Linux-Advocacy Digest #737, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Excerpt from - Open Source: The Unauthorized White Papers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (2:1)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (mark)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (mark)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (2:1)
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
Re: How low can they go...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Excerpt from - Open Source: The Unauthorized White Papers
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:07:32 GMT
Not bad. It's a bit more corporate than <i> Free for All </i>. The book
from Peter Wayner is more conversational and relaxed. Still, this is a
huge arena that's going to generate plenty of books.
> On developerWorks there is an excerpt from Donald Rosenberg's new book
> looks at the position of Open Source in the broad context of the
> intellectual property wars whose first battles are already being
> fought, and whose outcome may have important consequences for Open
> Source and businesses based upon it. The book, Open Source: The
> Unauthorized White Papers, is intended to acquaint computer managers
> and business users with the nature and uses of Open Source. The book
> also goes beyond business and technical matters to look at the larger
> issues of Open Source that touch everyone, whether they know it or not.
>
> http://www-4.ibm.com/software/developer/library/rosenberg.html?
> open&l=253,t=gr,p=OSfuture
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:15:16 GMT
> >Some recent events:
>
> You realize for each one of these events are are probably 1,000 closed
> source programs being released?
>
There was an article in the NYT recently that pointed out how many of the
estimates of program availability are vastly overstated. Some say there
are 70,000 programs available for Windows, but others say 10,000.
There really aren't many closed source programs released because it's so
expensive to market them. Any old fool (and any old genius) can ship an
open source program in a second. That's not exactly right, but you know
what I mean.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:22:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> >Please answer Aaron's question. Just who or what is posting to Usenet
> >> >under that name if not a real person?
> >>
> >> Please read my answer. I don't care.
> >
> >That's not an answer--that's an evasion.
>
> No, it is an answer, and the only answer I can give because it is the
> only statement which answers the question in context.
Still failing logic course?
There's not context. Either he's a real person or not.
I'm sorry that your grasp on reality is too weak to understand this.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:24:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >LOL This demonstrates that you have absolutely no clue Max.
>
> About taxes? I'll admit I don't know much of the details. As with most
> things, I find that understanding the principles is usually enough
> until, for some reason, I'm forced to deal with the details.
>
And this is classic Max.
"I really don't understand what I'm talking about, but I've learned a
few of the words involved in the discussion so I'll try to pass myself
off as an expert."
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:27:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>
> >How "crafty" do you have to be determine that Married filing jointly
> >automatically gives you a tax deduction of $7100.00 Head of houshold =
> >$6250. This doesn't include the 2700 you get for dependents (including
> >yourself).
> >You are lying again arent you?
>
> No, it doesn't include any of that. Do these still apply if you itemize
> deductions?
Why don't you check?
You made a specific claim and now you admit that you don't know if it
was right or not. That's exactly JS's point.
>
> >You cannot possibly expect anyone to believe you can only manage to come
> >up
> >with 3000 in deductions when the standard deduction is double that.
> >Unless
> >you file long form but don't deduct anything your a liar in my opinion.
>
> It was probably $3K over what the standard deductions would have been,
"probably"?
IOW, you really don't know and you made it all up.
> then, and I figure I could probably have increased that by another $4K
> in deductions had I kept careful records to increase allowable business
> deductions, arranged my investments to provide the minimum taxable
> profile, transferred assets to my son, or any of the other methods which
> a competent tax accountant would have suggested (AFAIK; my primary
> experience with professional accountants was that I dated one for a
> couple years). I could, for instance, have easily deducted a number of
> "home office" expenses, or classified that weekend in Baltimore as a
> business trip by meeting with some professional contacts.
But you didn't meet with those business clients. So, classifying it as a
business trip would have been fraud.
Furthermore, you claimed that a crafty accountant could have gotten you
$4K more deductions. Now you're saying that if you had done a bunch of
things differently you could have gotten another $4K.
AND, you're admitting that with your current situation (by April 15,
2000 you couldn't possibly have changed your investments or travel
shedule for 1999), your $4K statement was a total fabrication.
IOW, you don't know what you're talking about.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:20:17 GMT
> On a 386 or 486 with 4 MB of memory, Win95 is just as fast as Win 3.1
is.
> Win95 is *MUCH* faster than Win 3.1 if you give it a few more megs.
>
> We're talking Windows 95 without anything else. No IE, no FAT32,
whatever.
I've used win311 on a PII/233m it was blindingly fast. But we're going
in circles here. I guess your experience differs from mine.
> Really? I've never hit close accidentally on Windows. Ever. I have,
> however hit the wrong buttons on the MacOS, since they do not give any
> indication of what they do. I always get the rollup button confused
with
> other buttons.
A GUI that is good for one person may not be good for the next. I'm a
bit lazy with the mouse, sometimes I miss.
> Explorer can be configured to put the root directory anywhere. And
you can
How do you do that?
That said, it works differently from the normal instances of it.
> in fact go up higher if you enable the toolbar. You can click the
"up"
> button or choose with the path combobox.
That doesn't work on this computer. I just tried it.
> > That's another inconsistency. it uses a slightly different instanec
of
> > explorer top edit it, if invoked from there,
>
> No, it doesn't. It's exactly the same.
The explorer opened from start->open and start->setings... have the root
directories in different places. That is not consistent. I don't care if
it is good or bad---it _is_ incosistent.
> > You cannot just drag an icon to a running app on the taskbar. You
drag
>
> Apps don't "run" on the taskbar. The taskbar is just a button bar
with
> process names. It makes no sense to drop icons on buttons.
Running apps have buttons on the task bar. It makes sense to drop
something on to the icon of a running app. These are avaliable on the
task bar only, so it makes sense to drop things on to icons (or buttons
if you wish) on the task bar.
> No, you simply cannot drag files onto buttons, anywhere in Win95.
You should be able to drop things on to an icon of a running program.
For most purposes, the buttons in the start bar do not behave like most
buttons (right lcick and DnD ish), so why should you not be able to drag
stuff on to them. OK, so having some buttons that work with DnD is not
very consistent, but they are already unlike most buttons.
> You don't understand. The systray is *ENTIRELY* applicaiton defined.
> Windows doesn't do any intervention there.
Yes, so the behaviour is NOT CONSISTENT. I understand. I do not say that
is good or bad. I merely say it is inconsistent. Please try to
understand this.
> > I have to disagree. Having 2 panes makes it much easier to navigate
than
> > a single unified one. And again, if Apple got it worong, it doesn't
make
> > it OK that MS got it wrong too.
>
> The thing that this doesn't take into account is long file names. 2
windows
> makes your available space to display names much smaller.
Resizable panes help a lot.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:32:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [...]
> >> It certainly not a stupid and unfounded assumption to figure that
> >> hiring
> >> an accountant would have reduced my tax bill.
> >
> >Perhaps. You came up with a specific figure. You said an accountant
> >could have come up with $4K in extra deductions.
> >
> >Name them.
>
> Why? Are you suggesting that hiring an accountant would not have
> reduced my tax bill? If you aren't trying to refute my position, you're
> just trolling.
Wrong.
YOU made a claim that a crafty accountant could have increased your
deductions by $4 K. I'm merely challenging it. Your claim, provide some
evidence.
Particularly since JS/PL showed that your figures were erroneous anyway
and when challenged, you came up with some things that the accountant
couldn't possibly have controlled at the time you did your taxes ("if
only I had visited with some business clients when I went to Baltimore
and invested my money differently").
IOW, you fabricated the entire things.
>
> [...]
> >> Well, you haven't refuted it except by conjecture.
> >
> >I don't have to refute your fantasies.
>
> No, but you have to refute my arguments or my position, or you're just
> whistling in the woods. Deluding yourself into thinking it is a
> fantasy, and denying that I'm willing to reasonable discuss and support
> or modify my opinions, isn't going to get you anywhere.
>
> >You keep making up stupid arguments without any evidence, and when
> >you're asked to provide evidence you shift the blame.
>
> I'm sure you see it that way. I think it is primarily because you
> mistake my intent, and the purpose of Usenet debate. The purpose is not
> to "win" the discussion, but to participate in it. What you would like
Considering that your posts are mostly fabrications, outright lies, and
fact-free, that's a good thing. Your chances of "winning" an argument
are pretty slim.
> to insist is "shifting blame" is me modifying my argument or position in
> order to continue the discussion. The fact that you get so distracted
> by this, and so hung up on picayune trivia (such as whether precisely
> $4000 of additional deductible expenses might be derived from my
> income), it seems obvious you want to "be right" more than you want to
> discuss the issues in a calm and fair manner.
No, the issue is that you keep making stupid statements without evidence
and when challenged, you admit that you lied and made the whole thing up.
>
> Quite frankly, I'm not happy with everything I've ever posted, and don't
> like to be mistaken or in error, which I have been on occasion. But I
> will stand behind every post I've ever made.
ROTFLMAO.
So you've made posts that you know were mistaken or in error but you'll
still stand behind them?
That's as good an example of your irrationality as anything I've seen.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:33:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Courageous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>
> >> > Well, if you had a background in foreign policy, and the temerity to
> >> > post with your real name, perhaps we might care about your belief,
> >> > one
> >> > way or the other.
> >>
> >> That's asinine.
> >
> >You seem deeply concerned that every should all post with what you deem
> >to
> >be a "real name". Why is this?
>
> Because if you aren't willing to place your real identity and reputation
> behind what you post, then apparently you don't have enough courage of
> conviction (no pun intended) to give your words any persuasive power to
> begin with.
That's nonsense. There are good reasons for not using a full name.
Besides, how does anyone know that your name is really "T. Max Devlin"?
Perhaps you're not real......
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:34:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >My real name is John Smith and the PL stands for ummm....Patent Lawyer
> >Are you happy? Does it look as "real" as all the others now?
>
> I'm not a moron, kid...
Then why do you go so far out of your way to prove that you are?
>
> >I'll continue posting with JS/PL so you'll have to create a mapping or
> >host
> >file "so to speak" on your computer to refer to my real name when you
> >see
> >JS/PL
>
> But I believe that you are. I don't care if you don't post with a name.
> I just don't care if you post at all if you don't post with a name. And
> yes, a real name, which refers to a real identity. You know, like
> Timothy "T. Max" Devlin, in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, works for ELTRAX.
What does that have to do with whether he's a real person or not?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:19:51 +0100
In article <StRp5.7794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> I have several Linux servers that run quite comfortably in 64 Meg plus
>> >> as large (128 meg) swap area. High performance workstations running
>> >> Netscape with Memory leaks tends to suck up more memory.
>> >>
>> >Linux certainly does have lower memory requirements. Given that memory
>> >is so cheap it really isn't an issue
>>
>> No, I guess it just pushes up the price of running win2k compared to
>> linux. If you're a small organisation, maybe that's not a problem.
>> If you have several thousands of 'seats', that could come into
>> millions.
>>
>> Not really an issue? Buy Microsoft and keep paying, it looks to me.
>
>You completely missed the point of the statment. It was about *SERVERS*
>You don't have "several thousand seats" of servers unless you are running a
>massively clustered server farm.
>
>Linux Workstations take up the same amount of memory as Windows does if you
>configure them similarly (running X with applications like Netscape, KDE,
>etc..).
>
>
>
>
There is a charge per user, is there not?
Where you have eg., 300,000 seats, how many servers would you be using,
how much would the price go up?
I think the numbers are large, very large with win2k, perhaps not so
large with Unix?
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:27:34 +0100
In article <UpRp5.7793$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >All that is irrelevant. Your argument was lack of source code. My
>argument
>> >is that it's available if you absolutely need it. Price is not an issue
>for
>> >a company like AT&T.
>>
>> Price is an issue for all companies. The idea that large companies have,
>> simply because they are large, infinite funds, is at best flawed.
>
>Price is not an issue in a situation like this. Companies spend billions of
>dollars on redundant hardware. A fraction of that for source liscensing is
>par for the course.
>
>> Or were you joking?
>
>AT&T spends more money on research that it shelves and never uses than it
>would cost to buy a windows source liscense.
>
>
>
>
Budgets in large companies simply do not work that way. The fact that
another directorate can spend millions on project X and then dump it
later on does not mean that I can spend millions on source code from
some organisation - they are quite unrelated.
As someone who has spent[1] millions over the years on R&D, I can tell you
that software licences are budgeted for differently, that the cost may
or may not be capitalised depending on what the code is for, that an
OS (particularly a Microsoft one) is not really germane to Telecoms core
business and that I would find it challenging to raise a few thousands for
whereas I could raise millions for a more "appropriate" kind of product.
Note[1]: as the budget holder, project manager etc., as well as the
system designer in some cases, and the standards writer.
The "blue-sky" research budgets in telecoms are large, and the majority
of the output is not directly used, but most is indirectly useful.
Some examples are well known, such as Unix, 'C', digital transmission
and switching, the transistor, optical amplifiers, and so on. I wouldn't
put source code for windows in the same league as those.
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:33:08 GMT
> > > > Examples of these problems are not hard to find. Start with the
> > > > placement of the window control widgets -
> > > > minimise-maximise/restore-close clustered together is a poor
design.
> > > > The Mac OS9 and prior layout, placing close on the opposite
corner
> > > > from the others is a better design.
> > >
> > > Again, this is subjective. I don't find them to be a poor design
at
> > all.
> > > Anywhere you put them, people will accidentally hit them.
> >
> > It is much easier to hit them accidently in Windows, where they are
next
> > to other commonly used buttons. I used macs for quite a while (a
while
> > ago) and I never _once_ accidently hit close when I didn't mean to.
I
> > cannot (still) say the same about windows.
> >
> Just use the menu, to pick if you want to minimize, maximize or close
the
> window, if you have problems controling the mouse.
I don't have problems controlling the mouse. When I'm in a hurry, I
occasionally hit the close button accidently. It is not difficult to see
how it could be done.
> You do realize how to do that, right?
cat flames > /dev/null, right?
> You can't go up from the Desktop either, so are you going to complain
about
> that next? The Start Menu is the HIGHEST directory that you can edit
the
> start menu.
-the- -instance- -of- -explorer- -used- -to- -edit- -the- -start- -menu-
-works- -differently- -form- -other- -instances-, -therefore- -it- -is-
-not- -consistent-.
Take your time to read the above sentance very carefully. The desktop
is usually the root object. Suddenly the start menu is (unless you right
click on the start menu and choose open) etc. Lack of consistency.
> > That's another inconsistency. it uses a slightly different instanec
of
> > explorer to edit it, if invoked from there,
> >
> The only thing different, is one had a Folder view and the other
doesn't.
> Personally I hate having the folder view open, so I'm glad I can
close it.
Eh? the different explorers have their roots in different places don't
they? They both have folder view open <checks> oops, you're right.
That's 2 inconsistencies then...
> > You cannot just drag an icon to a running app on the taskbar. You
drag
> > the icon on to the task bar, wait for the app to be raised, then
drag it
> > on to the app. That is not how the rest of DnD on win 95 works. The
rest
> > of DnD is consistent with MS's guidelines, this is different,
therefore
> > it does not comply with the guidelines. That is not a handwaving
> > argument. Try it, I did just a second ago.
> >
> You do realize the reason, they didn't do that right or are you
blowing hot
> air? It maybe inconsistant, but it the only USEFUL way MS could
have done
> it.
Why couldn't they have made it so you could drag an object right on to
an icon of a running program in the icon bar?
> EVERY application in my system tray can be access a menu by right
clicking
> on the icon. Double clicking on a icon tends to bring up the program
that is
> running to a window. Why is that inconsistant? Most of the time if
your
> running an application in the systray, you won't be accessing the
program
> often.
Some work with a single click, others need a double click. Some don't
respond to right clicks. I don't have any here on this computer, but I
have some somewhere.
> > I have to disagree. Having 2 panes makes it much easier to navigate
than
> > a single unified one. And again, if Apple got it worong, it doesn't
make
> > it OK that MS got it wrong too.
> >
> It all comes down what you like or dislike. My friend likes to
navigate 'My
> Computer' with ONE folder, and I perfer multiply folders showing. So
I
> would say there is no 'right' answer to the question.
My disagreement was stating personal opinion. I personally don't like
the lack of choice, which is why I avoid windows where I can.
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:35:03 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:42:12 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ogic1$b4d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
>> I think we should try and move all common admin tasks to a web
>> interface. Imagine linuxconf running in Nestcape... I believe people
>> will find it more user friendly then other solutions (with propper
>> development, of course) and since the web browser is becomming somewhat
>> of a standard interface, the user already knows how to use it.
>
>How would that be any better than local or remote execution of an X program
>working with you local X server?
It's independent of any other particular gui standard whether it's
layered on top of X or not.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:50:34 -0300
Missed the original post:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:42:12 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ogic1$b4d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> >> I think we should try and move all common admin tasks to a web
> >> interface. Imagine linuxconf running in Nestcape...
Linuxconf already does that.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:39:25 +0100
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:02:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said David Goldstien in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <8od3o2$5qf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>> >One idea that I don't think is used often enough is to release software
>>> >on a time-delayed open source licence: it is released as proprietary, but
>>> >will revert to open source after a time delay has occurred.
>>>
>>> Sort of like what's happened with some of the older 3D game
>>> engines, such as Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, Descent 1 and 2, and
>>> Marathon 2.
>>
>>You mean "abandonware"? When a company finds it is not financially
>>expedient to support a piece of software anymore, they hand it over to
>>the open source groupies to play with?
>
>I think Phil meant sort of like that, but with an announced up-front
>time period.
Yes: When the software is first released, announced that it will become
open source at a specified date in the future.
>Actually, I did have the thought that Phil's suggestion is actually a
>kind of "patent by convention", in which the limited time of protection
>provides sufficient opportunity to encourage initial development, but
>the relatively short duration (in comparison to the lifetime of the
>potential value of the development) encourages competition.
Good analogy.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
** The RIAA want to ban Napster -- so boycott the music industry! **
** Don't buy CDs during August; see http://boycott-riaa.com/ **
** Spread the word: Put this message in your sig. **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:38:48 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:53:07 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:06:03 +0100, Robert Moir
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >[...]
>> >>
>> >> Slowly and carefully re-read the message you are responding to...
>> >>
>> >
>> >Sorry, Jedi, if I am making a mistake here perhaps you would be kind
>enough
>> >to spell it out for me? The poster was claiming that Windows ME costs
>$289
>>
>> 209 pounds is MORE than 289 USD the last time I checked.
>
>What are you on? All the prices he quoted were dollars.
...the sort that allowed me to see that the symbol next to
209 was infact the "funky L" that denotes british pounds
rather than a US dollar sign.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
