Linux-Advocacy Digest #802, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? ("Rich C")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Forrest Gehrke)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:30:33 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:20:55 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:04:55 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:17:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[deletia]
>> >But also fails to mention that they would not take action against
>> >cloners--leaving a lingering fear of litigation, uncertainty if the act of
>>
>> Also, it's well within Troll's capacity to merely not make statements
>> that might serve to chill the atmosphere around a free QT clone. The
>> fact that they always retain the right to sue is trivial. They retain
>> that regardless of the statement of their intent. So merely restating
>> the obvious is gratuitious.
>
>Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
People do that all the time when they wish to avoid
saying something potentially bad for PR purposes.
These aren't a bunch of shoeless hillbillies we're
talking about here. This is a corporation.
>
>> So, to view such threats of litigation lightly is unwarranted.
>>
>> >cloning Qt would be safe or not, doubt as to the intent of Troll Tech in
>> >this matter. The effect to limit or eliminate the desire to directly
>> >compete with Troll Tech by developing a competing drop in replacement for
>> >Qt. What large company do we know of that has employed such tactics?
>> >
>> >Could you explain how Eirik' response addressed Carl's concern?
>> >
>> >
>> >> >It isn't clear that you can "license" an API specification, so it's not
>> >clear
>> >> >that your requirement is even legally binding. The reason they kept their
>> >> >mouths relatively shut was for fear of saying something stupid.
>> >>
>> >> Like what he just said. Apparently, he doesn't get the idea of what is
>> >> meant by the concept "free market competition", any more than most of
>> >> the Microsoft defenders do.
>> >
>> >Attention pronoun confusion, who is the :he" in "...he doesn't get..."?
>> >
>> >> The second one, at least, is nightmarish. The first one might as well
>> >> be "GPL QT", which is begging the question, I'm afraid, though its a
>> >> suggestion I'd support, if I could figure out how TT can still make
>> >> money. I can't, off the top of my head, but the same goes for me. I
>>
>> The GPL wouldn't harm TT. Infact it would rather protect it. The
>> GPL prevents others from arbitrarily assilimilating a particular
>> bit of sourcecode and profiting from it as if it were there own.
>
>Read Qt position on the subject. It's in linuxtoday's archives.
>TT's legal counsel has suggested that the GPL would not prevent
>development of proprietary closed source software based on Qt.
>
>> THIS is primarily what a commercial entity such as Troll would
>> seek to avoid. This could ensure that ultimate control of the
>> core standard could rest in the community without allowing ANY
>> commercial entity to even use the GPL version of QT as a shared
>> library without 'giving away the farm'.
>
>The TT lawyers said different, apparently.
Given the state of Troll's licences, I'm not convinced they
even have a lawyer.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01 Sep 2000 11:35:37 -0600
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >Apple liscenses the MacOS based on the ROMS. MacOS will not install to a
> >machine without ROMS.
>
> Every purchaser of a Macintosh gets a license to run the MacOS *free of
> charge*, literally. MacOS *will* install on a machine without ROMs.
> You just can't buy a Macintosh from Apple without ROMs, and part of the
> OS is in the ROMs, not the disks.
>
> According to the current legal precedent as I read it, Apple would not
> have a claim should someone reverse engineer their ROMs in order to
> produce Mac clone computers. This disassembly (though possibly not
> direct decompiling) would probably be covered by the copyright issues
> discussed in Vault v. Quaid and Sega v. Accolade, allowing for anyone
> who has a reasonable justification for reverse engineering and even
> copying software (whether in ROM or disk file) in order to compete on
> production of a non-protected work (the Mac 'platform').
This is all moot anyway; MacOS X does not use ROMs anymore.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:45:06 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:20:55 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:04:55 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >> >
> >> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >> >On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:17:48 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> >But also fails to mention that they would not take action against
> >> >cloners--leaving a lingering fear of litigation, uncertainty if the act of
> >>
> >> Also, it's well within Troll's capacity to merely not make statements
> >> that might serve to chill the atmosphere around a free QT clone. The
> >> fact that they always retain the right to sue is trivial. They retain
> >> that regardless of the statement of their intent. So merely restating
> >> the obvious is gratuitious.
> >
> >Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
>
> People do that all the time when they wish to avoid
> saying something potentially bad for PR purposes.
> These aren't a bunch of shoeless hillbillies we're
> talking about here. This is a corporation.
Notice that the original so-called "threat" was in private
email between one of the trolls and one of the Harmony guys,
which said harmony guy later leaked. It was not any sort
of corporate statement of any kind, but a message from
a programmer to another replying to a question.
What I posted here was, IMHO, damage control done
after that.
[snip a lot]
> >> THIS is primarily what a commercial entity such as Troll would
> >> seek to avoid. This could ensure that ultimate control of the
> >> core standard could rest in the community without allowing ANY
> >> commercial entity to even use the GPL version of QT as a shared
> >> library without 'giving away the farm'.
> >
> >The TT lawyers said different, apparently.
>
> Given the state of Troll's licences, I'm not convinced they
> even have a lawyer.
I have never seen anyone argue that the QPL is inconsistent with itself
or legally void, or extremely vague, which I have seen about the GPL.
In fact, the QPL is about as clear a license as they come.
At least in that aspect, the lawyers sure did a nice job.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:24:51 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OK, POSIX and OpenGL. Keep going. We'll lick this monopoly yet. What
> do you have for distributed computing applications and clustering?
RPC?
The Beowulf Project? http://www.beowulf.org/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01 Sep 2000 11:42:29 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:qILr5.467
> > > Microsoft implemented their Kerberos exactly how the specification
> > defines.
> >
> > So what was all the fuss about then?
>
> If you don't know, you shouldn't be making comments about it.
>
> FYI, the "fuss" was because MS didn't document their extensions, which the
> standard did not require for the extension field.
When you purchase a bag of nails, it doesn't say "Don't dump the
contents of this bag on the nearest road"; but, afterall, it is the
polite thing to heed.
Microsoft didn't document their extensions because they want to lock
people into using Windows 2000. Any apologists who denies this is
living in denial himself.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:42:21 -0400
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8onde9$fj7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8omtoc$u6h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <L8%q5.2197$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Kernel 2.4, KDE 2.0, GNOME 2.0 (or Helix or whatever...), will all
be
> > > > released at least 2-3 months from now.
> > >
> > > Yeah, but I'd rather wait until kernel 2.4.4, KDE 2.2, and Gnome 2.2
> > > (among other things) are packaged together before I fork over for
> > > another commercial distro -- not to mention that I'm never buying
> > > another distro that's not at least in the x.1 stage anyway (having had
> > > my ass burnt by Mandrake 7.0).
>
> I'm using Mandrake 7.0 and am quite happy with it. I'm holding out for a
> newer release too :-}
>
> > > That won't be for at least another 6-12 months...
> >
> > It seems that the speed of open source development lately is causing [me
at
> > least] the same sort of headaches as the Microsoft upgrade cycle: there
are
> > just too many versions coming along too fast to justify _paying money_
for
> > each one as it comes out.
>
> Actually, much of the "slogginess" has to do with hte commercialization of
> Linux, rather than the Open Source process itself. Essentially, there is
a
> big push to get 2.4 running on every thing at about the same time.
Really? I tend to think it's more that the commercialization has generated
genuine interest, and that interest has sped up development. After all, it's
not the Red Hats and Calderas that are driving kernel, GNOME, and KDE
development, is it?
>
> The current "betas" are pretty darn stable, but that's typically for a
> distribution on certified hardware, and with no commercial support.
>
> It looks like Linux 2.4/KDE 2.0/GNOME 1.4 implementations are going to be
> coming out right AFTER Windows ME. It looks like we'll be seeing a major
> media blitz featuring corporately funded ads for both ME and Linux.
>
> I'm very excited about the next few months of Linux, and the tools that
will
> be available.
Me too. I am very excited by KDE 2.0 and the 2.4 kernel. Not to mention the
real time extensions for Linux that I'm working with now. Soon you'll be
able to use a PC for hard real time audio and video editing and mixing,
without having to worry about modem or NIC activity causing pops in your
media stream.
>
> It appears that ME will also be a memory/cpu/drive pig, and while there
may
> be some people perfectly willing to throw out their P-III/700 and slower
> machines with ONLY 128 meg of RAM and ONLY 10 gig hard drives for an ME
> machine that will provide video-editing (this is supposed to be
original?),
> really spiffy games, and even more "Operating System Extensions".
My "last" version of Windows is 98. No SE or ME for me. And Win2k will have
to get a whole lot better before I'll even consider it.
>
> Meanwhile back at the ranch, Linux is still running quite nicely on 30-60
meg
> machines with 200 Mhz Pentiums, and 6 gig hard drives (for "Everything" in
the
> SuSE 6.4 offering).
>
> Ironically, the OEMs can only make a profit on the smaller machines if
they
> stop handing out $200/machine to Microsoft.
>
> Meanwhile, the really big machines can run Windows 2000, Linux, and/or
> Windows 9x, and all at the same time.
>
> Windows 2000 was an underwhelming undertaking. It didn't even boost
> Microsoft revenues enough to keep them flat, it hasn't even recovered it's
> development costs, and it hasn't even captured a substantial portion of
the
> NT 4.0 base.
I guarantee you that any company that has done a Win2k rollout has closets
full of hardware that is too feeble to run it. Perhaps this hardware could
be put to good use by Linux users. (I know from experience that these
machines are in the PII/300 range...plenty fast enough for our uses.
>
> ME seems to be another understatement. Microsoft isn't saying much,
> and they are previewing quite generously, but there doesn't seem to
> be an overwhelming reason why someone MUST upgrade to Windows ME.
>
> Meanwhile, the OEMs, who are hot to sell some new hardware, can offer
> Linux, preinstalled and preconfigured and fully operational, as something
> Radically New and Different. Sure, there are 40-50 million people who
have
> had varying degrees of exposure to Linux, but I must admit that even I
hadn't
> seen a fully functional version of Linux until very recently.
>
> There were many features I just didn't care about (sound, USB, ipchains,
> samba, squid...)
>
> And I found Netscape frustrating for things like posting to dejanews.
>
> Recenttly, I got all the goodies working, got KFM working on Dejanews,
> and started using the kde mail program. It's really quite impressive.
What version? I found that with KDE 1.1.3 or whatever comes with RH 6.2,
Kmail crashed A LOT.
>
> Now, if I could just get winmodem working on my Thinkpad 600, I'd be
> one VERY happy camper. :-).
>
> > Consequently, with Microsoft, I picked and chose
> > my releases, and usually bought every OTHER release. With Linux, I just
> > download the new stuff, and by the time I've fiddled with it until it
works
> > and gets integrated with my system (something I could have PAID to have
up
> > front I guess) I'm ready to get the next new bit. It keeps me pretty
busy,
> > but it would keep me poorer if i PAID for every new version/toy that
came
> > along.
>
> I just got my cable modem and used Mandrake's update program to load
> the latest stuff. That's one of the reasons KFM now works. I also got
> Netscape 4.75, and I've been playing with some new toys that came to
> my attention because of the updates. The nice thing was that all I had
> to do was click the mouse a few times.
>
> > The good part is that, instead of the new versions of Wimp-dows(OSSM)
being
> > somewhat more stable, bigger, slower, and breaking all the programs I
had
> > previously bought, the new versions of GNU-stuff are slicker, faster,
lots
> > more stable and never break older programs (as long as I keep ADDING the
new
> > library versions instead of replacing them :o) )
>
> That's what usually gets people. Unlike Windows, Linux supports
mechanisms
> for running multiple versions of the same library, running subsets of
legacy
> libraries, and still managing the memory space.
That's the great thing about having multiple environments. While I was
fiddling with (and breaking) my QT libraries, I was still happily chugging
along in GUI mode with GNOME. No need to resort to console mode at all
(except to use RPM to force a Koffice install.)
>
> Supposedly with ELF, if you strictly adhere to the entry point order, you
> should be able to run older applications on newer libraries. Some vendors
> think they will save a few nanoseconds if they eliminate the extra
call/jump,
> but vectors make the whole system much more managable. Typically, the
> biggest problem is when they break one library into two smaller ones.
>
> Depricated functions are a pain in java, Windows, and pre-elf, you'd think
> people would learn not to depricate.
>
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
[sigsnips]
------------------------------
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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:43:05 GMT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 10:06:07 +0200, Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>8om9pu$og0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:30:13 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:> Besides, the success of a planet wide volunteer effort doesn't
>> > exactly validate the existence of a free and open market in
>> > systems software.
>> >
>> > Infact, the fact that the only viable challenger to Microsoft is
>> > such a "non-market" entity rather confirms my point.
>>
>> OS/2? Hello? MacOS? OS X?
>>
>> Define Viable.
>
>OS/2 is dead, and MacOS runs on PPC only, MacOS X has an x86 version, that's
>got no GUI
>
>> > >plenty of apps, if you can stomach the bad UI. What are the barriers to
>> >
>> > That is just a lame excuse & post factum argumentation crafted
>> > to suit your pre-determined conclusion.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>
>I like gnome :)
>
>> > >entry? Please describe them. Currently all you seem to be able to do is
>> say
>> >
>> > Proprietary media encodings: Sorenson, divx, DVD.
>>
>> Really? Microsoft didn't invent any of those. They are not
>> Microsoft-proprietary.
It doesn't matter. Microsoft, owning the largest interface,
get's access to all of them by default. Whereas everyone else
has to scramble for breadcrumbs. This includes the 'mediaOS'
Be as well as QNX which even has a DVD player but no Sorenson.
>
>divX WAS develloped by M$
>
>> > Proprietary file formats: msword, msxcel.
>>
>> Documented in MSDN -- certainly, Star Office, AbiWord et al have no
>> difficulty reading them.
>
>Got an url? :)
...or better yet: sourcecode in posix format that will losslessly
convert from some other formats to msformats and back again.
>
>> > Proprietary programming interfaces: DirectX,Win32.
>>
>> Mmmmmm... well, given that any OS will have its own proprietary
>programming
>> interfaces, that's a given.
So? They still serve as a barrier.
Meanwhile, not 'any' OS has it's own proprietary programming
interface. All of the Unixen share a common API base. Also,
part of that API base is even shared with the likes of VMS,
Apple, BeOS and even Win32.
Infact, Microsoft's own 'network API' is just a Unix standard
kludged to work with the 16bit version of Windows. NT5 even
has a BSD "hosts" file.
>
>Yea, but are there freely available explinations of those API's?
>
>> > 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?
>
>Wasn't IBM already doing just that?
Infact there is an article in this months Infoworld about the
whole DB2 versus Oracle on Linux thing...
>
>> > >"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.
...and time costs money.
Otherwise, it's a Free Software project and not really within
the realm of the corporate or of conventional capitalism. Even
the work of the Free Software Foundation has a value in terms
of engineer hours and dollars. That value is by no means small.
>
>He was talking about a commercial product i think
>
>> Who are you trying to kid? You just claimed that DVD, DivX and Sorenson
>> encoding were MICROSOFT creations forming a barrier to entry.
No, that was just a red herring on your part. DVD, DivX and
Sorenson are just peripheral barriers created by the central
one (Win32). They are just a sampling of the "national phone
network" I alluded to.
I also never claimed that the "barrier" in question was all of
Microsoft's making. That bit YOU MADE UP. Otherwise, Microsoft
exploiting that barrier might seem less unfair. As it is, they
are profiting from the labors of others and the difficulties
involved in transfering those labors over to other competitors
of Microsoft.
>
>Again, iirc divx is M$ their 'artwork'
>
>> Oh... and which market is it a barrier to entry to? You have to define
>that
>> too.
>
The one outlined in Judge Jackson's finding of fact: that market
in which all consumer microcomputers have existed in. This "barrier"
stunted Apple, killed Atari and Commodore, buried the Adam, GEOS
and GEM and undercut OS/2. Unix only thrives because it is an open
standard and there is lots of 'non-market' effort being expended
at it's maintenance.
--
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
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:54:53 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:37:45 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:44:19 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> Oh, come on, for something about harmony, I'd go to the harmony mailing
>> >> list archives, it's not too big a guess :-)
>>
>> ...where you would see them discussing an alliance with RMS
>> to ensure that when the jackboots from Troll come they don't
>> get all squashed...
>
>Any references? You know, I did read a fair amount of the archives
>looking for the reference I provided, and saw nothing like that.
>
>> >What about if someone did not know that harmony was involved in the
>> >citation? What is someone does not know the location of harmony's archives
>> >or even of the exitance of the harmony mailing list? What if someone had
>>
>> ...sounds like Roberto...
>
>Are you saying I didn't knew harmony was involved in the citation,
>didn't knew the harmony archives location, or didn't knew the existance
>of the harmony mailing list? Because all three are obviously false.
>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> The accessability of the commercial QT code leaves much fertile
>> ground for lawyerly abuse on the part of Troll.
>
>I suppose you prefer closed code.
When there are strings attached: YES!
Better true enemies than false friends.
Besides, if you think I am against proprietary code in
general then you really haven't been paying attention.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The top shelf:
Hopkins FBI,Civilization CTP,Railroad Tycoon II,Myth II, Eric's
Ultimate Solitaire, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Heretic II,
Unreal Tournament (from everythinglinux.au), Quake III, Theocracy,
Heavy Gear II, Terminus, Reel Deal Slots, Soldier of Fortune, Quake.
The second shelf:
Quake II, Decent 3, Applixware 4.4.1, WordPerfect 8, Applixware 4.3.7,
Wabi 2.2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now, at least if the code were closed there would be no possible
dispute regarding whether or not the clone created was infact done
in a 'clean' manner. Also, actual standards are good. They allow
for proper interoperability between competing implementation and
the freedom to choose who is the best competitor. Linux exists as
an effect of the existence of a proper standard, as does the
libraries Troll gets to use for commercial exploitation.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:58:38 GMT
david raoul derbes wrote:
> 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.
"stealing"? David, let's take just an example. Assume a school district has
10,000 students and vouchers take away 2000. Are you saying that whatever
budget this district had is now to continue unchanged? Wouldn't a smaller
student population require, for example, fewer teachers? Your bias as a
school teacher is showing.
Recognizing that the district is still stuck with the same bricks and mortar
and other overhead, the voucher usually offered is about a third of
the per student cost of the district. Here in New Jersey the city of Newark's
per student expense is more than $9000 (and Newark's tax collection is well
short of that--so the rest of us pay most of that--and we hear of school
district
administrators riding around in limosines and attending seminars in Hawaii).
It got so bad the state had to take over the Newark school district.
BTW that student expense exceeds nearly every school district in NJ, including
that of Mountain Lakes, one of the more affluent towns in the state where I
pay
a hefty real estate tax.
This voucher controversy concerns schools in the ghettos of our major cities.
Their school dropout rate generally is in the range of 80% . This is an awful
waste, not only of resources but more of all these failed students who will
not represent job employment at decent wages. Their very high unemployment
rates in the midst of rates for the rest of country at 4% attests to this
waste. It is time the adamant stand of the NEA teachers union is not allowed
to override this serious national problem. I don't see this as a
Liberal/Conservative
controversy, which it has become. What's liberal about this? It's a labor
union
dispute by a rich union that has taken over the Democrat party, no less.
//
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
