Linux-Advocacy Digest #810, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:34:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >I see where your attempting to go. Show me a EULA
>> >example, and I'll tell you what the qualifying hardware is, because it
>> >will explain it in that certain EULA.
>>
>> They're all pretty much the same.
>
>Wrong.
>
>I hate to break it to you, but EULA's are not "all pretty much all the
>same". Liar.
You'll have to substantiate that. I've read at least the relevant
portion of probably half a dozen EULAs on various OEM systems (looking,
of course, to see if they were all the same). I'm neither lying, nor
mistaken, in pointing out that all 'per computer' OEM EULA licenses for
Windows operating systems are essentially identical in this respect, to
my knowledge. If you have evidence to the contrary, please describe it.
>>And none that I've ever seen
>> mentioned anything other than "the computer system". As in
>> (paraphrasing; I'm sure not going to track it down for JS/PL) "this
>> product is part of the computer system on which it was purchased".
>> Something about being purchased as a bundle. Certainly no mention of
>> "motherboard" or "hard drive".
>
>Who said there was mention of "motherboard" or "hard drive". Liar.
What else, precisely, would you expect would be relevant to the original
question, which was "what is a computer?" What are you expecting,
modems and sound cards?
[...]
>> Boy, are you confused. If it doesn't mean that the BIOS is qualifying
>> hardware, why precisely do they look?
>
>Ask the manufacturer, not me, or do what you usually do and make something
>up. Liar.
I'm not so entirely ignorant of how computers work that I would believe
a manufacturer if they gave me an answer which was contrary to the
facts. The facts are, that Windows installation programs are neither
tailored to the BIOS (though the installation itself is tailored, from a
standard installation template, for BIOS and motherboard resources,
etc.) nor are Windows licenses in any way definitive of what "a
computer" is.
>> >That's the gist of it. I'm not going to waste time
>> >arguing the minute details of certain EULAs until you scan and post a
>> >particular one. I'm certainly not going to sort through a wall of boxes
>> >looking for an old OEM EULA.
>>
>> Why bother, when you can just mis-remember it to suit your fancy, and
>> then confabulate it with OEM driver installations?
>
>Then show me a OEM EULA. You do the legwork. Or will that destroy another
>of your lies again?
No, its your leg work, I'm afraid. I'm not even willing to become
concerned over whether you call me a liar in an effort to get me to do
it for you. I cannot "show" you a OEM EULA, if you cannot view one for
yourself. All I could do is type in the text of one or copy and paste
it, and you'd be free to insist that it is either inaccurate or
misrepresentative. There's no way I'm going to ever convince you of
something you don't want to be convinced of, and you've got a whole lot
of stuff tied up in your conviction that I'm wrong and unreasonable, and
simply don't want to be convinced by me of *anything*.
[If I were a real troll, I'll point out to the supposed reader, I'd use
this fact, that there are many people who don't want me to be right
about anything because they don't like my attitude or style, to provide
a great deal of entertainment. By picking truly outrageous claims and
pretending to support them, I'd be able to get people to argue against
the silliest things for weeks on end. I'd prefer to push deeper towards
a real discussion of issues and concerns, though; my position may seem
flakey at times, but its not, and I am not merely pretending to support
them when I provide an occasionally excessive amount of analysis and
quoted material in explanation of my claims.]
I am aware that EULAs make no mention of particular hardware by way of
defining "a computer", and thus no identifiable way to define a
"different computer", not as an argument from ignorance but as
knowledge. I don't need to be convinced otherwise, I just need to be
shown some reason to suspect I might be wrong. I can always be
convinced, by reasoned argument and information, so I'll still invite
you to do the legwork and try to do so, if you'd like.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:34:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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.
Forgive the Funkenbusch, Christophe; some of us are less bone-headed.
>FYI, the "fuss" was because MS didn't document their extensions, which the
>standard did not require for the extension field.
Microsoft tried to implement Kerberos in a way designed to
'de-commoditize' the standard. The term comes from Microsoft documents
describing similar strategies concerning Linux as a whole. Microsoft
"adopts" the standard, ostensibly to provide interoperability, but with
nefarious and ulterior purpose. Then they "extend" the standard, by
implementing additional functionality and hinging their (monopoly)
client and server operating systems (yes, both) and office and workgroup
software (both monopolizing, as well) to the extensions. Everyone
(meaning programmers, in proxy of consumers) wishing to use the
'benefits' of these extensions is locking their product into Microsoft's
version of the standard. Additional changes to the OS and application
software, then, to further 'extend' the standard (now past any control
of the original specification, generally unlike the original
'extensions') then become *someone else's* compatibility problem, as
Microsoft's 'version' is tied to the monopolizing products. Microsoft
now as "assimilated" the standard, making it, essentially, a proprietary
Microsoft product; in order to interoperate with the majority of other
implementations of the standard (also Microsoft), a vendor must try to
play catch-up to Microsoft's ability to "churn" their specification.
They tried to do this with Kerberos, but couldn't get away with it very
cleanly. They didn't quite manage to derail Kerberos, but they now use
a pseudo-Kerberos (which they, of course, call Kerberos) for NT
authentication in RAS and such. They did, however, inhibit development
of 'real' Kerberos, because any system which tries to use 'real'
Kerberos is now only partially inter-operable with Microsoft's
'Kerberos'. You can thank the monopoly for the lack of secure extended
access solutions in modern computer networks, especially corporate and
carrier networks. These days, the most widely known such solutions are
RADIUS, which is used ubiquitously for Internet dial-up authentication
(ever wonder how *every* dial-in port in a national ISP can know your
password?) and some system mostly used for routers and such called
tacacs.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:34:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said lyttlec in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Christophe Ochal wrote:
[...]
>MS implemented its extensions to break everyone not using the MS
>version, which was only available if you were running an MS OS. Their
>extensions were kept secret behind a no-reverse-engineering EULA. The
>Kerberos team made a mistake in thinking that people could be trusted
>with freedom.
Yes, but everyone else made the mistake of thinking the EULA was valid.
A no-reverse-engineering clause in a license for copyrighted material
(software, obviously) seems to be in direct opposition to the decision
of Vault v. Quaid, 1988. The Kerberos team made a mistake in thinking
that a monopolist can inhibit freedom.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 16:34:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:qILr5.467$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > They're proprietry codecs. You know, the types companies spend millions
>> of
>> > dollars developing and perfecting and like to see a bit of financial
>> > reimbursement for their efforts.
>
>> Then why not allow people to actually *USE* them on alternative platforms?
>> If there were a DVD player for the Amiga i'd have a DVD-Rom drive by now
>
>They do allow them to use them on alternative platforms... it is
>called a license. What part of that do you not understand?
>
>(This post reflects in no way my personal opinion on
>"free" software - please do not assume that I am against "free"
>software).
I don't think the problem is so much that I might presume you are
against free software; its more that what you are saying indicates you
don't understand free software.
The licensing of DVD encoding technology is a "double-wrapped"
copyrighted work inside a trade secret license. If the licenses are
sold non-discriminatorially and inexpensively, there isn't really much
of a problem with that, from the outside. But it is certainly quite
contradictory to the concept of free software, which was essentially
developed to combat precisely that kind of profiteering on information.
The people who wrote a method for encoding DVDs do not have the right to
restrict access to information stored on DVDs using their method or any
other, and therefore do not have the privilege of either "allowing" or
denying the use of their copyrighted software on one or any 'alternative
platform'. If works of copyright are published using such encoding, the
end user has all the license they need to the DVD software required to
read it; they are, Constitutionally, free to implement that software
wherever and however necessary to access the product which they
purchased, regardless of any agreements or arrangements between the
producer of the DVD and the authors of the DVD encoding software.
At least that's what I expect the legal argument to be, essentially,
though it will probably be horribly warped by 'popular wisdom' before
most people will ever learn about it.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:41:21 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Joe R." escribió:
> >>
> >> In article <8omrk3$be2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > : Not necessarily. They have a substantial market share. If they are not
> >> > : very careful (and they know this), their large market share alone could
> >> > : provide them with monopoly power,
> >> >
> >> > Not just *could*, but *DOES*. One does not need to excercise a power
> >> > to have a power. You are essentially saying monopoly power doesn't
> >> > exist unless it is actively being used right now..
> >> >
> >>
> >> That's the problem with arguing with Max. He actually DOES believe that.
> >>
> >> For him, it's impossible to differentiate between "having a monopoly"
> >> and "abusing a monopoly" in spite of very clear court cases provided
> >> numerous times which say that you have to do both to be guilty under
> >> U.S. law.
> >>
> >> For Max, the mere fact of having a monopoly should make you guilty.
> >
> >According to one of his latest posts, there is a felony called
> >"attempted monopolization" :-)
>
> "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine
> or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of
> the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
> shall be deemed guilty of a felony"
>
> It's called the Sherman Act, Roberto, Chapter 1 of Title 15, Section 2.
This refers to specific kinds of monopoly. Not all monopolies fall in
this
clause. It's not true that attempting a monopoly is automatically a
felony.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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 20:36:43 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:09:35 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:45:42 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[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:
>> >> >> >> >> >
[deletia]
>> >> 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.
>>
>> Most people do. My life is not sad just because I don't need
>> to dellude myself about the true nature of things. If anything,
>> you are the pathetic one needing some Matrix kept over your eyes.
>
>If you really believe your employer is out to screw everyone else,
>then you should become some sort of unabomber. Or else, you are
>working to screw everyone else.
Self-interest exists in various states of enlightenment.
Some corporations are less enlightened than others.
That and you have no imagination.
>
>> Perhaps it is to keep you sane. Perhaps you merely can't handle
>> the real world in all of it's gory.
>
>My company is out to earn money. It sometimes involves screwing, in
>some ethical ways, some. Not out to screw everyone else.
Everyone but the shareholders. The "owners" come first. Anyone
else's have to be subservient. If you aren't careful, those
"owners" will collectively beat you up otherwise.
Mind you, gratuitious nastiness usually isn't good for the bottom
line. Although some corps don't seem to realize that (Troll, MS).
It was never in Microsoft's self interest to do many of the things
that led to an army of Liliputians storming their ramparts. MS
is a great example of a completely un-enlightened self interest.
>
>> >> >> 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
>>
>> You are still quite dellusional.
>
>So, you ARE in a position to allow TT to own an interface?
>And *I* am delusional?
No, but in aggregate I am in a position to make it irrelevant.
Considering the upfront cost of commercial use of QT, that really
isn't too hard.
>
>> Or is english a second language for you.
>
>More like a fourth, but I manage.
>
>> >misinformation, they don't own the interface, because
>> >interfaces are not protected by copyright. They own the
>> >implementation.
>>
>> Sure they do. Otherwise they wouldn't feel confident in
>> suing Microsoft for the instance where they would infuse
>> Harmony with cash and 'embrace and extend' it.
>
>Read the quote again. They said they "might consider", not
>that they were confident, and the embrace and extend was
>embrace and extend Qt, not Harmony. How inaccurate.
QT is the interface as well as it is the code.
>
>> Interfaces are defined in sourcecode, unless they are
>> codified elsewhere. QT is not such a beast.
>
>What beast? Go learn about copyright law. APIs are not
>copyrightable.
Where they are stored is.
[deletia]
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:49:05 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> [...]
> >I indeed try to cover my inadequacies most of the time.
> [...]
> >Care all you want, makes no difference.
> [...]
> >Which goes to show what a bad reader you are.
> [...]
> >Indeed I think you are a liar.
> [...]
> >"KDE is a commercial enterprise [...] that's the god's truth" ain't
> >honest inquiry where I come from.
> [...]
> >Indeed.
> [...]
> >Hilarious.
> [...]
>
> Quit ankle-biting! If you can't string two sentence together to explain
> your response, then you don't have a response.
If I can answer briefly, I do so. The good, if brief, twice as good.
> >You put no "could" or "maybe" or "perhaps" or "I believe" or
> >"in my opinion" there. What was declaring it tentative?
> >
> >Oh, right, "that's the god's truth" makes it tentative!
> >What a load of crap.
>
> Not tentative. Ridiculous.
You said (where you deleted) you had declared it tentatively.
So, it was not tentative? If it was not, then it WAS stated
as fact, was it not? If it was, how was it?
> [...]
> >The context adds, nothing to it, in my opinion.
> [...]
> >Yeah, I forgot the guffaw.
>
> >"Roberto is an amateur whore" is not defamation?
>
> Yes, "Roberto is an amateur whore" (if it were an accurate quote, which
> it is not) is not defamation.
It's fairly accurate. It lacks an ellipsis, though.
Now, calling me a whore doesn't unjustly injure my reputation?
I suppose it doesn't because noone takes you seriously, right?
> >"Screw KDE, it's a commercial (whatever, I can't recall)" is defamation
> >of the KDE project (maybe defamation only applies to persons, sorry
> >english is not my main language).
>
> Technically, defamation doesn't apply only to persons. In fact, I think
> the term is more often used as it applies to groups (the Anti-Defamation
> League is a large anti-anti-semitist (?) organization). What prevents
> that remark from being defamation, despite the fact that it is false, is
> the fact that it was not unjust injury of the good reputation of KDE,
It indeed injures the good reputation of KDE.
> but merely echoing the less-than-good reputation that KDE has.
That's arguable.
> It certainly wasn't 'politically correct', but it was not defamation,
> either.
According to your definition, I believe it was.
> [...more ankle-biting snipped...]
> >> >> Just don't hit the "Reply" key (or is it too late for that?)
> >> >
> >> >I don't take orders from you.
> >>
> >> Too late, eh?
> >
> >For what?
>
> Gee, I don't know. Maybe you should try using your reading skills to
> figure it out.
Well, if you don't know what you are talking about, why should
I bother?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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 20:42:06 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:12:59 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On 1 Sep 2000 02:02:42 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 19:14:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >>>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> >>>>
>> >
>> >>So just how does that jibe with "we can't guarantee we won't sue"
>> >>(assuming this was an accurate quote)? I don't expect anyone would ask
>> >>for any such guarantee to begin with.
>> >
>> >Wrong, Max. Your house of cards is collapsing under its own weight and
>> >it's not the first time.
>>
>> Not quite.
>>
>> Troll gave a particular scenario in which they would sue.
>> That scenario sounds rather like the GNOME Foundation.
>
>No "they would sue", but "they might consider suing".
>And how is it similar? Just curious.
This is just quibbling.
>
>> You just may gloss over it due to hostility towards M$.
>>
>> BTW, the quote in question was somewhat gibberish. You cannot
>> "embrace and extend" a GPL or LGPL licence. That is rather the
>> whole point of both of those licences.
>
>What a lack of imagination. Imagine Sun develops StarOffice using
>a slightly different and incompatible version of Bonobo, and puts
>money in advancing that incompatible bonobo until it's better than
>plain bonobo. They just embraced and extended Bonobo. They then
>rule the bonobo development.
No they didn't. Everything they coded just came under a Free
Software licence and is the derivative work of a GNU project.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 20:43:44 GMT
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 17:32:11 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 15:52:52 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I attempted to elicit information, you were reticent. Your problem, not
>> >> mine.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Nope. Roberto answered your questions. But they weren't the answers you
>> >wanted to hear, so you chose to ignore them.
>>
>> That doesn't sound too surprising. Roberto probably spun them
>> to suit his position as a KDE programmer.
>
>I reply with either my opinion, or with a reference to some document.
>If it's my opinion, obviously it reflects my biases. If I provide a
>reference, it may or may not. OTOH, you go around saying
>"TT threatened to sue harmony" and don't even bother providing
>a reference. That's lame.
>
>You are just slinging mud, reflecting your own anti-KDE bias.
>
>> This would be distinct from the spin spun by someone who is primarily
>> interested in being subjected to no more Apples, Ataris, or Microsofts.
>
>I have not used an Apple, Atari or Microsoft product in about 5 years.
>How about you?
Ladies and gentlemen: please notice the blinders.
I don't really have to sling my own mud. You do so well on your own.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
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 20:45:26 GMT
It appears that on 1 Sep 2000 18:52:24 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> One more point would be this:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>I have never, ever seen X crash linux, ever. And ive been using linux constantly
>for the past five years.
>
I haven't either. However, AFAIK, there is some truth to his claim,
i.e. it is not technically impossible for this to happen, given a
sufficiently screwed up X server.
But no one with half a brain would be running an X server on a server
machine anyhow, so I don't see how it applies to the conversation - we
were talking about servers, not workstations.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
