Linux-Advocacy Digest #803, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split ...)) ("Joe R.")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:57:16 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:45:06 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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,
That's no excuse. "private email" can be supbenoed.
[deletia]
You always act mindful of your words. Although, I suppose
we should be grateful that Troll is not great at this.
Otherwise their actual character would be less well known.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:09:46 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> 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.
I prefer to have Qt's source code. If you prefer not to have it,
don't look at it and it's solved.
If your trouble is, as it seems, that it makes it hard for you
to clone Qt, that's your problem, not TT's, not mine, not
KDE's. Yours.
Now, don't say that just because TT doesn't do what would make
your own goals easier, they are somehow "false friends" of
those who don't share the goal of cloning Qt. They are just
not your friends. Tough cookies.
[snip jedi's childish software collection and assorted stuff]
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
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 18:00:58 GMT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:28:06 +0200, Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
><cut>
>
>> Plus, since 'no one can get away with not buying Windows' anyways,
>> there's really no compelling reason to put barriers in place of
>> those of us that actually know what they're doing.
>
>What, you think everyone should *buy* winblows? With what use? A cupboard
>holder?
No, I'm just saying that the intallation media should be less
user hostile for those of us capable of doing system wipes
and building our own machines.
A Quarterly driver update would be a good idea two.
A Quarterly OS update would be even better, but that's not
something I would ever expect a megacorp like Microsoft to
ever do.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Can you believe this??? (was Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re:
Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...))
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:02:17 GMT
In article <8ooln3$282k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe R."
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps if you understood just how important it is for some public
> >> > debt to be out there you wouldn't be so quick to say pay off all
> >> > the debt.
> >> >
> >> > for starters, us bonds are considered a risk free investment. Now
> >>
> >> Only by idiots. Considering that if you buy government bonds, you
> >> forfeit the *routine* capital growth in the stock market. A
> >> well diversified stock portfolio is MUCH less risky than government
> >> bonds.
> >
> >Depends on your definition of risk, I assume, as well as your time
> >frame.
> >
>
> Time frame is irrelevant. with bonds you know the time frame you'll get
> your money
> in when you buy the bond.
True. But as Aaron pointed out, you don't know what the money will be
worth when you get it back.
>
>
> >But regardless of how you define it, a portfolio with both stocks and
> >bonds is less risky than 100% of either one.
> >
>
> not true. risk is whether or not you'll get your money back.
Depends on your definition.
Some people define risk more broadly than that.
If you read any financial magazines, you'll see comments like "the
'safest' place to put your money is in an FDIC insured savings account
at 2% interest. Unfortunately, with inflation averaging greater than
that, you're taking a greater risk with your money than a more
'aggressive' investment.
That's actually a pretty universal position among investment advisors.
> not whether or not you'll maintain purchasing power. two different
> things.
> especially if you are looking at my statement of govt. bonds being a
> risk-free investment
>
> the reason they are risk free is that you'll get your money. 100% no
> worries.
True. But that doesn't negate the fact that most current financial
advisors go one step further than you have and consider the risk of loss
of buying power.
>
> how about those folks that bought redhat at 300 bucks a share? how are
> they feeling
> these days?
Probably a lot worse than the ones who bought Apple at 12 (before split).
None of which is relevant. Aaron isn't arguing that bonds are riskier
than stocks. But you should consider the risk of inflation in your
investments.
>
>
> >>
> >> Government bonds are dollar denominated.
> >> In contrast, stocks are backed by hard assets. If inflation
> >> wipes out 50% of the purchasing power of the dollar, the
> >> government bond has lost 50% of it's value. Meanwhile, the
> >> stock doubles in price...thereby keeping it's real value.
> >
> >Unless you buy inflation-indexed government bonds -- which may be the
> >lowest risk option of all.
>
>
>
------------------------------
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 18:03:25 GMT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:38:55 +0200, Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:%Mpr5.403$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > >
>> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > >> There are few things more annoying than the requirement to
>> > > > >> sequentially install various versions of a software product
>> > > > >> due to such 'upgrade licences'.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Yes. That would be why you do not have to do this with Windows
>> upgrade
>> > > > >products, I'd imagine. You can install on a "bare" machine with an
>> > upgrade
>> > > > >product.
>> > > >
>> > > > Nope.
>> > >
>> > > Prove your point. "Nope.", just doesn't cut the mustard.
>> > >
>> > > You can install on a "bare" machine with all current upgrade products.
>> > Just insert
>> > > qualifying media when prompted.
>> >
>> > Aha! but what if you own a comcrap, or a packard hell? You probably
>won't
>> > *HAVE* the qualifying media, because they put all that crap on their
>> restore
>> > CD's
>>
>> The OEM licence isn't transferable anyway. So even if you could take your
>> compaq restore cd and install the OS on a different computer you'd be
>doing
>> it in violation of the license agreement. That's why Full OEM versions
>cost
>> 40 bucks.
>
>So you're saying that you can't install an upgrade onto the *bare* disk of a
>comcrap or packard hell?
>(You can if you know some tricks tho, not telling tho)
>
>> Full non-oem versions are transferrable to any machine (or person) so long
>> as only one copy is installed.
>
>I wasn't talking about installing onto another machine, reread my comment
Yes you are.
From the point of view of a licence manager, a fresh machine is
another machine. That's why the licence matters moreso than
whether or not the end user was manipulated into buying a previous
copy of the OS.
Besides, most PC user are manipulated into buying their OS just
like Mac Users do anyways... So that's no real distinction.
--
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]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:14:15 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:45:06 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[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,
>
> That's no excuse. "private email" can be supbenoed.
And had this particular private email been subpoened, who would
care about it? Who would subpoena it? On what trial? In behalf
of who? After all, both the sender and the receiver had copies!
Notice how you don't care that this private email was, in a grossly
lack of netiquette, posted in a public list.
> [deletia]
>
> You always act mindful of your words. Although, I suppose
> we should be grateful that Troll is not great at this.
> Otherwise their actual character would be less well known.
You have such a grudge against KDE and TT (I'm afraid partly because
of me), that you see evil everywhere.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
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, 1 Sep 2000 10:58:05 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
There is the ever popular "no comment".
> 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.
...
> The TT lawyers said different, apparently.
...
> Not, according to their lawyers.
Ah! You admit that Troll Tech does have legal counsel. Then the argument
that they are programmers and not lawyers is proven false by your own words.
Troll Tech programmers could use ther legal counsel's assistance is forming
an answer tot he question that would protect whatever right they want to
protect and also set the matter to rest for one and for all without
employing FUD.
> Had motif 2 been under a licensing/cost situation where we would have
> found it usable, and had it been a toolkit we enjoyed using, why
> wouldn't we use it? That's trivial.
Was Lesstif the free clone of Motif ever considered?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:17:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:23:16 -0700
<8on0pk$5s4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I think X also opens a Unix socket -- I'd have to look -- which
>> is also local. Shared memory might also be used.
>>
>> /tmp/.X11-unix/X0 looks slightly suspicious that way. :-)
>
>Yes, samething for the font server.
Might be, although fuser suggests it was opened by X (fuser returns X's
proc ID). I'd have to dig to figure out how it's used; perhaps
Xlib source code might be instructive (XOpenDisplay(), after all,
has to actually find and talk to a socket to set up the connection).
ls -l /proc/<pid>/fd suggests that X is opening a lot of sockets.
I don't know if it has to open one per client (for its end of
the socket connection), or what, although another ls -l sure suggests
that it does.
>Of course the unix socket is still
>networking but limited to one host only. That is known as unix domain
>networking as opposed to internet domain networking.
Yeppers -- and of course the name spaces are totally different;
Unix domain networking uses pathnames, whereas TCP/IP uses /etc/host
entries, DNS, and a few other things which I don't know at this time.
(Compatibility? What's that?) Sigh...but both work reasonably well.
>The shared memory
>depend on Sys V IPC and the particular protocol layered upon it is generally
>called mitshmem, although there have been a few other names for it.
Let's hope they're complementary. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
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 15:26:04 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Not if they are asked. What should they do? Ignore the question?
>
> There is the ever popular "no comment".
Yes. And I would be very surprised if they had used it.
> > 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.
> ...
> > The TT lawyers said different, apparently.
> ...
> > Not, according to their lawyers.
>
> Ah! You admit that Troll Tech does have legal counsel.
Well, yeah. Please notice that between one thing and the oher, a year
and a half passed. And they hired legal help to change the Qt license,
of course. My guess is that the GPL was one of the licenses considered
and the lawyers said it wasn't smart, but that's a guess.
> Then the argument that they are programmers and not lawyers is proven false
> by your own words.
Well, you can't prove false what others say based on what I say. You
could
believe Eirik and not me ;-) Also keep in mind that between one email
and their official position on GPLing Qt many months passed.
One is an email composed apparently without lawyers help. The other is
a corporate position statement apparently with lawyers help, 18 months
later.
> Troll Tech programmers could use ther legal counsel's assistance is forming
> an answer tot he question that would protect whatever right they want to
> protect and also set the matter to rest for one and for all without
> employing FUD.
They did not because it was just a personal reply to a personal email.
Maybe the person writing that email rushed. That shows how non-lawyers
they are. I reply lots of emails without asking my company's lawyers,
and I bet so do you.
> > Had motif 2 been under a licensing/cost situation where we would have
> > found it usable, and had it been a toolkit we enjoyed using, why
> > wouldn't we use it? That's trivial.
>
> Was Lesstif the free clone of Motif ever considered?
It didn't exist at the time, at least in a usable shape.
Not to mention that programming Motif sucks rocks.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
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 18:17:10 GMT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 13:26:38 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >> Proprietary media encodings: Sorenson, divx, DVD.
>> >
>> >Really? Microsoft didn't invent any of those. They are not
>> >Microsoft-proprietary.
>>
>> Microsoft controls them. They are Microsoft-proprietary, for all
>> intents and purposes.
>
>They are nothing of the sort. Apple holds sole rights to Sorenson, DivX and
>DVD are, IIRC, controlled by companies like JVC, Philips and Sony. Not
>Microsoft. They just licence the technology necessary to implement a
>player.
DVD is more of a 'big player' technology that is kept under
a tight leash. While the DVDCCA have claimed to be open
regarding licencing, they have ignored requests from the
community. The same is true of Sorenson. Divx may just be
an implementation issue.
However, they all represent the essential problem in software:
marketshare over everything. If you aren't the biggest, people
dont' tend to want to bother with you since most competiors
aren't interchangeable.
They aren't perfectly replaceable. So there is an opportunity cost
merely associated with having product to sell for other competitors.
This is an effect of owned interfaces (not divx, but Win32).
>
>> >> Proprietary file formats: msword, msxcel.
>> >
>> >Documented in MSDN -- certainly, Star Office, AbiWord et al have no
>> >difficulty reading them.
>>
>> PTTHTHTHTHH! "Documented". Ha!
>
>Obviously, you are presenting your typical argument of ignorance, since the
>file formats are documented.
Then one has to seriously wonder why separate word processors
on Win32 itself are an issue. If it were all that simple, then
msword could be easily ripped out and replaced with wordpro.
Then there's the issue of the usefulness of the documentation in
question and how much of it depends on the underlying application.
>
>> >> Proprietary programming interfaces: DirectX,Win32.
>> >
>> >Mmmmmm... well, given that any OS will have its own proprietary
>programming
>> >interfaces, that's a given.
>>
>> Ever heard of POSIX, sweetheart?
>
>Sure have, darl, pity it's not especially helpful.
It's enough to support the infastructure you are using
to post these messages with.
>
>I await your detailed explanation of how to write anything more involved
>than commandline Unix apps with POSIX. POSIX doesn't even include X, IIRC,
>let alone equivalents to things like DirectX and OLE.
Actually it does.
Although, X itself is an open standard as is Motif,
Corba and OpenGL.
DirectX is primarily used for getting around abstract APIs
and OLE is of limited usefulness given the way most Windows
applications are constructed.
>
>> >> 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?
>>
>> Yes, really.
>
>Fascinating. Please explain how.
They code they wrote for Win32 becomes useless once
they decide they want to support another operating
system.
[deletia]
Win32 is still stuck being an os for a single machine
that was obsolete years ago: IBM PC.
--
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.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 18:21:25 GMT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:43:06 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>> MS simply benefits from the fact that whatever the reasons,
>> obtaining DVD support for Linux is *illegal*, thus giving
>> Windows one more advantage over alternatives.
>
>Obtaining DVD support for Linux is not illegal. All someone has to do is
>liscense it. The problem is that Linux DVD player sales are not likely to
>pay for the cost of liscensing.
No, the problem with a Linux DVD player is that the DVDCCA would
never be happy with a Linux DVD player as Free Software and
anything less would be unacceptable.
I don't want to be tied to kludge klones any more than I would
want to be tied to WinDOS.
Of course, this all begs the question: where is the BeOS licence
for DVD? The lack of one is actually quite suspicous and lends
creedence to the rumours that the DVDCCA are blowing off the
smaller OS companies (just like Apple & Sorenson).
--
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.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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:24:57 GMT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 01:05:33 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist
>> >inside
>> >> > the kernel. Thats the point.
>> >>
>> >> That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
>software
>> >> that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
>> >> computer.
>>
>> *ROFL*
>
>I suppose you're one of those people that think user mode apps can't crash
>the system under any circumstance?
If it's a real OS.
Otherwise, the OS is either defective by design or has a bug.
--
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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:27:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >The public perception != your perception.
>>
>> I is the public. The public am me.
>
>You are either some sort of ego monster, or a massive split
>personality.
Or...
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
