Linux-Advocacy Digest #607, Volume #28 Thu, 24 Aug 00 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating ("JS/PL")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:16:19 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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:
> "Jack Troughton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
>
> >
> > Answer: there was no distribution channel to market, as MSFT had
> > monopolized the channel.
>
> Huh ? IBM are one of the largest single suppliers of PCs in the world. You
> call that "no distribution channel" ?
Duh. It's all in the finding of fact.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 00:32:31 -0500
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8o08co$1hf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Attempts to port NT 3.51 to MIPS, Alpha, PPC, and 68000 were so
> > bad (lack of ISV support) that NT 4.0 was only ported to the ALPHA.
> > And now, Windows 2000 isn't even available on the ALPHA.
> NT4 ships with PPC and Mips ports. However, I know someone who tried to
> install one on a PPC. Nedless to say, it never showed any hope of
> working. Calling them ports is misleading. Hopeful attempts is more
> accurate.
NT4 ran perfectly on the correct PPC system. Only certain models of IBM PPC
systems were supported.
> > > IPC cannot cause deadlocks in and of itself.
> > > If your apps don't use any kind of synchronization
> > > (such as a semaphore or mutex), then the deadlock is
> > > your own fault.
>
> IPC can cause deadlocks if not properly synchronised.
No, the IPC mechanism is not causing the deadlock. Rex was claiming that
the IPC mechanism itself was to blame. The applications are to blame if
they create deadlocks, especially considering the proper synchronization
tools have always been available.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:16:32 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Is it really so difficult to figure out what I'm trying to find out? Is
> there some part of NNTP I'm not aware of which prevents anyone from
> understanding a question in anything but the most literal (and
> unproductive) manner?
What the fu#$ are you talking about? What does the method of transmission
have to do with content, or lack of in your case?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 01:24:13 -0400
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8o13e4$21d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > -- snip --
> >
> > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget, why
> > > > > are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > >
> > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing to
> > > > USENET?
> > >
> > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would eliminate or
> > > significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants to take things even
> > > farther.
> >
> > When did you get it into your head that having a surplus indicates
> > having a balanced budget? No, either way, surplus or deficit, the
> > budget is not balanced. It's only balanced when expenditures equal
> > revenues.
> >
> > If that's what the Republicans seek, then what's the problem? I sure as
> > hell don't want the gov't sitting on *my* money, interest free. I'd
> > rather spend it on something nice, rather than letting Dems spend it for
> > me.
>
> It isn't really a surplus, it's just money they haven't decided what to
> do with yet. Gore wants better education, targeted tax cuts for the less
> fortunate, better healthcare and debt reduction. Bush wants tax breaks
> for his rich friends and unnecessary defense spending.
You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of spending it
for them!? How absurd! And he wants to defend the country! That's insanity!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 23 Aug 2000 22:43:25 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Pat McCann in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>
> I can't help but see rampant glitches in your analysis. The
> *Constitution* only grants some rights to authors, and all other rights
> to copyrighted or patented works are *explicitly* the public's. More
> accurately, the derivation of the Constitutional responsibility given to
> Congress only provides those rights necessary for an author, which
> Congress and the courts (not the author) feel "promote the progress of
> science and the useful arts". The courts routinely and readily apply
> this over-arching goal in determining the extent of copyright
> protection, most often by observing it in the breach, by identifying its
> limitations.
There must be glitches in my analysis, because you now seem to agree
with it (:^). But it seems to be in conflict with your other theory
about the author having complete control over his work. Oh well.
> >I'd like to discuss this claim: The distribution of copies of a partial
> >program written to an API infringes the copyrights on a library written
> >to that same API when the library was written before the program.
> >
> >We might need to work on the claim. Let me mention a few more things
> >about it.
>
> Yes. We'll need to strike the unworkable concept of "a partial
> program", for one thing. And you are trying to go back to the 'time
> travel experiment', and I'm no longer sure I want to do that. But I'll
> go along as long as your patience holds out, I hope.
It's not "time travel", it's "time invariance"; but I expect I won't
get to that for quite a while.
What's wrong with "a partial program"? What's a better name for a
program without the libraries which make the program complete and
capable of doing what it is designed to do? Do you prefer to call
THAT a program? That's reasonable and I could live with that, but then
you can't call the software that implements all of the functions of what
I want to call the program, the program. If you say the program reads
the command line and it calls the GNU readline library to do that, I'll
complain, because it is the library that reads the command line. I
think it is better to be able to say that the program reads the command
line while the library also does and the partial program doesn't. Get it?
We could also play with "application", but it's probably the same as
program. There is also the problem that the GPL (and statutes?) refer
to any software as a "program".
> >By "written to an API" I just mean that the software matches a set of
> >rules with respect to how the software instructs a computer's switches
> >between running the program and the library and how data is shared.
>
> The functionality, OK. But accessing that functionality requires the
> calling program to 'use' some of the libraries copyrighted matter.
> Notably, the function call names. And if the form of the program is in
> any way determined by the *use* of those function calls, it is a
> derivative work of the library, whether that library as literally been
> coded or not. Unless (or, rather, in addition) the library is a
> derivative of the program.
Can we please get the claim fixed up before we start the analysis of its
validity? The case I want to consider is where the API pre-exists
both the library and partial program and is in the public domain.
(I think all APIs are in the public domain under fair-use
considerations, but I'd like to hold off discussion of that until we
finish with this simpler claim.)
The claim: The distribution of copies of a partial program written to a
pre-existing, public domain API infringes the copyrights on a library
written to that same API when the library was written before the
program.
> >... Some closed-source software is better.
>
> Was that a jest, or a non-sequiter?
You be the judge of that. Sometimes people are referred to as software.
P.S. If I change comp.os.linux.advocacy to comp.software.licensing in
the "Newsgroups:" list, will you still see my posts?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 22:33:56 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What you are suggesting is nothing new, it has been around since the first
timeshare systems. My interpretation of your article is that you will be
reintroducing the old timeshare system that have overall been rejected
because of serious issues of security, privacy, and reliability. Not to
mention the performance bottle neck at centeral unit.
It seems that your have read avout Microsoft.NET and you suggesting a form a
Linux.NET. Microsoft.NET has too many issues for it to work, without one
hell of an expensive advertising campain directed to form clueless userbase
that are unwilling or unable to realize the problems with Microsoft.NET are
indemic with it core to the point that it cannot be fixed with todays
network bandwidths.
How are your planning to handle the bandwidth problem? How are you planning
to get the OS and libraries and other software on a host that is needed to
handle XML without having to install it? Who is going to run the servers?
Were is that data going to be stored? Who will guarentee that one day's
data files will be readable by the programs available the next day? Who is
going to defray the cost of running the servers? etc.
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3q1p5.14319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Here is a few observations:
>
> Linux on the desktop (and as a server) requires it to beat Windows XXX
hands
> down for ease of configuration, security, and management.
>
> Installing software is simply the act of constructing in storage a proper
> representation of the software. In other words, our talking about
> installing software on a computer is like a painter insisting she is
> installing a picture of a duck onto her painting. It doesn't matter how
she
> does it, she is rendering the duck, not installing it.
>
> We need to get rid of install programs, on all platforms. There isn't
> another single thing we do on computers that causes more in dollars and
time
> (Solitaire *is* a close second, however ;-).
>
> XML can be used to define a program in abstract. A single, separate
> Software Rendering Facility can be used to take a program's abstract form
in
> XML and render it to the target computer system.
>
> XML can be used to capture the options required for this rendering.
>
> XML can be used to refer to a group of programs in abstract (XML), and
their
> options (XML), in order to define a single definition that can be
expressed
> in different ways on different computer systems to construct an
operational,
> distributed application. (Unlike today, where we have to install every
web
> server, every firewall, every Java JDK, every etc. all from scratch, with
> one mistake preventing any of it from working!)
>
> This discussion about how XML might be used along with Linux to create a
new
> concept in Operating Systems is beginning. We have the technology and the
> know how. We just have to take our computer system, set it on its side
and
> view it a bit differently. This technology is going to completely change
> the rules of software configuration, management, and security, and you can
> make it happen.
>
> http://www.egroups.com/group/xmlos/
> http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/xmlos/
>
> Paul Snow
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 05:51:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8o13e4$21d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > -- snip --
> > >
> > > > > > If the Republicans did all the work to balance the budget,
> > > > > > why are they trying to damn hard to unbalance it?
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you, ZnU, smoking large amounts of crack before writing
> > > > > to USENET?
> > > >
> > > > Are you really denying this? In just the last few months the
> > > > Republicans have tried to pass two tax cuts that would
> > > > eliminate or significantly reduce the surplus, and Bush wants
> > > > to take things even farther.
> > >
> > > When did you get it into your head that having a surplus
> > > indicates having a balanced budget? No, either way, surplus or
> > > deficit, the budget is not balanced. It's only balanced when
> > > expenditures equal revenues.
> > >
> > > If that's what the Republicans seek, then what's the problem? I
> > > sure as hell don't want the gov't sitting on *my* money, interest
> > > free. I'd rather spend it on something nice, rather than letting
> > > Dems spend it for me.
> >
> > It isn't really a surplus, it's just money they haven't decided
> > what to do with yet. Gore wants better education, targeted tax cuts
> > for the less fortunate, better healthcare and debt reduction. Bush
> > wants tax breaks for his rich friends and unnecessary defense
> > spending.
>
> You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
> spending it for them!? How absurd!
Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
healthy and educated.
> And he wants to defend the country! That's insanity!
Yeah, you never know when the Brits might try to invade again!
Seriously, the major threat to the US these days is terrorism, and the
kind of military spending Bush wants to do doesn't do a damn thing to
protect us from that.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 06:15:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad
> Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > The government is a black hole. They'll take as much money as
> > > > > > > they can get away with and never try to spend it wisely.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The money doesn't just vanish. Unless defense contractors get
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > hands on it, of course.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or government-subsidised health care, of course.
> > > >
> > > > Every other first-world democracy has it; it must have something
> > > > going
> > > > for it.
> > >
> > > Other first-world democracies also spend money on defense
> > > contractors;
> > > they must have something going for them.
> >
> > ...and you might note that most of the countries that have
> > government-subsidized health care are either going broke or are scaling
> > back their care options radically...
>
> ...when it was not necessarily so good to begin with.
>
> Several months ago one of my co-workers and I discussed who we would
> vote for in the primary. I said that I would vote for McCain. She
> professed shock that I could be so cold-hearted as to support a
> Republican.
>
> A month or so later, I walked in when our secretary was discussing
> women's health care with her. She had spent some time in England, and
> she complained about how some man high-up in the bureacracy set the
> rules on how often the government-supported health plan would let a
> woman get some basic exams. It was much less often than the medical
> community considers adequate, and she spouted off about the evils of
> government-directed health plans where men make ill-informed decisions
> about women's health.
Yeah, that's much worse than private health plans where men make very
well informed decisions about corporate profits, with little regard for
anyone's health.
You pay your insurance company money in return for coverage. When the
time comes for them to actually pay some bills for you, it's in their
best interest not to pay. And they can hire better lawyers. That's a
damn bad situation.
> And I was thinking, "this is a person who is going to vote for the
> Democrats here in the US???"
The Democrats? The party that wants to pass a meaningful patient's bill
of rights? Imagine that.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 02:26:02 -0400
"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > You mean Bush wants to give people their money back instead of
> > spending it for them!? How absurd!
>
> Bush wants to make the rich richer instead of helping the poor stay
> healthy and educated.
That's SOOOO OLD. Nothing is that simple. It's more of a 50 year old
democratic slogan than anything. Not even worthy of argument except to say
95% of the poor are in that situation by choice, it's the five out of 100
poor that need a hand.
> > And he wants to defend the country! That's insanity!
>
> Yeah, you never know when the Brits might try to invade again!
>
> Seriously, the major threat to the US these days is terrorism, and the
> kind of military spending Bush wants to do doesn't do a damn thing to
> protect us from that.
Actually the major threat is a first strike nuclear attack from any of the
ever increasing 3rd world nations who are aquiring the technology. A
defense that eliminates the strike mid-launch is the cure. Bush want this
problem eliminated, Gore wants to bury his head in the sand and pretend it
won't happen, let alone WHEN.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
