Linux-Advocacy Digest #805, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: [OT] Bob Germer's Claim Of Welfare Waste Is Highly Exaggerated (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (ZnU)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Eric Remy)
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: How low can they go...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 12:03:13 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> 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.
When addressing key issues in reguards to organizations that I have been
affiliated with, I have always defered to the organization's policy. Rather
than saying anything that could come back to haunt the organization I make
certain that my comments are in keeping with the organizations policies, or
refer the other person to the person or department that is had that has the
can speak authoritivly for the organization. If that is not possible I will
either refuse to comment on the subject or make it very clear that I am
speaking from my own personal opinions as that none of my comments are
representitive or binding on the organization. That is the responsible way
to behave in such matters.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bob Germer's Claim Of Welfare Waste Is Highly Exaggerated
Date: 1 Sep 2000 19:11:18 GMT
In article <39afc28a$3$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) said on 09/01/2000 at 09:51 AM:
>
>> * Maintenance Assistance Administrative
>> Expenditures per Expenditures per
>> Case Recipient Case Recipient
>> 1987 $359.46 $122.93 $45.33 $15.50
>> 1988 370.50 127.17 50.92 17.48
>> 1989 380.98 131.39 53.69 18.52
>
>Typical Algore Democratic lies. Those figures neatly omit the employee
>salaries, office expenses, etc. of the local government agencies which
>administer the federal programs. Add in those costs and my figures are
>well supported as evidenced by Lieberman's own figures at a Senate hearing
>in 1997.
Each of the three following tables gives a value for
every state and every year from 1987 to 1996.
Total AFDC, maintenance assistance payments
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/timetren/ma.htm
Total AFDC, State and local administrative expenses
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/timetren/ad2.htm
Total AFDC, average monthly administrative cost per $1 of benefit
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/timetren/ad5.htm
The values in the three tables are, respectively, payments
to recipients, total administrative costs *including state
and local costs* (according to the chart title), and
(fractional) dollars of administrative cost per dollar
of recipient payments.
You can verify that the number in every (state, year) entry
of the third table equals the quotient of the corresponding
entries in the first and second table.
You can also verify that the ratio of administrative cost
to recipient benefits (third table) averages about 15%.
For example, about 20% for New York, and 9% for California.
This is the "waste" factor, which Germer claimed was 71%.
Finally, you can verify that Germer has not provided any
source for his claimed value of the waste factor, which
is exaggerated over the actual value by a ratio of 470%.
And that for some reason he thinks the Vice President has
only one name instead of two.
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
------------------------------
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 16:21:27 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> > 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.
>
> When addressing key issues in reguards to organizations that I have been
> affiliated with, I have always defered to the organization's policy. Rather
> than saying anything that could come back to haunt the organization I make
> certain that my comments are in keeping with the organizations policies, or
> refer the other person to the person or department that is had that has the
> can speak authoritivly for the organization. If that is not possible I will
> either refuse to comment on the subject or make it very clear that I am
> speaking from my own personal opinions as that none of my comments are
> representitive or binding on the organization. That is the responsible way
> to behave in such matters.
Ok, so, as you can see, the "we are not lawyers" thing was really
honest.
Maybe too honest. Maybe that's why 18 months later they did get lawyer's
advice in the other article I mentioned, and to which the "not according
to their layers" quote referred.
So, I guess this puts you at ease regarding the apparent inconcistency.
--
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 12:09:35 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
Careful of what you ask for! Do you really want Windows 2000 Quarter 1,
Windows 2000 Quarter 2, Windows 2000 Quarter 3, Windows 2000 Quarter 3,
Windows 2001 Quarter 1, ... ?
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 1 Sep 2000 19:16:25 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>>>>>>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
>>>>>>> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
>>>>>>> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
>>>>>>> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
>>>>>>> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
>>>>>>> resulted from NT."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
>>>>>>> systems failures, he said.
>>>>>>>
>>
>>The ship's systems comprise more than an operating system.
>
> Redman is clearly talking about the OS.
He seems to speaks of WinNT specifically in a UNIX vs WinNT comment, but
as he gets closer to specific problems he becomes more vague "software
failures associated with NT". What does he mean by "associated"? Was it
WinNT that failed or a system built around WinNT? The one incident
described showed Win32 applications causing a failure, not the OS itself.
When he speaks of the ship being towed to port he says "systems failures".
Again, a system is much more than an OS. You are making grand and self
serving assumptions that he should have said "operating systems" not
"systems".
>>The part or
>>parts of the system that failed were not identified.
>
> NT is responsibe for the system failures.
That is merely your assumption, as shown above. Additionally, in the one
incident that we have seen descriptions of the blaming of WinNT was
premature.
>>We don't know if he
>>is talking about the WinNT operating system itself
>
> NT == NT.
The above clearly shows that when he gets closer to actual problems he
begins using weasel words when referring to WinNT and for the more serious
failures he refers to the system and make no reference to an OS.
>>or a WinNT based system
>>that consists of the WinNT OS and assorted Win32 applications.
>
> Irrelevent.
Not at all. A naive server app that corrupts a database that is needed by
naive client apps to control equipment can happen on any OS.
>>There is no
>>specific information here,
>
> Just that NY caused failures and the Yorktown has been towed into port
> several as a result.
No, that is your misinterpretation. Being towed to port was blamed on
"systems failures". A "system" is much more than an OS.
>>Your interpretation of conjecture is self serving
>
> Pot, kettle, black.
Not really, you are making assumptions and guessing as to meaning. I am
asking for clarification as to what was really meant so that guesswork is
not needed.
>>I am not saying
>>that general purpose computers have no place on ship.
>
> So then we agree multiple platforms are needed for Smartship.
General purpose computers for non-essential tasks are fine, with rare
exceptions for things like a database or server. Defintely not for the
primary control or monitoring of equipment, local or remote.
>>and that even your scenario uses them a little too liberaly.
>
> Have you done a complete analysis on the needs or SmartShip?? Have you
> taken into consideration the Navy's commitment to controlling costs
> and using COTS. How do the markets compare for embedded vs. general
> purpose platform tools for 1) GUI frameworks for the command and
> control of machinery and 2) a large database engine, several gigs in
> size.
I only advocate the more embedded approach for the primary control and
monitoring of equipment, both at the equipment's location and remotely. I
think this is the wrong area to cut costs.
>>The bridge and other centralized locations would be appropriate
>>locations for the custom solutions.
>
> I believe the Navy is looking for COTS solutions, not custom
> solutions. Nonetheless, some specialized embedded OS consoles would be
> reasonable on the bridge as a backup.
I think we are only disagreeing about which systems are primary and which
are secondary.
>>Supplementing these with machines that
>>do more complex analysis is fine.
>
> But the sailors will not want to move from one machine to another
> while operating the ship.. They will want to do all their work from
> one console. So you might look for application compatability and
> portability between platforms to make the UI's consistent. Vxworks has
> both posix and X API's available.
I don't think they would have to move, I think that the complex analysis
and the primary control/monitoring of equipment will be done by different
individuals.
>>I think the use of the phrase "general purpose" has evolved quite a bit
>>here. What I initially objected to was the use of general purpose WinNT or
>>Unix boxes, ruggedized or not. Yes, a WinNT or Unix kernel could be used.
>
> WinNT kernel is unsuitable for critical real-time embedded
> control. With it's memory leaks, you'll be rebooting your controllers
> on a regular basis. With GDI and all the other crap in the kernel your
> looking at a minimum of a 20MB footprint.
>
>>I still lean towards VxWorks.
>
> For embedded controllers sure. But have you done any development work
> on VxWorks?? If you did you would know why I say it won't support
> highlevel GUI applications very well. VxWorks is also not
> multiuser. So how are you going to implement security?
I fear you are thinking I am suggesting VxWorks at the server/database
end, I am not. I am only referring to control and monitoring stations,
both local and remote. I am suggesting that local and remote stations be
the same and have the same capabilities, the only difference being that
local stations have a ROM with the app for control of local equipment in
case the LAN is down. With the LAN being up any control/monitoring app
could be downloaded from the server.
>>> ... Embedded OS's like Lynx
>>> and VxWorks simply can't support high level GUI's to well ...
>>
>>No, for example:
>
> One narrow example does not disqualify my statement "can't support too
> well"
A consumer device managing a GUI does suggest that the Navy might be able
to come up with one also.
>> http://www.wrs.com/html/esec.html
>>
>> The Sharp Ipmera is a VxWorks-powered device, implements PIM,
>> E-mail, and Web-browsing features, and includes personality
>> modules for the whole family. Furthermore, it has a built-in
>> printer, making it truly a standalone appliance device.
>
> You aren't recommending this for the Yorktown, are you? This is not
> even rugged hardware, it's just a personal internet device ...
It's an example of a capable GUI in a VxWorks based device.
> ... Provide me
> a URL to some COTS rugged hardware, including the graphics
> accelerator, that can run this UI. Also provide me a URL to a COTS
> software product that provides a framework for building GUI machinery
> command and control screens that will run on this UI.
Again, my argument is that developer convenience is a secondary
consideration. A control/monitoring station implemented with VxWorks can
have a capable GUI.
>>Supplemental machines doing useful but non-essential things being
>>implmented differently.
>
> You fail to see there are some essential things that VxWorks can't do
> very well.
Anything you haven't already offered above?
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 19:25:56 GMT
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:04:42 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:20:14 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[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.
>>
>> ....yes, that Troll is a greedy corporate entity that operates
>> under the same charter that any other for-profit corporation
>> does: screw everyone else.
>
>I bet you work for a non-profit, right?
Nope. I just have a realistic view of what a corporation is.
>
>> This is why it's a BAD idea to allow them to own an interface.
>
>Oh, yeah, let's accept companies, except where they bother jedi.
>Really practical.
You have managed to stumble upon one of those rare occasions
where big business and idealists actually have come to the
same conclusion.
It's not just me that finds owned interfaces objectionable.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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 19:29:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Joe
R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Of course, in the liberal tax and spend world, that's not
> unreasonable.
>
> After all, welfare rolls have dropped by something like 75% in the
> past few years. The total cost has dropped by a much, much smaller
> percentage
I imagine it costs more to move people from welfare to work than it does
to just maintain them at a basic level of existence. Obviously it pays
off in the long run.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Eric Remy <[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 15:32:38 -0400
In article <8oou48$1917$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(abraxas) wrote:
>You're wrong, Netscape doesnt ever crash systems running X. It has never,
>ever
>happened to me, and it has never, ever happened to anyone I know, with any
>version of netscape and any version of XFree, accelleratedX and metroX.
>You are
>completely incorrect.
No, he's not. You can now say you've met someone that this has happened
to. I've had Netscape crash X+SunOS multiple times. (Yes, locked up
bad enough to have no option other than a STOP-A reboot.) A few years
back, but it was a major PITA.
--
Eric Remy. Chemistry Learning Center Director, Virginia Tech
"I don't like (quantum mechanics), | How many errors can
and I'm sorry I ever had anything | you find in my X-Face?
to do with it."- Erwin Schrodinger |
------------------------------
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 16:45:42 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 17:04:42 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:20:14 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[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.
> >>
> >> ....yes, that Troll is a greedy corporate entity that operates
> >> under the same charter that any other for-profit corporation
> >> does: screw everyone else.
> >
> >I bet you work for a non-profit, right?
>
> Nope. I just have a realistic view of what a corporation is.
So, you work for a corporation whose charter is "screw everyone else"?
What a sad life.
> >> This is why it's a BAD idea to allow them to own an interface.
> >
> >Oh, yeah, let's accept companies, except where they bother jedi.
> >Really practical.
>
> You have managed to stumble upon one of those rare occasions
> where big business and idealists actually have come to the
> same conclusion.
Allow me to refresh what you said with some added emphasis:
"it's a BAD idea to *allow* them to *own an interface*"
Wake up and smell the coffe, you are in no position to allow
TT to own an interface or not. To compose your ego with
misinformation, they don't own the interface, because
interfaces are not protected by copyright. They own the
implementation.
Also, your statement can be taken as allowing OTHERS
to own interfaces, just not TT.
--
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, 01 Sep 2000 19:38:05 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:09:46 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[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.
Boy are you naieve...
[deletia]
--
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 19:41:01 GMT
On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 12:09:35 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Careful of what you ask for! Do you really want Windows 2000 Quarter 1,
>Windows 2000 Quarter 2, Windows 2000 Quarter 3, Windows 2000 Quarter 3,
>Windows 2001 Quarter 1, ... ?
...better than a random collection of system libraries installed
by a random collection of end user applications.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
