Linux-Advocacy Digest #404, Volume #28 Mon, 14 Aug 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux will crash and burn.....
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Re: "pure" Linux?? (John Hasler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Another satisfied Linux user ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Arthur Frain)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Another satisfied Linux user (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls
and Authentic Linvocates) (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux will crash and burn.....
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:04:33 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 14 Aug 2000 08:48:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C.
> Shradrakaii) wrote:
> > (Why doesn't
> >Windows come with basic archive tools?
>
> I think they got into some conflict with PKWare way back when and
> backed off. This was during the Stac fiasco, where they stole their
> software.
Then, why couldn't they go with infozip? Or develop their own from scratch?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:37:21 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But of course.. in fact, my parents still have an original.. i.e. they
> bought it back in the 60s. Damn thing used to take about 1-1/2 hours
> just to start it's thing when I was a kid.. god knows how long it takes
> now. It's like the "lava" is going bad or something.
You must be aware that magma when it becomes lava it starts to cool and
harden eventualy becoming rock solid. ;-)
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS advertising in the movies... (was Re: Microsoft MCSE)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:53:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thlayli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Maybe for them that *was* advanced technology. After all, those who make
> >the Television programs of Hercules and Xenia can't keep the program
> >accurate or even cllose to the history or mythology to the period they
are
> >supposed to be covering.
>
> The great mystery for me is how Xena managed to meet up with the only
person
> in ancient Greece with a French name....
More so is that there were no French in existance yet. What also got me is
how in Hercules and company became the "three wise men" at the nativity. As
well as the constant allusions to our current society. Like Aphroditie
using phrases like "fer sure", and "duh!". Athena appearing wearing
eyeglasses with her hair up to appear like a 1800's school teacher.
When B5 was on the air we would talk about watching B5 for good SciFi and
use Herc and then latter Herc and Xenia as brain candy. But years ago, it
became too much cavity for too little nurishment.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 20:18:16 GMT
Greg Horne writes:
> Debian installation of OS Kernel and Base System only. Then install the
> deb packages needed to build the development environment (C compiler,
> libraries, etc), and finally build your own Linux distro per sae.
Why bother? At that point Debian has already done all the hard parts for
you. Might as well just go ahead and install the packages you want and be
happy.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 14 Aug 2000 14:20:40 -0700
> Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >You can't just divine this stuff. You need to go to the instruction
> >manual -- the statutes and the court decisions interpreting them.
Don't forget the regulations. Some of which I just discovered here:
http://wwwsecure.law.cornell.edu/copyright/regulations/regs.overview.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 14 Aug 2000 21:50:04 GMT
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:35:02 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Perhaps you've never seen my definition of intuitive: familiar. And
>BASIC is, quite pointedly, more intuitive to people who don't already
>know programming, but use natural language. It is simple, even
I disagree with this. It's more familiar to people like you who are
already familiar with it, I mean, that's tautological. But I don't
see how it's more "familiar" than anything else.
There are some things about it that are attrocious. For example,
assignment and test for equality use the same operator.
>problems of real programming". But in illustrating and giving the
>ability to communicate simple, even rudimentary, programmatic
>mechanisms, the intuitiveness of BASIC's "if...then, for...next, goto"
>structures are ideal for those who agree with Barbie that "math is
>hard".
I disagree again. I don't think GOTO is something that beginners should
be encouraged to use. Function calls / "subroutines" / "proceedures" are
better. As for if/then, and for control structures, other
languages have those too.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another satisfied Linux user
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 15:47:30 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However:
>
> I agree with everything he says as far as Linux is concerned though,
> and I was wondering what took him so long to get into Linux?
What took you so long to come up with your new bogonym?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 14:32:39 -0700
Joseph wrote:
> And if you read the link about W2K realizability...
> "Assorted studies and test results confirm that Windows 2000 significantly
> improves reliability. For example, the NSTL Customer Systems report concludes:
> "With a mean time to failure of over 72 weeks, Windows 2000 Professional is
> significantly more reliable that Windows 98 and Windows NT Workstation 4.0."
> And the results of a long-haul stress test performed by ZD Labs suggest that
> Windows 2000 Professional is 42 times more reliable than Windows 95 and 3 times
> more reliable than Windows NT Workstation 4.0."
> Long term stress tests (use) from ZD SUGGEST (not proven yet guys) that W2K is 3
> times more reliable than NT! MS admits NT 4.0 required a reboot ~every 7
> days!?! So MS is saying when stressed (used) W2K cannot stay up a full month
> without a reboot!!!
>
> W2K DC is supposed to far better - would you both not hope?
But according to Bill Gates everybody that
buys W2K because it's more reliable is stupid:
http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html
In an interview for German weekly magazine FOCUS
(nr.43, October 23,1995, pages 206-212)
Gates:
It turns out Luddites don't know how to use software
properly, so you should look into that. -- The reason
we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's
absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a
new version I ever heard. When we do a new version
we put in lots of new things that people are asking for.
And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
new version. It's never a reason.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:21:25 -0400
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 00:04:47 GMT, Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> I've been using Win2k now since Beta 3 and I've yet to have a blue
>> screen not related to using beta nvida drivers and one hardware
>> problem I was having. (which also explains my X/Linux lockups I think)
>> Haven't had a problem since getting a replacement card.
>
>Man, I actually paid for 2k pro and finally had to resort to using the
>Nvidia detonator 2 drivers just to get 2k to boot with my Asus Geforce
>or Creative Geforce 2 GTS cards. If I used any tested, released drivers
>(or betas) from Asus or Creative with their respective card, 2k wouldn't
>boot into normal mode... period! It would either BS, or get about 90%
>into boot, then reboot every time. My Hauppage TV card wouldn't work
>for shit with any driver.
Hmm... that's strange. I'd look at other things besides your video
card. I've used almost all the beta drivers for my Geforce SDR over
the last year or so and only one or two caused me trouble.
I noticed you said something about choppy sound, which card?
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Another satisfied Linux user
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:22:09 -0400
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 13:12:05 -0400, Milton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"...a lot securer than Windows NT or Windows 2000"
How so?
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:23:41 -0400
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 08:44:34 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It also makes it possible to discard the windowing system when it is not
>needed. It also make is possible to replace th windowing system with a
>different one. Lets say someone developes a new Windows style windowing
>system to run on unix, one that is not built on X, it could be installed on
>a working unix platform and X could be removed and the OS would not care one
>way or the other. Try that with Windows.
>
Windows doesn't let you unload the built-in GUI, but it doesn't
prevent you from running an alternate one either. In fact, that's
pretty much what Unreal Tournament does (in a limited way, of course).
UT implements an alternate window system on top of DirectX, bypassing
GDI/USER but still taking advantage of DirectX's device support. On
most Unix boxes, taking away X amounts to taking away graphics, as X
display drivers are usually linked statically to the X server.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> It would be nice if every potential customer was so well informed
> that they not only knew the value of the technical support, but they
> were also able to judge it separately from the software product
> itself. But this distribution of education does not exist.
Then there is no free market in software, I'm afraid. A free market
*requires* a knowledgable consumer base and lots of information all
around in order to function. It isn't a question of "would be nice if",
I'm afraid.
> So it doesn't matter.
Your dictate, unfortunately, doesn't change the fact that it does
matter. Quite a bit.
> It doesn't matter because the number of Linux boxes you need to sell
> to significantly turn the trend of kitchentop software development
> away from Windows is /far greater/ than the number of people who
> understand what you and Jedi do about technical support.
Luckily, the number of people who understand these things as Jedi and I
do (variously) will almost undoubtedly always be smaller than the number
who wish to use PCs, regardless of OS. That's how Jedi and I,
variously, secure gainful employment. It is not necessary to understand
this support issue in order to benefit from Linux, or at least from
dumping Windows, which is also fortunate. Not being aware of something,
however, is not at all the same as being in denial about it.
> Technical support is a study in perception versus reality.
This hardly makes it in any way unique in either commerce or human
endeavor.
> Without
> education, perception rules supreme. Without education, any software
> sold without technical support is not going to compete with software
> that /does/ have technical support - and the quality of that support
> is irrelevant because not enough people evaluate it before purchasing
> the product.
Without knowledgable consumers, there is no free market, I agree. That
we don't have a free market today is a judgement I doubt you share, but
that's what you seem to be indicating. It is not lack of education you
refer to, though, it is misinformation. By way of "any software
w/support is inferior to any software w/o support", and "the quality of
support is irrelevant unless it is consciously determined prior to
purchase", both of which are unsupportable, IMHO.
If you really want to take this to rounding error in an attempt to force
someone to say "bad tech support is preferable to no tech support", then
fine. That's a rather obvious and silly statement, though, and you
seemed to be trying to use it to drive a wedge in the argument that a)
modern tech support is a sham, and b) modern perceptions of tech support
are disfunctional. I think Jedi's point is more the first, and mine
more the second, but either way the fact seems clear: using tech support
to defend Windows or attack Linux is downright ludicrous. I believe
that was the origin of the discussion. If I've missed something, let me
know.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>On Tue, 01 Aug 2000 18:31:23 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Would Intuit provide support to a customer running Quicken in VMWare?
>>>
>>> Would Intuit provide meaningful support otherwise?
>>>
>>>[deletia]
>>>
>>> 'support' is really an absurd feature when it comes to
>>> consumer computing.
>>
>>An interesting point I'd like to explore. In my mind, 'support' is
>>really the only value or service when it comes to consumer computing, if
>>not simply the most important feature. In the "GPL utopia", I would
>>think that developers give their software away, simply to provide an
>>opportunity for them to sell support to those consumers who wish to use
>>their code.
>
>I don't see how this model can be sucessful for most software
>if the intent is to make money.[...]
Well, in short, its not. The intent is to develop software. While
there are other ways to do things which allow for more profit, it is my
opinion that they are essentially profiteering. Most software that
people use has already been written, and, indeed, many people may feel
that they already own what they need. If "version churn" is only
beneficial to the developer and continues to provide increasingly less
value and increasingly more burden on the consumer, then it shouldn't be
considered a viable way to make money, IMHO.
>If the software is done
>correctly it will just work and the users will have no reason
>to purchase support. If it isn't, then they won't run it
>in the first place.
The first may be true, but I think the second requires idealistic
conditions. Then again, the first does, as well. There seems to be
some perceptual dissonance concerning just what the "reason" for
technical support is, as well, so if its cogent to your argument, I
think you should clarify what you mean when you use the term. AFAIK,
increased information and cognizance would *increase* the demand for
support, but I don't think bug reports are really the primary purpose of
technical support.
>It might work for unusual software
>being written to meet changing needs, or perhaps the support
>service could include training for the more complicated programs,
>but if the software needs paid support just for normal operation
>you have done something wrong.
I can't see why you would think that you have any reason, need, or
ability to dictate what somebody else's business model must or must not
be. Though I must agree that in *all* cases, (which makes it rather
independent of and irrelevant to this discussion) if the software
*needs* paid support for normal operation, there is something amiss.
Then again, I don't see anything wrong upon first examination of the
idea with giving away software licenses, distributions, or whatever, to
anyone who wishes to purchase a paid support contract, and making your
money on support rather than "sales" of software. As for the idea of
charging for both, it seems likely to be profiteering by my definition.
I'm sure many bemoan the fact that it is not a simple definition shared
by all debaters, but I'm hesitant to even try to clarify it for risk of
setting up my own straw men which will only result in distraction when
the trollers start torching them. It certainly involves exorbitant
profits on goods which would be plentiful but for your own actions. I
don't find it difficult to consider a distinction between making profit
through equitable trade in licensing of proprietary, secret,
copyrighted, or patented capital and profiteering on the same which a
cognizant and reasonable person could discern.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Are you saying that a buyer wouldn't *want* to know, or that they would
>> be willing to not know if they were in fact able to base their
>> assessment of the quality of support for the software products they
>> intend to purchase on its reputation, length of service, and other
>> general attributes?
>
> Can you re-phrase that question?
Actually, I won't bother. It was generally rhetorical, as you seemed to
be saying that customers *want* to remain ignorant about what they're
purchasing, and that's simply unsupportable by any but idealistic
software profiteers.
>> I would suggest that whether a buyer "has" to know something is up to
>> the buyer, and we haven't the duty or the power to second-guess them.
>
> That's academic to the point. Maybe a buyer will make better choices
> if he researches every facet of a product first, but most have
> different priorities.
Why do you say that your second-guessing the consumer's behavior is
academic to your point, and then base your point on second-guessing the
consumer?
> It's not the software or computer vendor's problem to educate the
> customer. It's their problem to give their customers what they think
> they want.
I've had other's argue against the idea that it is not a vendor's
responsibility to educate the customer. I won't, because I agree with
the statement, entirely.
[unsnipped]
>>> After all, if FinanceFoo doesn't have a support line, but FinanceBar
>>> does, it would be a selling point if all else was equal and it
>>> wouldn't matter at the checkout counter whether that support line was
>>> any good or not.
>
>> That depends on if your perspective is the guy getting bilked with
>> shoddy goods or the guy trying to bilk him.
>
> That perspective is also academic to the point.
Hardly. That is the point. I can accommodate ignorance in the market
quite fine in my model, as I refuse to second-guess the consumer in a
free market (which isn't the same as assuming it always is a free
market). You seem to say on one hand it is not acceptable to be
ignorant and still expect to not get ripped off, and on the other you
say it is "academic to the point". I fear your point is not very clear,
I guess. I think it probably does matter what your perspective is,
because the buyer and the seller rarely have the same perspective.
> I remember that this thread was about the viability of Linux being
> sold to the "Kitchentop" market.
>
> We could do this by massively educating the constituents of this
> market until they See The Light (tm) and call VA Research.
We can do that more than easily by preventing Microsoft's continued
monopolization in the PC pre-load market. I'm sure most consumers would
rather call Dell, Gateway, or Compaq; VA Research might or might not
grow quite a bit once the Linux trade is open. It may be, though, that
they can be bested by larger more "kitchentop" oriented OEMs, and they
will continue to focus on the professional workstation and high-end
consumer market.
> Or we could do this the way the thread has been suggesting: by
> cloning Windows benefits to the point where a Windows and a Linux
> computer put side to side are no different than flavors with
> different buttons and knobs to the buyer.
Depending on your level of nitpicks, degree of precision, and objective
perception, that point has been reached already, for the most part. It
is a market development, not a technical development, issue.
> If the seller rips the guy off, then that's a tragedy and maybe the
> seller will eventually go out of business when word gets around.
Nope; that's idealistic. If the seller rips the guy off, he committed a
crime, and can, and should, be prosecuted immediately. It is good that
the market forces described by capitalist theory work, but that doesn't
mean they are a replacement for civil laws.
> But I think that the "Kitchentop" market has very high
> tollerances. They can put up with a lot of shit and it won't bother
> them. This is usually because their priorities are different than we
> think; they're keeping up with the Joneses, they've bought into the
> vision of the TV commercials, they want to be associated with the
> brand and so-on.
You really want this to be true, I'd imagine, because it mirrors the
pretense of a home PC market as presented by the profiteers. I have to
admit that hearing people use trite and horribly distorted concepts of
market demands like "keep up with the Joneses" and the value of branding
as justifications for dishonest and unethical business practices, it
pisses me off.
Stop second-guessing the consumer. If your "reasoning" requires
assumptions of their thinking, then it isn't reasoning. It is
assumption.
> Technical support is a feature that isn't used every day the way
> Quicken's reconciliation or graphing features are.
Those aren't used ever day either, but I get the point.
> If the technical
> support session consists of an hour on hold followed by helping the
> user install the right version of the DLL, they don't care. [...]
Well, I'm not going to continue an argument which essentially begs the
question, as if nobody has ever wanted better tech support. That's a
waste of time and I can see very little chance it would lead to novel
understanding.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:24:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> I think, along those lines, the consideration of modern commercial
>> software as protected by both copyright and trade secret licensing makes
>> the barrier more than 'high'; it literally makes it insurmountable, and
>> to an effect which makes a mockery of both copyright and trade secret
>> law and substantially inhibits innovation, competition, *and*
>> cooperation, and materially implements restraint of trade in doing so.
>
>Not necessarily.
>
>One could just as easily argue that good copyright and trade secret
>protection is necessary for companies to put the money into good
>commercial software.
I disagree. Are *you* arguing this? Because "one" might be able to
argue it, and consider it 'easy', but "one" is unlikely to make much
headway against more rational and reasoned arguments.
Are you saying MS has to have billions upon billions in *profit* in
order to spend millions writing software? What happened to economies of
scale, and why does it mean that exorbitant profits on shoddy goods is
now a good thing?
>Neither position could be very easily proven, but consider how many open
>source packages are the equivalent of Photoshop or Quark or even
>Microsoft Office.
So long as it is not considered wrong to profiteer, it might certainly
be easy to point out the "value proposition" in profiteering. To me,
all three are generally equivalent; I use any of them only if I have to,
and find them all relatively abominable.
All three are greatly inferior to what the market should produce, open
source or not, if simply 'making money writing software', rather than
profiteering driving by lock-in and feature glomming and pre-loads
weren't the order of the day.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
