stand-alone OS, not simply DOS with Windows on top.
They got permission to "integrate" stuff with their OS; it wasn't
just for Windows 95 alone. (Had it been, they'd have been hosed
when Windows 98 came along, wouldn't they?)
> And then when it
> came out, Windows95 turned out to be about as much "not DOS" as Windows
> 3.1 was.
This isn't really fair; while Windows 95 was certainly no NT, it
was a step away from DOS, in that it used DOS rather less
than Windows 3 had done.
> Later, when they claimed that IE had mystically merged with
> Windows, we didn't even need to see 98 to know what was going on.
In my view, it was the same thing that was going on with Windows 95:
they wanted to bundle more stuff in their bundle.
They called it "integration" because while the DoJ is apparently
convinced that Bundling is Bad (tm), somehow or other they
got the DoJ to accept that Integration is Good (tm).
In practical terms, it made little difference, except that MS had
to make it *hard* to remove the "integrated" components,
lest they be seen as "bundled".
I personally see the situation here as less than ideal: had
MS just bundled IE, you could opt not to install it as
an installer option, and then use Netscape or something;
some people prefer that. But MS wasn't permitted to
'bundle' and 'integrating' while not as convinient for
consumers, was the next best thing and was allowed.
[snip]
> >I don't think it is meant to indicate that copyright law does not
> >apply to them. I believe there *are* restrictions about making
> >and distributing altered copies of a copyrighted work, without
> >geting the copyright holder's permission.
>
> You don't seem too clear on just what we're talking about.
I was unclear on what *you* were talking about, yes.
I think I understand that more clearly, but honestly I think
your position smacks of lawyering.
[snip]
> There is no "distributing altered copies" issue going on.
I should hope not! :D
But removing IE is clearly an alteration.
> The OEM is paid by the
> consumer to install software for them before shipping the computer; its
> the way the market wants it to work. Which means any decision for
> configuration or options or components which the consumer might want to
> make, the OEM is fully authorized to perform according to copyright law.
I rather doubt it.
> When an encyclopedia company delivers their product, you don't expect to
> see 47 filing cabinets of articles, do you? And you don't hear author's
> claiming its a violation of their copyright, do you?
No; but I rather expect that the encyclopedia company holds the copyright
on those articles- or at least has the agreement of the actual
copyright holders to make an encyclopedia of them and sell them!
> Again, based solely on copyright law, you ought to be able to write an
> Office compatible OS, as long as you don't copy their source code.
Why is source, rather than object, code special?
> No clean-room, no reverse engineering, just decompile and read it,
Decompiling it *is* reverse engineering it. People who have done
that sort of thing seem to think a "clean-room" approach is necessary.
> figure
> out how it works, build yourself an independent work which serves the
> purpose, and sell it until you get bored counting money.
Decompiling it is doing it the *hard* way, though this has been done
when better documentation is not available.
But at least you seem to agree that just copying the object code
isn't sufficient to get around the copyright. At first, that's where
I thought you were going.
> It is trade
> secret licensing, not copyright law, which prevents OEMs how to
> Originally Manufacture their own Equipment.
Nonsense. People *actually are* working on clones of the Windows API
that will run Office; trade secret licensing is not stopping them.
But those OEMs have *no* desire to spend vast quantities of money
building an OS when MS has already done it for them!
> When I buy an appliance,
> and there's licensing involved in manufacturing that product, then
> whoever built the product, not the licensed technology, is the owner of
> that product.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean it's impossible to
own an example of patented technology unless you own the
patent, I think you are mistaken.
> And if they want to change how it works, its their
> property, and it should be their decision how to make it more attractive
> to me.
If the OEMs wish to build their own OS, as you describe, it is hard
to see MS having any objection to that on legal grounds.
> Not some component manufacturer who happens to have a monopoly
> established by anti-competitive and unethical boondoggles and illegal
> behavior.
Gee, I get the feeling you don't like Microsoft. I find, in these
debates, that my opponents position often does rest on such
a foundation. I don't agree, of course.
[snip]
> >That strategy doesn't seem to have worked as well
> >as MS had hoped. Perhaps MS mistook their 'monopoly'
> >of desktop operating systems for a monopoly of software
> >distribution channels. If so, they were mistaken.
>
> Funny, I seem to recall Netscape pretty much going out of business.
They actually still have a large fraction of the browser market-
like 20 or 30 percent, I think.
It's dropping over time though. The perception, and I agree with
it, is that they just gave up when they faced real competition.
> They were bought by AOL, just after they gave away their code.
Yes. Being bought out by AOL isn't the problem; it is the "we can't
cope with IE, here, you do it" thing...
> [...]
> >> You argue from an intentional position of ignorance. Its boring.
> >
> >Oh, come now, you've only heard this 99 times before. Let's make it
> >an even hundred... :D
>
> I don't find this tired bullshit even slightly amusing, TBH.
TBH?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:41 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> >When Leslie posted his 'theory', the result *was*, in his opinion,
> >> >known.
> >>
> >> By Leslie?
> >
> >Oh yes. Surely if nothing else is clear, Leslie's low opinion
> >of Microsoft's products is abundantly so.
>
> You have come full circle again, and are misrepresenting the case. The
> validity of the prediction is not dependant on Leslie's expectation.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. what I'm saying is that it isn't
a *prediction*, not that it is virtue of that invalid.
[snip]
> >> Personally, I considered it illustrated, not proved, by his
> >> "prediction". But then, I don't confuse discussion with empirical
> >> science.
> >
> >Well, apparently Leslie does. :D
>
> No, you do.
Do not! :D
> >But why hold that against him? It's hardly the worst of Usenet sins!
>
> It is.
Confusing discussion with empirical science is the worse
of Usenet sins?
Well.
Um.
Okay.
If you say so.
> You're trolling. Posting binaries inhibits discussion less.
> Stop it.
If you don't like trolling, why do you come to .advocacy news groups?
This thread is exclusively contained in such.
[snip]
> >> MS doesn't have much of an interoperability record.
> >> Merely a reputation for not having, and in certain cases
> >> intentionally damaging, interoperability.
> >
> >Sure they do- at least, if you think "interoperability" has
> >something to do with working with other vendor's products,
> >they do.
>
> No, they don't. And I certainly know what interoperability is.
Let me guess: it is "standards compliance" to you, right?
> It has
> everything to do with working *interoperably* with *competitors*
> products, and Microsoft doesn't do that.
Sure it does.
> >It's *standards compliance* where they're reputation is
> >a bit less than gleaming white. But I am not going to let
> >you conflate the two.
>
> Could be you're mistaken, there.
Could be, but isn't.
> Could be you're trolling.
This one is a bit more likely, though. :D
> Don't lie to me, sir.
I haven't; you don't *agree*, certainly, but holding out
for a definition of "interoperability" that isn't "standard
compliance" isn't lying. It's just stubborn. :D
> You and all others that defend Microsoft most certainly do
> conflate the two.
No, I think we woudln't: It would make Microsoft look bad
to conflate standards compliance and interoperability. We wouldn't
be good MS-shills if we did that! :D
> http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
This article describes the bug in a beta of Windows 3.1 which
caused a spurious and unintelligible (but harmless) error message
when you installed on DR-DOS. It was fixed prior to release.
The efforts of some to turn this into some sort of conspiracy
to crush DR-DOS are laugable: so much so that most MS-bashers
can't even bring themselves to *describe* the actual malfeasence
of which they accuse MS. Instead, they allude to "the Caldera case"
or just post links that, they had better hope, nobody reads.
> http://www.dislessici.org/opensource/halloween/halloween1.html
Ah, the Halloween documents. I've read 'em. They describe *why*
MS is so gung-ho about interoperability, and what they hope to
accomplish though being compatible with other people's technologies.
Certainly they don't describe a whole lot of altruism. Instead,
they want to support standards, and extend them. Supporting
the standards will make it easy to switch to Microsoft products;
and then it will be every so easy to use the extensions.
But if you- bang! Instant vendor-lock!
But MS's strategy, as outlined in the Halloween documents, is
built around interoperability. Without that, it can't even get
started.
(Of course, it's just a memo and may, or may not, correspond to
actual MS policy. But it sure seems like it does.)
> >> Connectivity between a Microsoft client and Microsoft server is not
> >> interoperability, ever. Its functionality, maybe, but not
> >> interoperability.
> >
> >Sure, I agree. But connection between a Unix client and a Unix
> >server isn't interoperability *either*.
>
> Yes, it is. Because it is never a Unix client connecting to a Unix
> server. Its a Unix client connecting to any server, or any client
> connecting to a Unix server. Hence "inter-operability".
I have to admit that connecting a Unix client to a Windows
server using standard protocols ought to count as
interoperability; but it is interoperability that Microsoft
brought to you, and which serves Microsoft's purposes.
I am surprised you are happy with that.
Not every system is a interoperable as Windows is,
though. Your 'standards compliance' approach leaves
you without options when dealing with a system
that *does not* go out of its way to help you interoperate.
> >Now, connecting between Unix and Windows may be considered
> >interoperability. And that is done very largely through Microsofts
> >technolgies.
>
> Yes, that is the inevitable result of a monopoly that doesn't support
> interoperability.
I dunno if it is *inevitable*; before MS got the net religion they
weren't nearly as gung ho about interoperating with Unix.
But MS did get religion, and does support interoperating
with Unix- and that's why you can.
The "embrace and extend" strategy is but one possibility,
after all.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:42 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[snip- the incomprehebsibly wrong part]
> What you just said was so incomprehensibly wrong that I'm quite unable
> to figure out how to respond.
Hey, I'm honored by your bafflement! :D
[snip]
> >I do not say interoperability is not practical; the market *does*
pressure
> >vendors into providing for interoperability, and they *do* do so. But
> >trying to get *other* vendors to implement your protocols is not
> >usually a real effective approach; you are better off implementing
> >theirs. That, or thinking of something clever.
>
> Uh. Yea. That's the... idea. ?
>
> So why doesn't MS do any of those things?
They do.
> Why do they instead attempt
> to force the market to demand that vendors only support Microsoft's
> protocols
They don't. I see no market demand that vendors *only* support
Microsoft's protocols.
> by making their pseudo-middleware "pretend interoperable"
> enough to leverage the Windows pre-load monopoly?
'Taint 'pretend' interoperability, it is interoperability- and
they do it because the demand for it is high, and because
they want to make it easy to switch to Windows. :D
[snip]
> >I think you ar eusing "standard" in a differetn sense here
> >than earlier in this discussion; I think you are using it to mean
> >"widely deployed";
>
> Its a multifaceted word. Deal with it.
I do: I call you on it if I catch you equivocating. No problem.
> Standard means standard.
Except of course when it means standard. :D
> Is it
> widely deployed because it is a standard, or is it a standard because
> its widely deployed? That would be a question for individual
> investigation, and I'm afraid you just couldn't keep up.
Well, the word has more than one meaning. Muti-faceted, as you
said. It can mean "approved by a standards organization"; or
it can just mean "everyone uses it".
> >ie, you could say that interoperability has been greatly enhanced
> >by deploying Windows Everywhere (tm).
>
> No.
Given the second meaning of "standard", it is certainly true.
Given the first, it isn't.
Isn't playing with words fun? :D
> So much no, in fact, that its a signal to me that a man lacks
> intelligence if he declares he knows the meaning of "interoperability"
> and states such a thing.
Well if you feel, with Tweedledum, that words mean exactly what you
want them to mean- no more and no less- then I guess you may
take that view. Though it leaves me wonder what "intelligence"
means when you say it. :D
But I think we can meaningfully discuss what "interoperability"
is.
> >One can question whether that is really "interoperability", but
> >it seems coherent with what you are saying here.
>
> The lack of either intelligence or honesty becomes more noticeable. Go
> on.
Hmmmmm. It seems that this sentence, more than the ones
before it, coheres with your doubts as to the possibility
of actually defining words.
Is that the "lack of intelligence" or the "lack of honesty"?
I'm all confused now.
[snip]
> >They have made great efforts for interoperability. "Standards" are
relevant
> >in that they tell you what Unix does; to interoeprate with Unix, you need
> >to know its protocols. It so rarely will consent to use yours.
>
> Internet standards have nothing to do with Unix. You can implement any
> protocol you want on Unix.
They why don't you?
My discussions with Leslie left me thinking that with Unix
you really couldn't handle multiple protocols in any coherent
way.
> Microsoft abhors the idea, and that would be fine.
Which idea?
> But MS needs to sabotage public protocol standards, in order to
> enable them to profiteer on them.
Hardly. MS needs only extend them; their extensions need not become
part of the standards.
(Though I must admit MS does sometimes submit their extensions
for standardization. I'm just saying they don't *need* to.)
> It's called "de-commoditizing public
> protocols", and for Microsoft its the typical scam to evade any need to
> compete on merits.
Now, now, MS's plan *is* to compete on merits- by producing
'extended' protocols that are to be *better* than their
plain-jane standard versions, yet stil compatible.
Clever, innit?
Remember, merit doesn't just mean *price*.
> >> Unless, of course, their goal is to profiteer by
> >> maintaining a monopoly.
> >
> >You say that like profits are bad.
>
> You say that like profiteering is good.
I have been known to think forbidden thoughts
like that, yes. :D
> >> Then they won't.
> >
> >No, here you are mistaking. Interoperability is *helpful* even
> >if you want to maintain a monopoly. [...]
>
> I can't go on.
Oh poo.
It's true though. The Halloween documents are all about
how to make interoperability expand your monopoly. :D
> You are, I'm afraid, entirely incorrect in whatever your
> understanding is of the meaning of the word "interoperability".
It is such a shame, then, that "its a signal to [you] that a man lacks
intelligence if he declares he knows the meaning of "interoperability"
and states such a thing."; otherwise you might declare that
*you* know the meaning of this word, and state it to me.
But I guess I'll have to live in ignorance!
Don't worry, I'm used to it. :D
> And
> considering how unimpressed I was by your comments, I hesitate, but will
> still mention, that I will be happy to start from scratch for you, if
> you'd like to learn.
I don't really think I have anything to learn from you. You aren't thinking
that you somehow *impressed* me, are you?
You've amused me, and I hope I've amused you. But that ain't the
same thing.
> It wouldn't be the first time some sorry person was thrashing because of
> a conceptual glitch. Perhaps we've simply misunderstood each other.
I don't think so; I do think we disagree on many points.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 18:25:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[snip]
> >Last I checked, the protocols he was talking about where
> >the ones for *email*; their entire purpose is, well, email.
>
> Based on this response, I suspect you might not be seeing something
> about how you use the word "interoperability" and how you use the word
> "email". There's definitely either a missing link or a conflict of some
> type.
I confess I don't see it.
It seems to me that "email" and "interoperability" are at least
conceptually separate; you can, for instance, have email entirely
contained in a single computer, never touching any other
computer, network, protocol, or anything.
Way back in the day of minis and mainframes, that was
pretty common.
> Unless you're just lying. I've been fooled before.
Poor fellow. Don't you know the standard MS-bashers Guide
To WinTrolls?
Allow me to quote:
"If a WinTroll won't agree with you, this is called 'lying'."
:D
> >[snip]
> >> It is not Unix's protocol. Unix merely has consistently implemented it
> >> for more than a decade,
> >
> >Sort of the way NetBEUI isn't Window's protocol, but Windows has
> >consistant implemented it for almost a decade?
>
> No. "Unix" isn't a single product.
I know, but it doesn't make me like Unix any more. :D
> Neither is "TCP/IP", in common usage.
NetBEUI has been accepted as a standard, too, has
it not?
> Windows hasn't even been terribly consistent in implementing
> NetBEUI, NetBIOS, NDIS, and SMB, which make up the entirety of its
> "network API" set. None of these are "protocols"; they're not even
> standard specifications.
Some are, some aren't. But those are not the entirety of the
Windows network API, of course.
Anyway, I'm not getting your point here. Are you trying to
show that NetBEUI *isn't* Windows protocol because it
isn't a protocol? Because Windows hasn't implemeented
it "consistantly" in some way?
If so, I guess I have to yeild to the, um, logic of that. But
it seems kinda.. peculiar.
[snip]
> >Have you folks redefined "pre-arrangement" *too*?
>
> No, but apparently you have. Without pre-arrangement means you already
> know what "just email" means.
Sure. It's the email my email program processes, of course. :D
> >> >Windows works well for it what it is for, you know.
> >>
> >> Yes, we know MS has quite a bit of cash, but that's beside the point.
> >
> >LOL!
>
> I'm not laughing.
But I am. That was funny!
[snip]
> >Well, Windows 98 is a very interoperable *client*; Windows 2000
> >is a somewhat less interoperable server. But it's not that bad,
> >really. It does support a number of 'foreign' protocols.
>
> We've again hit the point where you fail to grasp the abstraction of
> "interoperable" entirely.
Well, I don't agree that it means "standard compliant", yes.
I'm so annoying about that. :D
But it is not like you've given me any reason either to accept
your definition, or to value "interoperability", understood
as you would understand it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
