Linux-Advocacy Digest #772, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Steve Mading)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Re: Programs for Linux (Steve Mading)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:52:08 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:05:51 +0200, Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><cut>
>
>> I chose my words carefully, I was discussing 1991.
>>
>> There was essentially no internet for home users in 1991, I can't
>> think of any other useful home OS at that time apart from the three we
>> are discussing. There are plenty now.
>
>I disagree, in '91 you could do just about the same stuff with an amiga as
>you could with a wintel based system, or a Mac, or OS/2, in fact, at that
>time the Amiga was probably the only cheap, affordably system you could get
>for eg video titling, or even video editing.
It and the Atari ST were both cheaper than the PC and REMARKABLY
cheaper than the Mac. Both were faster than reasonably priced
Macs or PCs, with better audio and video. Both had a better user
interface than the PC's and a modern architecture.
IOW: no manual memory management.
It's a real shame that the market ignored them in favor of being
"DOS compatible". As if there was really anything that interesting
for the bulk of home users to run on a PC at that time.
>
>It comes down to what the user needs to do, and in my case the Amiga
>fullfills those needs perfectly.
>
>BTW, we could emulate macs even back in '91.
Yup. Magic Sac on the ST was faster than the Mac it emulated.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:55:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christophe Ochal
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 31 Aug 2000 09:33:29 +0200
<0Npr5.405$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>8ojh56$pvm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:qVar5.361$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > <cut>
>> >
>> > > Wow you must be a real computer geek, we all stand in awe.
>> >
>> > LOL thx :)
>> >
>> > > If you were using a Mac or OS/2 in 1991 for personal use, I would not
>> > > call them "alternative" I would call them unpopular. Anything made by
>> > > IBM was not designed to be "Alternative"
>> >
>> > Nope, not a mac, nope, no OS/2 neighter, come on, you can take better
>> > guesses then that :)
>> >
>> AmigaDos? DR-Dos? CP/M? MP/M?
>
>It's called AmigaOS these days :) Ah, the joys of multitasking in 2 megs of
>ram.. :)
>
>Amon_Re
You mean 256K. :-) 128K if one includes pre-released versions
of the hardware.
But yeah, that was kinda neat at the time. (Still is, as far as I know.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Nothing like a SECURE database, is there Bill?
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:56:14 GMT
On 31 Aug 2000 10:44:51 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Steve Mading wrote:
>:>
>:> It seems to me that in this type of situation, the installer
>:> should generate a random, but usable, password from some very
>:> simple scheme, ("Roll a d46, 1-26 equals A-Z, 27-36 equals 0-9,
>:> and 37-46 is the punctiation marks above the numbers", repeat for
>:> 8 characters). Then it could tell you what this password is during
>:> the installation program. Is there any product out there that
>:> uses this technique?
>
>: Why dod that?
>: JUST PROMPT THE ADMIN FOR A PASSWORD.
>
>I assume from this you are also implying, "...and refuse
Nope. The end user should still be able to shoot themselves
in the foot if they really want too. Oracle has already lived
up to it's responsibilities by walking the novice admin through
the process of changing the default passwords.
Anything beyond that is a matter of the free will of the operator.
>to install if the password is obviously a bogus choice that
>was typed in to get through the install" (nil string, "aaaaa",
>"1234", etc) If that is what you had in mind, then yes, that
>makes more sense.
>
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:58:49 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Eric Bennett in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said Bob Germer in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >That is true. Unfortunately for your hero Gates, the anti-trust law
> >> >is
> >> >quite well documented and provides ample notice to anyone with an IQ
> >> >above
> >> >60 that abuse of monopoly power is illegal and that the actions he
> >> >took
> >> >were clearly abusive.
> >>
> >> Abuse of *market power* is illegal. *Possession* of "monopoly power"
> >> is
> >> illegal.
> >
> >
> >You know, I hate to sound like a broken record, but it seems to me that
> >you are forgetting that second element again:
> >
> >====
> >The offense of monopoly under 2 of the Sherman Act has two elements: (1)
> >the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the
> >willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from
> >growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business
> >acumen, or historic accident.
> >=====
>
> No, but you still haven't changed your argument from the last time I
> shot it down.
You are shooting down straw men.
> The second element is "willful acquisition or maintenance
> of monopoly power", and I'm not forgetting it at all. The fact that you
> would like to confound that with growth or development as a consequence
> of superior product, business acumen, or historical accident is obvious.
> But why is it you don't recognize that the law *distinguishes* such
> occurrence from willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power?
> Which is to say that willful possession of monopoly power is not the
> same thing as business acumen, et, al.
I do recognize it.
> >Once again, please note that possession (element 1) does not by itself
> >establish a violation, since the second necessary element could be
> >absent. This is pretty plain language; I can't see why you seem to keep
> >forgetting it and/or misinterpreting it.
>
> No, only the willful possession of element 1 is a violation, as clearly
> expressed by element 2. But I can't see why mentioning that accidental
> possession of monopoly power is illegal is really worth mentioning.
> Particularly because even if accidental possession of monopoly power is
> thrust on you, maintenance of that power is equally criminal.
The difference between us is that you seem to think superior products
and business acumen are "accidental". I do not. I think people
intentionally try to achieve those things, and they are both things that
can preserve monopoly power. (I say "preserve" simply because you
refuse to let me use "maintain" in the popular sense rather than the
legal sense.)
Here, you agree that the exceptions exist, yet you say they are "rarely
worth mentioning" and in fact in your other posts you seem to refuse to
admit that they exist at all, which is why I keep bringing this up.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
If I return people's greetings, I do so only to give them their greeting back.
-Karl Kraus
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: 31 Aug 2000 16:55:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Acquiring or maintaining monopoly power by legal means is not possible,
: by definition. Normal growth or development as a consequence of "legal
: means" (superior product, business acumen, or accident of history) is
: not monopoly power. It is *distinguished from* the willful acquisition
: or maintenance of monopoly power.
False. Monopoly power exists as soon as you have enough of a majority
that dirty tricks ala Microsoft would work *if* you tried them. You
do not actually have to engage in using those dirty tricks to have
monopoly power. You just have to have a large enough majority of
the market that you COULD bully others if you wanted. This is still
perfectly legal if you have the integrity (or enough fear of the DOJ)
to refrain from making use of this bully power. The problem is that
you are equating "monopoly power" with "USE of monopoly power". It's
possible to have it and not use it. Hint: the Sherman act is not
the definition of a monopoly. It's the definition of an *ILLEGAL*
monopoly.
It's like you are equating the capacity to commit murder (like owning
a weapon of some sort or being a martial arts master) with actually
committing murder.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 16:59:47 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:40:39 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 02:55:50 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> [deletia]
>> >Can you say "vertical markets"? The Windows world is absolutely THRIVING in
>> >targeted applications. Case in point, SalesLogix Corporation of Scottsdale,
>> >AZ http://www.saleslogix.com/. Started only a few years ago by Pat Sullivan,
>> >the creator of the Act! contact manager that is not the property of
>> >Symmantec, it has become tremendously successful in the salesforce automation
>> >vertical market. Even the creator's of venerable shareware like WinZip and
>> >ACDSee are making enough to support their families on their own terms. I
>> >don't see how open source benefits the creator -- it's not like you can
>> >really give up your day job.
>>
>> Beyond the utiltity that you derive from your own work, it's not
>> really supposed to. It's supposed to benefit EVERYONE rather than
>> just a select few as current copyright law does.
>>
>> Bear in mind: the only reason that the sort of people who live off
>> of the likes of ACDSee and WinZip might not be able to do so in the
>> future is the abusive practices of larger artificial property holder.
>> Without the lack of balance that has existed in copyrights as of late,
>> people like Stallman would have no audience.
>>
>> IOW: the industry brought it on itself.
>
>You wouldn't happen to have long hair and a penchant for VW minivans would you? :-)
>Just wondering :-)
>
I view excessive intellectual property as a restraint of trade
and technological progress. So your characterizations are widely
off the mark. I'm a pragmatist rather than a Zealot.
An Escalade is more my style.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:01:10 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 12:57:47 GMT, Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >A monopoly which doesn't abuse it's position in the marketplace is
>> >legal.
>> >A monopoly which obstructs trade IS illegal.
>>
>> The definition of monopoly is one who obstructs trade, Aaron. What
>> you're thinking of is "large market share".
>
>Yet another of Max's convenient definitions which suit his inane
>arguments but which don't coincide with any other definition used
>anywhere else in the world.
Nope.
He could have gotten that straight out of Black's Law dictionary
with legal citations and everything...
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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, 31 Aug 2000 13:06:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:24:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>No, competition *on* their API, from other products from other companies
>>that support the *same* API.
>
>Nothing is stopping someone cloning QT ( unless you count lack of interest ).
That would be the only thing that could stop someone, legally. If Troll
Tech is interested in growing a market and making large profits,
shouldn't *they* be trying to get others interested in using their API?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 14:14:41 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:24:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >
> >>No, competition *on* their API, from other products from other companies
> >>that support the *same* API.
> >
> >Nothing is stopping someone cloning QT ( unless you count lack of interest ).
>
> That would be the only thing that could stop someone, legally. If Troll
> Tech is interested in growing a market and making large profits,
> shouldn't *they* be trying to get others interested in using their API?
They are.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:08:00 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:22:48 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Emkr5.2396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Only proves what Windozes really knows about System management (and
>> specially "Eric")
>>
>> Like i said in my earlier replies, "Eric" cant have used Linux at all if
>he
>> persist that it swallows same amount of memory as the monstreous Windows
>> with equal config as to servers and GUI:s
>>
>> Linux is blazingly fast compared to Windows!!
>
>What does "blazingly fast" have to do with how much memory you're using?
>You can be blazingly fast and allocate 200MB's on a 32MB machine, if it's
>done in the right way.
Except nothing from Redmond is likely going to be capable of
this sort of trick...
The real question is whether or not the given collection of apps
is usable given a certain amount of physical RAM and whether or
not there is a lot of paging going on (disk churn).
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Programs for Linux
Date: 31 Aug 2000 17:13:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: It's less flexible and reliable when it comes to odd kernel
: versions, it supports less hardware features, it's not dependent
: on some funky virtual file system and it's supposed to be faster.
VMware is not dependant on some funky virtual file system either,
technically (unless that was meant as a jab at VFAT and NTFS). You
*can* use it on a virtual filesystem in a file, but you can also
point it at a raw partion device file instead. Done this way, you can
have a dual boot set up, and whether you use Windows natively or under
VMware, you get the same filesystem. If you install something while
running under VMware, it's there under a native boot too. I have this
setup because for work I occasionally have to use Symantec Visual Cafe,
and it really blows under VMware - it's a real hog. So I end up having
to native boot NT in order to use Cafe effectively.
I'd love to find a way to do this that did away with the dual-boot,
but Visual Cafe is such a CPU hog that it really blows under emulation.
I have no choice but to use Visual Cafe on this one project that was
started in it (Cafe has proprietary libraries), but I have strongly
argued against it for new projects in the future at work.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
