Linux-Advocacy Digest #467, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: there are plenty of good paradigms ("Ostracus")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: Anonymous
Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates) (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?) (Tim Hanson)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Tim Hanson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! (Tim Hanson)
GNOME & KDE, and the motivation for creation... (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (Tim Hanson)
Re: GNOME & KDE, and the motivation for creation... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Om ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:28:04 -0500
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In your face, Windows advocates! Linux fragmentation my butt!
>
> I think its healthy, regardless of all the doom mongers' whining. I'm
> no KDE fan myself, but I know a lot of Windows users who may not have
> switched had it not been for it. Maybe the extra pressure from this
> push toward GNOME will prod KDE into dumping that ridiculous licensing /
> kickback scheme.
I don't know about you, but if I'd just spent the last what, 2-3 years
working my ass off on developing something like KDE and then the majority of
the Linux/unix community decides to go with a competing effort, I'd be
rather pissed that I had wasted the last 3 years of my life doing virtually
nothing.
That can't be good for the morale of open source developers.
------------------------------
From: "Ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: there are plenty of good paradigms
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:27:27 -0500
In article <8ne9g7$8ni$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K.
Fellows) wrote:
<snip>
> Why is godhood so much hard work?
And remember we have only two more days to finish. :)
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- Actually, come to think of it, I don't think your opponent, your audience,
> or the metropolitan Tokyo area would be in much better shape.
> -- Jeff Huo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: 18 Aug 2000 04:28:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Kelley) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>>
>> > Yes, but we have a choice under Linux of whether we want to
>> > significantly add to our program's bulk, or to just use the one-line
>> > fork() call. Forking is fairly scalable, but not as scalable as
>> > threads in most situations. The problem is, 90% of the time (my
>> > time, anyway) you don't care if the process is extremely scalable
>> > and you can ditch a bunch of complexity by using processes instead.
>>
>> And if using fork() ends up consuming too many resources, you can just
>> fork out for a more powerful platform! <g> Sorry, just couldn't
>> resist.
>
>Yep, Linux does provide a good path to powerful OSes like AIX.
I would think that since Linux is so very close to POSIX.1 and
POSIX.2 compliance, that it would make a decent path to nearly
any other UNIX variant, no?
While my dislike of the Linux kernel is well known, I can say
that migrating most of my UNIX application data from Linux to
IRIX was rather painless.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
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: 18 Aug 2000 04:36:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Kelley) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II) writes:
>
>> XNews is outstanding. I'm using the WindowsNT port.
>> I'd highly recommend it under any platform.
>
>I like GNUS myself.
That's an EMACS macro, isn't it?
I think what I find particularly attractive about XNews
is that the interface is just so bloody well laid out.
It actually resembles mIRC's interface in many respects.
Plus, you can configure it up the Yin-Yang.
>> Does Mozilla have a message center, like Netscape, or do
>> you view and post from within the browser itself?
>>
>> Does it not have filtering capabilities? I thought that
>> it was more or less Netscape Communicator, no?
>
>Mozilla doesn't have any NNTP client at all yet (at least not in the
>latest download anyway).
Hmmm... wasn't all of the communicator code released to
the OSS community, or did Netscape find that they had to
restrict it a bit? IIRC, the Linux version of Netscape
had the message center and the browser compiled into one
executable, as opposed to the Windows release having
separate executables for each different application, no?
BTW, I know these questions sound a bit like baiting, but
I'm just asking, because I'm genuinely curious.
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: 18 Aug 2000 04:33:37 GMT
In article <qJ_m5.156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Mentzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>A KDE programmer at the LinuxWorld Expo told me that the
>>two groups certainly are cooperating, e.g., to insure that
>>the apps of each desktop system will run on the other.
>>This even includes writing wrappers for each other's
>>component facilities (that allow, for example, a live
>>spreadsheet to be embedded in a wordprocessor document).
>>So a Gnome spreadsheet can be part of a KDE document, or
>>vice versa.
>Why not just define a common framework. Where there are wrappers, there will
>always be compatibility issues.
Baloney. An appreciable fraction of all software is created
for the purpose of making various systems (computer and
human) work together. That's what a wrapper does, and in
fact the KDE programmer estimated that it would only require
about 5,000 lines of code in each direction.
>The desktop environment is already fragmented.
>You have two factions. KDE and Gnome.
Wrong. Having two different ways of doing things does not
qualify as "fragmented" except to people who are very
compulsive and controlling.
>Until they unify, there will always be problems.
There are always "problems" with everything, but in this
case they are fairly easy to fix. In return for having to
deal with that, we get a choice of systems to work with
and develop for, so that if one turns out to be less than
optimal in some system or application area we can use the
other.
That is a tremendous advantage!
Since the two cooperate with each other, we're able to make
such choices without heavy changes propagating throughout
the rest of our systems and activities.
If there's only one way of doing things, then we're totally
dependent on it. I don't want to be forced to use one
standard word processor, file manager, web browser, etc.,
nor one standard desktop system with its particular infra-
structure.
Freedom of choice is what GNU/Linux/OSS is all about.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:40:58 -0700
From: Joseph <[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?
Christopher Smith wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:04:02 "Christopher Smith"
> > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ¯...since I disgree with the law in principle and consider
> > >> ¯most of the evidence to be irrelevant, it's hardly surprising I have a
> > >> ¯different opinion to you, no ?
> > >>
> > >> The United States of America - and the European Common
> > >> Market - and China - and Japan - and India - all say that
> > >> your 'different opinion' is full of shit.
> > >
> > >You mean, their legal systems. I sincerely doubt everyone in those
> > >countries agrees on that point.
> >
> > Duh.
> >
> > >I fear I've been too subtle in trying to say arguments along the line of
> > >"but they broke the law" don't carry too much weight with me.
> >
> > Then let me be clear - your opinion has NO weight. why? You don't like
> the
> > laws and you ignore the principles on which we establish facts and truth.
> > Fine. Okay.
>
> If you think my opinion has no weight because I disagree with the law, then
> I can't think why you are worth discussing anything with at all.
Oh no. It's not me.
Let me be clear - Your opinion has no weight because it has no weight.
What you think about the Law has no impact on the law. NONE.
> I imagine there's quite a few laws (and/or convictions) you have disgreed
> with over time - did your opinion carry no weight then ?
Oh I think each of us is important. I wouldn't tell you to stop lobbying for a
change - I know that until you affect a change your opinion has no weight
regarding MS.
> > It is very important to understand how extreme and unreasonable one has to
> be
> > to hold your pro MS beliefs.
>
> You mistake "not anti-MS beliefs" with "pro MS beliefs". Microsoft are just
> another company, no worse, better or different to IBM, Apple, Corel etc etc.
> They're all after the same thing.
That is NOT the argument.
First Pro-Ms is very accurate since your beliefs support MS arguments. "Not
anti-MS" is a nonsense term.
You are free to disagree with a monopoly laws but it's a lie to pretend that
your disagreement means the laws have no relevance on the real world. This
isn't about a set of for profit companies you choose to lump - it is about
monopoly power. You have a obligation to be civil and accept the anti-trust
laws distinguish MS. It isn't honest to misrepresent and lump dislike of the MS
monopoly power with dislike of Apple or IBM.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's official, NT beats Linux (?)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:39:57 GMT
The benchmarks I'd like to see are the "bang for the buck" types, where
M$ and Linux techs are given a specific number of dollars to spend and
directed to find the best hardware and software for the price, then run
comparisons on it.
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" wrote:
>
> In article <8mrm4f$kkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> > Impartial benchmarks seem to point to NT as far superior...
>
> > http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,1015266,00.html
> Note that this test was a specially modified benchmark in which
> benchmark configurations, message sizes, and NT configuration
> parameters were specially modified to compete with Linux' "Default"
> configuration.
>
> It's offline right now, but DejaNews has an extensive archive thread
> on this particular benchmark search for "Mindcraft Benchmarks"
> that exposed the test and the summary as something just short of
> a fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts.
>
> Here is another benchmark - unfortunately, the links to the actual
> tests have been clobbered (Microsoft?) - seems there is a typo in
> the copy.
> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/1999/41/ns-10795.html,
>
> it also lists about 15 other benchmark tests, many of which are
> more "real world".
>
> This is the same benchmark with no special tuning.
> http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html#benchjan1999
>
> The Bloor site is:
> http://www.bloor-research.com/ not
> http://www3.bloor-research.com/
>
> then search for benchmarks.
>
> There's also:
>
> http://www.it-director.com/99-07-07-1.html?its
> http://www.heise.de/ct/english//99/13/186-1/
> Again, you need to search for Benchmarks and Linux.
> (Bloors also cites the original Mindcraft benchmark).
>
> http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html
>
> This result is more up to date.
>
> http://www.kegel.com/nt-linux-benchmarks.html#web
> This also sites a number of other benchmarks.
>
> There is also the SAP benchmarks:
> http://www.sap.com/solutions/technology/pdf/50020428.pdf
>
> Page 109 and Page 103 are very interesting.
>
> <4 Xeons, Linux 2.2.11)
> Linux: 1210 SAPs
>
> (4 Xeons)
> NT: 1280 SAPS
>
> Page 124 (4 Xeons, Linux 2.2.14)
> Linux: 1320 SAPS.
>
> On page 108
> Linux: 1850 SAPs, but that's on 8 Pentium III/550 Xeons.
>
> Worst case: you get marginally better performance with NT in
> optimal configurations, about 6% faster. But the Linux system
> has no CALS, no $1500/CPU licenses. You have multiple sources
> for tier 4 support (access to source code), and have no restrictions
> on public disclosures (related to Linux).
>
> The software for Linux is less expensive than the UNIX equivalents,
> and often competitive with the NT versions.
>
> If there is software that you can ONLY get on Windows, you can ASK
> for a Linux version (some companies that offer UNIX versions of
> vertical market software are beginning to offer it on Linux). Since
> SCO's vertical market is now Caldera, we should be seeing a shift
> here too. I'm curious what this does to Microsoft.
>
> If you are a vendor, you now have a platform that is scalable from
> very small Linux systems all the way to OS/390s, E-10Ks, and S-80s.
> Put another way, you have scalability from an old, outdated laptop
> costing under $300, to a server capable of serving 1 million visitors
> a day. I'd love to see if a Linux server/cluster could
> serve 1 billion pages per day.
>
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> --
> Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
> Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
> http://www.open4success.com
> Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
> and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Earth is a beta site.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:41:52 GMT
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
>
> In article <qJ_m5.156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Mentzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>A KDE programmer at the LinuxWorld Expo told me that the
> >>two groups certainly are cooperating, e.g., to insure that
> >>the apps of each desktop system will run on the other.
> >>This even includes writing wrappers for each other's
> >>component facilities (that allow, for example, a live
> >>spreadsheet to be embedded in a wordprocessor document).
> >>So a Gnome spreadsheet can be part of a KDE document, or
> >>vice versa.
>
> >Why not just define a common framework. Where there are wrappers, there will
> >always be compatibility issues.
>
> Baloney. An appreciable fraction of all software is created
> for the purpose of making various systems (computer and
> human) work together. That's what a wrapper does, and in
> fact the KDE programmer estimated that it would only require
> about 5,000 lines of code in each direction.
>
> >The desktop environment is already fragmented.
> >You have two factions. KDE and Gnome.
>
> Wrong. Having two different ways of doing things does not
> qualify as "fragmented" except to people who are very
> compulsive and controlling.
>
> >Until they unify, there will always be problems.
>
> There are always "problems" with everything, but in this
> case they are fairly easy to fix. In return for having to
> deal with that, we get a choice of systems to work with
> and develop for, so that if one turns out to be less than
> optimal in some system or application area we can use the
> other.
>
> That is a tremendous advantage!
>
> Since the two cooperate with each other, we're able to make
> such choices without heavy changes propagating throughout
> the rest of our systems and activities.
>
> If there's only one way of doing things, then we're totally
> dependent on it. I don't want to be forced to use one
> standard word processor, file manager, web browser, etc.,
> nor one standard desktop system with its particular infra-
> structure.
>
> Freedom of choice is what GNU/Linux/OSS is all about.
Yup, and competition _always_ drives innovation. That's it, bottom
line.
--
Earth is a beta site.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:45:08 -0700
From: Joseph <[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?
JS/PL wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, JS/PL wrote:
>
>
> > >How the hell would China know? There's not a legal copy of software
> > >TO_BE_FOUND_ANYWHERE in China. They are the software pirate kings of the
> > >Earth, not to mention the being among the worst human rights violators.
> >
> > I think all their LINUX copies are legal.
>
> I wasn't referring to coasters, I'm talking *installed* software.
No. You're talking about low IQ trolling wrt Linux (not human rights).
Linux is legally installed in China. MS would be glad to have China pirate M
software and be locked into MS technology (and pay of it someday) or if not
then for the fact illegal MS software blocks out Linux. (competitive
inhibition).
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:44:35 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In your face, Windows advocates! Linux fragmentation my butt!
> >
> > I think its healthy, regardless of all the doom mongers' whining. I'm
> > no KDE fan myself, but I know a lot of Windows users who may not have
> > switched had it not been for it. Maybe the extra pressure from this
> > push toward GNOME will prod KDE into dumping that ridiculous licensing /
> > kickback scheme.
>
> I don't know about you, but if I'd just spent the last what, 2-3 years
> working my ass off on developing something like KDE and then the majority of
> the Linux/unix community decides to go with a competing effort, I'd be
> rather pissed that I had wasted the last 3 years of my life doing virtually
> nothing.
>
> That can't be good for the morale of open source developers.
They may or may not be open source, depending on how you interpret the
way they link to the QT libraries, but that's another issue.
No one said KDE is going away. QT might be forced to change from that
hokey licensing scheme, but KDE remains a strong competitor, and the two
teams are being forced to at least be civil.
--
Earth is a beta site.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen S. Edwards II)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: GNOME & KDE, and the motivation for creation...
Date: 18 Aug 2000 04:44:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erik Funkenbusch) wrote in
<yJ2n5.6518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In your face, Windows advocates! Linux fragmentation my butt!
>>
>> I think its healthy, regardless of all the doom mongers' whining. I'm
>> no KDE fan myself, but I know a lot of Windows users who may not have
>> switched had it not been for it. Maybe the extra pressure from this
>> push toward GNOME will prod KDE into dumping that ridiculous licensing
>> / kickback scheme.
>
>I don't know about you, but if I'd just spent the last what, 2-3 years
>working my ass off on developing something like KDE and then the
>majority of the Linux/unix community decides to go with a competing
>effort, I'd be rather pissed that I had wasted the last 3 years of my
>life doing virtually nothing.
I would ask Robert Alsina what his take on all of
this is... Robert?
>That can't be good for the morale of open source developers.
Well, in all fairness to the OSS community, most of
them are merely doing what they do because they get
a kick out of creating software. Granted, I'm sure
that having the majority send such a message is not
exactly uplifting either. :-\
I for one can easily understand their kind of thinking.
For example, I do both 3D and 2D graphics for a living,
but often times, I will sit down at my home workstation,
and start creating a 3D scene, or animation, simply
because it interests me, and I think it would be fun
to do.
I imagine that OSS developers experience the same sort
of elation when they are writing code, that I experience
when I come up with a cool demo reel idea.
Actually, the only real difference between programmers
and 3D animators, in my experience, is that us 3D types
tend to be much more pissy and moody, due to our rather
eccentric artistic tendencies. :-)
--
.-----.
|[_] | Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/
| = :| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| -| "Even though you can't see the details, you can sense them.
| | And that is what makes great computer graphics."
|_..._| -- Robert Abel of Abel Image Research
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 21:48:57 -0700
From: Joseph <[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?
JS/PL wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > Then let me be clear - your opinion has NO weight. why? You don't like
> the
> > laws and you ignore the principles on which we establish facts and truth.
> > Fine. Okay.
>
> It is this very questioning of authority which founded the United States,
> and it is his very attitude which makes him a (more) solid American.
Questions are fine but they carry no weight and they have to be in a universal
context. Nothing changes if Chris says X or Y or Z. The discussion is based
on reality - MS is a monopoly so let us stop pretending they are not unique.
Try "Philosophy for Everybody." it is a fun read.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:47:20 GMT
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <3D_m5.154$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Steve Mentzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>(3) Microsoft re-imaging rip off
> >>
> >>If you are a MS corporate customer, you have Windows 2000 on a PC, and
> >>you re-install the OS, MS want you to pay them again for the software.
> >>The charge is $117 to $157. This is, of course, a blatant rip-off only
> >>possible because of MS's dominant monopoly position.
> >
> >What are you talking about? If you purchase a license of Win2k, you have the
> >right to install that OS on one PC. You can install it 1000 times if you want.
> >As long as it is on the same PC.
>
> You can install *that* copy on one PC. What most companies want to
> do is make one master image with the standard apps installed and
> replace the pre-installed cruft on new PCs with this tested and
> predictable load, paying per copy license fees. Microsoft is
> saying that the license of pre-loaded copy of Window is lost
> when you do this and doesn't reduce the license count that
> must be purchased again. So, the companies get their choice
> of spending an extra day or two hand-installing each PC with
> all the apps and hoping it comes out right or paying twice.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In addition, the licensee loses the hardware vendor's support it paid
for when it bought the machine. The other side is that the hardware
vendor is forced to pay for the copy of Windows it ships, even though it
knows the image will be wiped by the buyer. Ridiculous.
--
Earth is a beta site.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GNOME & KDE, and the motivation for creation...
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:09:25 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nievo$282
> For example, I do both 3D and 2D graphics for a living,
> but often times, I will sit down at my home workstation,
> and start creating a 3D scene, or animation, simply
> because it interests me, and I think it would be fun
> to do.
>
> I imagine that OSS developers experience the same sort
> of elation when they are writing code, that I experience
> when I come up with a cool demo reel idea.
Well, there's a difference between spending a few hours, days or even weeks
working on some bit, and spending years fine tuning and pouring your heart
and soul into something, only to have it rejected.
> Actually, the only real difference between programmers
> and 3D animators, in my experience, is that us 3D types
> tend to be much more pissy and moody, due to our rather
> eccentric artistic tendencies. :-)
I wouldn't say developers are any less pissy or moody.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:12:30 -0500
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8nieb1$pgk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wrong. Having two different ways of doing things does not
> qualify as "fragmented" except to people who are very
> compulsive and controlling.
Having two ways of, say, drawing your title bar captions is not
fragmentation. Having two ways of configuring your system isn't really
fragmentation either (though it's getting closer).
Having two ways of doing something like drag-n-drop or cut-and-paste
certainly does qualify as fragmented. An application probably could be
written to support both, but generally only one or the other is supported.
That makes interoperatbility impossible, and is the definition of
fragmentation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Om
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 04:53:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sphere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[DeCSS snipped]
Not very original. Also, before you pronounce the Hon. Judge Kaplan as
"evil", you should read the entire text of the ruling. Today's decision
was expected by the defense. The Hon. Judge Kaplan ruled on a very
narrow aspect of the DMCA, and left open many arguments that the defense
can present on appeal. He did a damned fine job, even though I disagree
with the outcome. In a nutshell...
1. The DMCA is a product of the U.S. congress, and the Hon. Judge
Kaplan did not feel it was within his venue to overrule congress, to
decide whether the DMCA was a good or bad law. At the time of this
ruling, DMCA was the law, and it was the only law which he was asked to
rule on.
2. DeCss violates the DMCA. Distributing DeCSS violates the law.
Assisting in distributing DeCSS violates the law.
3. The MPAA was harmed by DeCSS. DeCSS let the horse out of the barn.
>From this point in time forward, DVD security is not; and it does not
matter whether it is protection from copying, or distribution control,
or control of fair use. The damage is obvious.
If you'll take the time to actually read the ruling, you'll see that
Judge Kaplan had difficulty with a couple of points that will probably
figure prominently in the appeal. He especially had problems with the
defense argument of fair use, and how the DMCA may possibly breach that
privilege. He somewhat stumbled on the claim of overbreadth, another
issue that interrelates with the doctrine of fair use.
If you honestly give a damn about this, quit making sophomoric posts of
DeCSS and instead contribute dollars to the various defense funds
through the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org). The
right to wear the clothing of your choice is the next MPAA target.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
