Linux-Advocacy Digest #774, Volume #28 Thu, 31 Aug 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Programs for Linux
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (david raoul derbes)
Re: How low can they go...? (Terry Sikes)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Joe R.")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("Joe R.")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:47:58 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:30:13 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 06:50:48 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Microsoft had an unfair advantage by way of copyright.
>> >
>> >Uhuh... right...
>> >
>> >> They controlled an essential facility. That isn't success
>> >> by being 'better' but success by natural monopoly.
>> >
>> >Look! Over there! It's Linux! Oh and there! Solaris! and Beos! Obviously,
>> >Microsoft is not a natural monopoly, as there are other operating systems
>>
>> So then, where are the apps?
>
>http://freshmeat.net/
>
>> Where are the device drivers?
>
>They're there. Just depends on the exact hardware you have whether it works
>or not right now. Same applies to Windows 2000 by the way.
That still doesn't negate the entry barrier.
>
>> >produced by other vendors, and given enough time/patience you can write
>one
>> >*YOURSELF*.
>>
>> In other words "building a national phone network" is not a
>> barrier to market entry? Sorry, but those that actually make
>> those kinds of decisions have dissagreed with you for over a
>> century now.
>
>The two are incomparable; look at Linux. It was done *for free*. There are
It was done by an entire planet of programmers that got sick
of a monopoly. Much of it was also done by others, some of
which have a distinctily non-capitalist axe to grind.
Besides, the success of a planet wide volunteer effort doesn't
exactly validate the existence of a free and open market in
systems software.
Infact, the fact that the only viable challenger to Microsoft is
such a "non-market" entity rather confirms my point.
>plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI. What are the barriers to
That is just a lame excuse & post factum argumentation crafted
to suit your pre-determined conclusion.
>entry? Please describe them. Currently all you seem to be able to do is say
Proprietary media encodings: Sorenson, divx, DVD.
Proprietary file formats: msword, msxcel.
Proprietary programming interfaces: DirectX,Win32.
That 'owned' programming interface also restricts the cabal of
3rd parties that might otherwise migrate to a new compeitor as
Oracle or IBM might migrate their databases to Linux.
>"Look over there! Phone network!" and then you fold your arms smugly as if
>saying that is enough to win you a standing ovation. Where are the barriers?
>
>Writing an OS requires a hell of a lot less resources than building a phone
>network. Phone systems cost trillions over hundreds of years. OS's? Maybe a
>couple of thousand. Maybe less. Maybe more. Depends on the scope.
A couple of thousand?
Who are you trying to kid, clueless?
--
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:
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: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:51:52 GMT
On 31 Aug 2000 17:13:51 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
That is a relatively less tested configuration. A couple
months ago it was a "use at your own risk" feature. Whereas
Merge is a more mature product that has been doing that sort
of disk access for longer than vmware has been around, or even
in production.
>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.
A basic VFS with everything else mounted to a local smb is a better
option IMO.
>
>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.
>
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[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 19:04:32 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:32:45 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >The feasability of your argument is your concern. You shouldn't assert
that which you
> >have no idea how to back up. Personal experience is fine although
anecdotal unless you
>
> So? Where is your original OS install disk?
>
> Would it even fit in your current machine if you managed
> to find it? Mine wont.
Thats not what you claimed at the start. You were implying that you could
not install on a bare machine at all, not that under certain circumstances
you may have problems.
>
> [deletia]
>
> The avoidance of such bullshit is why I typically don't bother
> with upgrade media unless the price difference is really quite
> drastic.
Now here we agree.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[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 19:08:14 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
I sometimes still miss my ST... lol
------------------------------
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 15:20:14 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 13:51:57 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On 31 Aug 2000 04:45:50 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >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 ).
> >> No, Trolltech has made legal threats.
> >
> >Terrible legal threat: "we can't guarntee we eill not sue".
>
> ...which individuals who don't have the financial resources
> to deal with a lawsuit must take into consideration.
Of course. What they shouldn't be is surprised. Noone will ever
guarantee they will not sue anyone else.
It's not a threat, it's a statement of the obvious.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:12:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
Apologies. This is off topic and very long.
>Then please explain why results from private schools are so good when
>the average private school salary is lower than public school
>salaries....
>
>Sure, you'll argue lots of things and given your history maybe 10% of
>your arguments will make sense.
>
>But private school results make it clear that high teacher salaries is
>NOT essential for a good education.
Despite my frequent disagreements with Joe R. on many topics, and his
implied (and not so implied) insults hurled my way, I agree with him
on this one.
Salary is *not* the most important determining factor in obtaining
and keeping talented faculty. It is absolutely true that the salaries
at private schools, usually, are not as good as those in public schools
(there are of course exceptions, e.g. the best boarding schools in
the country pay astonishingly well.)
It is usually a much easier job to teach in a private school, which is why
the salaries can be lower. T. Max was wrong to suggest that there is no
market for teachers. There is a very competitive one, but it frequently
requires relocation. New York imported math and science teachers from
Austria. San Francisco is building subsidized apartments for teachers.
New Trier near Chicago will pay teachers ten grand signing bonuses.
So what is it that private schools have going for them? Many things:
(a) Usually far fewer discipline problems. This is in part because
(b) Parents have to pay money out of their pocket to send their kids,
and most of them will be damn sure that they are getting their
money's worth.
(c) Usually a smarter and better educated clientele (who, after all,
have somehow found the bucks to send their kids to the private
school.)
(d) Almost always much less daily bureaucracy and paperwork, and
greater autonomy granted to teachers in private schools.
(e) Frequently, teachers whose degrees tend to be in English, math,
French, etc as opposed to education degrees. Many of the
ed. degree teachers I know are better teachers, but they don't
know as much of the material as others who have degrees in
the content of their courses.
(f) The talent pool is larger. I have taught high school for nineteen
years, and college for two. I have a Ph. D. from an internationally
renowned university. I am not qualified to teach in the Chicago
Public Schools, because I have never earned a teaching certificate.
Frankly, many (by no means all) of my union colleagues (and I am
a union member) are very glad that the teaching certificate is
required. I'd be much happier with examinations and actual evidence
of teaching skill, as opposed to courses on "the philosophy of
education" which seems to me to change with the weather.
I don't wish to offend my colleagues, but it is usually easier to
make a scholar a passable teacher than to make a teacher a passable
scholar. Some are both. Some are neither.
Certainly private schools have their own set of problems. For example,
discipline can be a real problem. We don't have kids who are carrying
weapons, but we do have kids who are very difficult to manage.
Sometimes principals and heads of school are very reluctant to discipline
these kids, because their parents might withhold sizable contributions,
or call out their high-powered lawyers, or in other ways throw their
weight around. The public schools are largely immune to this sort of
pressure.
It is worth noting that the Catholic schools do as well as many of the
gee-whiz, high priced schools (like mine.) The Catholic schools are
not free, but they aren't very expensive.
So I have a very radical way to improve the public schools. No joke:
Bill the parents a small amount of money, say a hundred bucks, for
each kid. I guarantee you this would produce dramatic changes in the
behavior of the parents, and thus in the kids. People hate to waste
money. When the education is "free", some people take it for granted.
As Ben Franklin, no fool, put it: What we obtain too cheaply, we
esteem too lightly. Freud said that the payment was part of the
therapy, IIRC.
Finally, vouchers. As many of you may have seen, there are now studies
from three states indicating that minority students, particularly
Hispanic and African-American, do better in private schools. I think
vouchers are a great idea, *provided* that *extra* taxes are implemented
to pay for them. The bad thing about vouchers is that the money for
them, at present, comes out of public school budgets (so far as I
know.) Competition is good, but I don't want to hamstring the public
schools by stealing money from them. Also, even with the vouchers,
many private schools remain out of budget reach for many poor families.
Being basically a liberal, I am very comfortable with making the
education my daughter's getting, and I in part am providing, for every
American. I can afford to send my daughter to my own school, so that's
where she goes. It seems to me inherently unfair that equally good
opportunities are denied many kids because their parents can't afford
them. The public schools can be made better. This will, (sorry, Joe)
require more money; but it doesn't necessarily buy better teachers.
There is also a fear with vouchers that the better students (and perhaps
better teachers) will bail out of the public schools, leaving only the
terrible and less capable behind. But of course, the public schools
can improve. Here's proof.
There are some really excellent public schools out there,
the equal of any private education in the country. Stuyvesant,
Bronx Science, Hunter, Music and Arts, Brooklyn Polytechnic in NY,
Blair in Silver Spring, Thomas Jefferson in Alexandria, Euclid
near Cleveland, New Trier and IMSA here in Illinois, Ben Franklin in
my home town of New Orleans... The list is not that short. What
these are, others can become.
In many cases the determining factor is parents who are at least
middle class, well educated, and politically savvy. These parents
work hard with their kids and for their kids so that they will
succeed. And succeed they do.
David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>So much for your arguments.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Sikes)
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: 31 Aug 2000 18:12:52 GMT
In article <FCwr5.42307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The two are incomparable; look at Linux. It was done *for free*.
Exactly. No for-profit company in its right mind would have attacked
Microsoft on the OS front (no comment about Be;). Apple has stayed
the course, and is now about to jump on the Unix bandwagon also.
Linux never would have existed without the decades-long industry
investment in Unix...so I think this argument is a non-starter.
>There are plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI.
How many apps written by for-profit companies (granted this list is
growing fast lately - but also remember that many of these titles are
ports from other Unix flavors).
>What are the barriers to entry? Please describe them.
Virtually all new Intel compatible computers sold ship with Microsoft
operating systems. Investors are (understandably) nervous about
taking on a company with 95%+ marketshare. Microsoft also has a long
track record of rapaciously attacking new competitors using
underhanded tactics.
Is that enough for now?
>Currently all you seem to be able to do is say "Look over there!
>Phone network!" and then you fold your arms smugly as if saying that
>is enough to win you a standing ovation. Where are the barriers?
See above.
>Writing an OS requires a hell of a lot less resources than building a
>phone network. Phone systems cost trillions over hundreds of
>years. OS's? Maybe a couple of thousand. Maybe less. Maybe
>more. Depends on the scope.
"A couple of thousand"?!? You mean person-years, right? ;-)
Don't forget about device support, the hardest part.
Terry
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:32:59 GMT
In article <8om2mm$p7u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
You have to forgive Max. He's easily confused.
Someone gave an example. What if you discover a previously undiscovered
mineral and build a mine to recover that mineral. You then sell it.
Since no one else has a mine for that mineral, you have a monopoly.
There's nothing illegal about it.
Or, another example. You invent a new device that does something no one
else has ever accomplished. You put it on the market and millions of
people buy it, but a competitor can't duplicate it either because it's
too hard to copy or because of patent protection.
Again, a legal monopoly -- until you do something illegal to keep others
out.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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 18:37:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> 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...
He could have, but he didn't.
Instead, he made up a definition which bears little or no resemblance to
the real one.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 11:52:28 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:30:13 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:> Besides, the success of a planet wide volunteer effort doesn't
> exactly validate the existence of a free and open market in
> systems software.
>
> Infact, the fact that the only viable challenger to Microsoft is
> such a "non-market" entity rather confirms my point.
OS/2? Hello? MacOS? OS X?
Define Viable.
> >plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI. What are the barriers to
>
> That is just a lame excuse & post factum argumentation crafted
> to suit your pre-determined conclusion.
No, it's not.
> >entry? Please describe them. Currently all you seem to be able to do is
say
>
> Proprietary media encodings: Sorenson, divx, DVD.
Really? Microsoft didn't invent any of those. They are not
Microsoft-proprietary.
> Proprietary file formats: msword, msxcel.
Documented in MSDN -- certainly, Star Office, AbiWord et al have no
difficulty reading them.
> Proprietary programming interfaces: DirectX,Win32.
Mmmmmm... well, given that any OS will have its own proprietary programming
interfaces, that's a given.
> That 'owned' programming interface also restricts the cabal of
> 3rd parties that might otherwise migrate to a new compeitor as
> Oracle or IBM might migrate their databases to Linux.
Really?
> >"Look over there! Phone network!" and then you fold your arms smugly as
if
> >saying that is enough to win you a standing ovation. Where are the
barriers?
> >
> >Writing an OS requires a hell of a lot less resources than building a
phone
> >network. Phone systems cost trillions over hundreds of years. OS's? Maybe
a
> >couple of thousand. Maybe less. Maybe more. Depends on the scope.
>
> A couple of thousand?
>
> Who are you trying to kid, clueless?
Have you ever tried? All it takes is time.
Who are you trying to kid? You just claimed that DVD, DivX and Sorenson
encoding were MICROSOFT creations forming a barrier to entry.
Oh... and which market is it a barrier to entry to? You have to define that
too.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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 11:55:32 -0700
"Terry Sikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8om774$59r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <FCwr5.42307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The two are incomparable; look at Linux. It was done *for free*.
>
> Exactly. No for-profit company in its right mind would have attacked
> Microsoft on the OS front (no comment about Be;). Apple has stayed
> the course, and is now about to jump on the Unix bandwagon also.
>
> Linux never would have existed without the decades-long industry
> investment in Unix...so I think this argument is a non-starter.
>
> >There are plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI.
>
> How many apps written by for-profit companies (granted this list is
> growing fast lately - but also remember that many of these titles are
> ports from other Unix flavors).
Linux is a difficult target for for-profit companies, because it doesn't
have as much market-share as Apple, and it's perceived that if it's not
free, people won't use it.
> >What are the barriers to entry? Please describe them.
>
> Virtually all new Intel compatible computers sold ship with Microsoft
> operating systems. Investors are (understandably) nervous about
> taking on a company with 95%+ marketshare. Microsoft also has a long
> track record of rapaciously attacking new competitors using
> underhanded tactics.
>
> Is that enough for now?
No. How is this a barrier to entry? Because VC companies aren't interested?
That's not a barrier.
> >Currently all you seem to be able to do is say "Look over there!
> >Phone network!" and then you fold your arms smugly as if saying that
> >is enough to win you a standing ovation. Where are the barriers?
>
> See above.
>
> >Writing an OS requires a hell of a lot less resources than building a
> >phone network. Phone systems cost trillions over hundreds of
> >years. OS's? Maybe a couple of thousand. Maybe less. Maybe
> >more. Depends on the scope.
>
> "A couple of thousand"?!? You mean person-years, right? ;-)
>
> Don't forget about device support, the hardest part.
Support ATA. Support SVGA. Support SCSI. Support keyboard/mouse drivers.
Support SoundBlaster. Support USB. Support NE2000 compatible ethernet cards.
Hey presto -- you have 99% of the hardware out there.
Simon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
