Linux-Advocacy Digest #861, Volume #28 Sun, 3 Sep 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (ken klavonic)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ingemar Lundin")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ken klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:27:12 -0400
And I disagree quite heartily.
The examples of the "truely" free things illustrate sloppy thinking on
the subject. Wrapping some (incomplete) notions of the scientific
methods involving observation around them do not strengthen the argument
one bit. Let's have a look:
"1. Zero cost retransmission of email and genuinely free access to
Internet. This has been going on since Usenet... where have you been?"
Managing systems over which that email travels. Although the sender does
not have to pay, *someone* is maintaining the intermediate systems. I
would suggest that there is no "Genuinely free" access to the net either
- partly for the same reason, but there are also other hidden costs. For
instance, "free" internet access often carries with it other
restrictions (such as length of contract, reciept of advertisments,
quality of service, etc.) that should not be ignored.
"2. Linux"
There are thousands of developers that would disagree with this point as
well, I'm sure. Linux as a "product" represents, in my estimation,
BILLIONS of man-hours spent planning, coding, testing, debugging,
documenting, advocating, etc... For the end-user, it *still* comes at a
cost. Linux, despite the dramatic improvements it's seen over the years
is still arguably more difficult to install, configure and use than some
other OS's. At the very least, it is less familiar to the new user,
demanding a price of climing the learning curve. Once the user has it
set up and configured (hopefully) correctly, the support for common
applications is (depending on your pov) somewhat lacking; I can't just
throw a copy of MSOffice on my machine and run it. Or, if you'd like, I
can't just throw a copy of <insert name of latest game here> on it and
run it.
"3. Apache and similar high-quality freeware"
See point #2; the Apache group would disagree. Also, it tends to be a
bit trickier to *properly* configure Apache than it is to *properly*
configure, say, IIS. Again, the cost of assuming responsibility for
tackling the learning-curve is quite present.
Minor nit - Apache is NOT freeware. It is open-source software. There
are some costs (restrictions, if you will), that you must accept to use
it. See the Apache Licence at http://www.apache.org/LICENSE.txt for
specifics.
"4. Browsers, ranging from Mosaic to Opera to Netscape (source code!
wow!) and IE."
Again, point #2. That code had to be written by *someone*. And, again,
there are costs involved in accepting the shortcomings of one browser
over another. They don't all render content the same way, nor do they
have the same plug-in capabilities. And, once again, there are
restrictions that you, as a user, accept in exchange for using the
software.
"5. Truckloads of open source software. Whatever it is you want to code
or use, there is likely to be some open source starting point. Wavelet
compression? No problem!"
*sigh*...point #2 AGAIN. All that open-source came from someone. And, as
a developer, I would have to accept the cost involved in learning how to
utilize that code to make something useful (even if only to me). And I
would have to accept the terms of licencing with regard to distributing
software derived from that open-source software. OpenSource != freeware.
"6. A seeming infinity of cool, on-line GIS data for the US and even for
other countries. If you don't pay US taxes this is genuinely a free
lunch."
Hey! I'm an American taxpayer! Although it's a worthy expendature, it's
sure as hell not free.
"7. WinAmp (yeah!) ... the most important software development tool in
modern computing."
LOL! It is pretty important, yes, but... Point #2 again - someone spent
the time to write it. I have to spend the time
downloading/installing/configuring it on my machine. I have also agreed
not to redistribute it under my name.
In reference to WinAmp: "Note that this was a genuine "free lunch" to
users. There is not even the "cost" of ignoring advertising in this
case, since WinAmp has zero banners and the like. It's a win-win for
all concerned: free ability to play MP3s plus a few hundred million for
the founders. Nice deal!"
It's not a free lunch to the users whose file-associations got munged
because the UI is less than optimal and they accidently let it take over
everything. Then, they have to assume the cost of figuring out how to
fix it and spend the time actually doing so. We may, as experienced
users, discount that cost, but for "Grandma", it's a trying experience,
to say the least.
There IS a cost associated with viewing advertisements. First, the
advertiser PAID to put the advert there, and I, as a user, have to spend
a measurable amount of time recognizing what it is, and set out to
ignore it. To say my time is "free" is a bit of an insult. (I really
despise banner ads and the like).
Let me just say it... THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. Someone, somewhere,
somehow, had to pay. Usually, the end-user pays as well, in some
respect. To claim that there is such a thing as a free lunch based on
the perception that "If I didn't have to pay money for it, then it's
'truely' free." is short sighted, more than a bit self-centered, and,
well, kind of childish.
-ken
Charles Quillmann wrote:
>
> I agree, very heartily.....
> there is a lot of free lunch out there.
> In many forms.
> Have you been on ebay lately...
> some people try to sell their expensive system under 'printers'
> where most people interested in that particular system will not
> not bother to look. There are some pretty inexpensive things
> to buy. And so, traditional idioms are not all true anymore!
>
> Dan Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8m11mo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.infosystems.gis, Dimitri Rotow posted controversial opinion #4
> etc.
> > below, hereby crossposted to relevant groups for truth merit evaluation.
> > Thanks.
> >
> > "Dimitri Rotow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ¼¶¼g©ó¶l¥ó
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >This thread reminds me of an exam question from a 1st year ecology
> > > >course: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
> > > >
> > > >The short answer is no. The long answer is that you will pay for it
> some
> > > >where along the line with your time maybe or an implosion of your h/w
> in
> > > >a really bad case.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's a shame it doesn't remind you of other concepts that might have
> > > been taught in that first year course such as :
> > >
> > > a) the idea of the scientific method, where one tests a hypothesis
> > > against observation as opposed to opinion, and
> > >
> > > b) the foolishness of attempting of lumping many complex phenomena
> > > within one simplistic slogan.
> > >
> > > In point of fact, your hypothesis/slogan that there is no such thing
> > > as a free lunch fails the observational test. There are lots of "free
> > > lunches" in modern computing. Allow me to name just a few that have
> > > transformed computing, and even GIS.
> > >
<snip - addressed above>
> > >
> > > To say that free stuff is always trash is just as dumb as saying
> > > purchased software is always trash, or that both are always good.
> > > Perhaps the least inaccurate one-liner would be to observe that in
> > > modern computing markets the old saw "You get what you pay for" no
> > > longer applies. There is no longer a direct correlation between the
> > > price paid for software and the quality, performance or capabilities
> > > delivered by the software.
> > >
> > > The reasons why this is so require sophisticated discussion that is
> > > not reducible to one-liners.
> > >
> > > To take just one example, the same sorts of management and other
> > > business skills that allow a company to reduce procurement and other
> > > costs are very often the same sorts of skills that allow a company to
> > > achieve better yield from a development organization. At the same
> > > time, sloppy business practices that blossom in some large
> > > organizations will often simultaneously result in both higher costs
> > > and less ability to drive fast and successful development of truly new
> > > generation products. This is why younger, more effective companies
> > > will often field superior products at a much lower cost than
> > > bureacratized, older companies.
> > >
> > > Modern computing changes so fast that technical and market
> > > possibilities can change in six months; however, it can take years to
> > > revitalize a bureaucratized company. No wonder that leaner and more
> > > agile younger companies can take better advantage of technological
> > > progress to deliver superior goods and services at a lower cost.
> > >
> > > In some cases, it is even cheaper to deliver new goods and services
> > > for free (in order to build a user base or achieve some other
> > > strategic objective) than it is to invest into other methods of
> > > marketing that require users to pay money for goods and services.
> > > Freeware is often over-positioned by lazy marketers, but that doesn't
> > > mean that it does not have its uses.
> > >
> > > Consider the success of WinAmp as a case study. Suppose your
> > > objective is to sell yourself for a few hundred million dollars to a
> > > bigger Internet company. To do that you need a user base in the
> > > millions. You could try to raise venture capital to finance a huge
> > > advertising campaign to sell millions of units, but that would only
> > > dilute your ownership. Why not just give them away? You get vast
> > > growth and no dilution of ownership. That's what WinAmp did and the
> > > resultant user base and brand ID was worth hundreds of millions of
> > > dollars to their acquirer.
> > >
> > > Note that this was a genuine "free lunch" to users. There is not even
> > > the "cost" of ignoring advertising in this case, since WinAmp has zero
> > > banners and the like. It's a win-win for all concerned: free ability
> > > to play MP3s plus a few hundred million for the founders. Nice deal!
> > >
> > > So, when criticizing the freeware ecological niche, don't make the
> > > mistake of thinking just because you don't understand the business
> > > niche it does not make perfect economic sense to people who have the
> > > business savvy to make it work.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Dimitri
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 20:31:50 GMT
In article <39b1c0df$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/02/2000 at 02:12 PM,
> Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Bob Germer wrote:
> > >
> > > My wife was a teacher in an inner city public school in a rust belt
> > > city
> > > for 31 years. I kept many of her class records for her on my
> > > computers
> > > beginning in 1984. I have every class list from that time until she
> > > retired two years ago. AT NO TIME DID SHE EVER HAVE MORE THAN 22
> > > STUDENTS.
> > > In five of those years her class size was less than 15. Any time ANY
> > > teacher in that district had more than 17 students, he or she had a
> > > FULL
> > > TIME, qualified, classroom aide.
> > >
>
> > I wouldbeinterested to know what the teacher/student ratio is NOW.
>
> Exactly the same as when Rae retired 2 years ago. In fact, she is filling
> in for the first 6 weeks as a long term sub for a teacher who just had a
> baby. The class has 19 students and a full time aide.
>
> > > Conversely, the four private schools in the area, had average class
> > > sizes
> > > of 25 or more students. Two of those schools were run by Roman
> > > Catholic
> > > parishes, one by a Black Church, and one by the Episcopal Diocese.
> > > Tuition
> > > at the first three never exceeded $500 per student per semester. The
> > > Episcopal school, St. Mary's Academy and Doane Hall, charged about
> > > $7,000
> > > per student per year. Of course, even that was more than $2,000 a
> > > year
> > > LESS than the Burlington City cost per pupil which exceeded $9,000
> > > per
> > > year in 1997.
> > >
>
> > How much money, above tuition, was provided by the churches, and where
> > are your per student costs for the private schools?
>
> The cost per student for the private schools is the tuition. They get no
> other funding.
>
Not true.
Religious schools receive large amounts of money from their affiliated
church.
Non-religious private schools tend to have an endowment (in the case of
my kids' school, the endowment paid about half the cost of the
education).
In both religious and non-religious schools, there _are_ other sources,
although these tend to be much smaller. Fund raisers, government aid for
targeted programs, etc.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:34:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"`T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message ne
>> Who is your employer? Does your employer receive any consideration or
>> compensation whatsoever from Microsoft pursuant to your employment?
>> Have you ever been contacted by or been in contact with any employee of
>> Microsoft corporations, directly? Have you or your employer ever made a
>> financial agreement with Microsoft corporation outside of end-user
>> licensing of software? What was the complete scope and character
>> (including all particular clauses) of any non-end-user licensing or
>> other agreements with Microsoft corporation? Are you now, or have you
>> ever been, an astroturfer?
>
>Who do you work for, Max? Sun? RedHat? VA Linux? You're sure spreading a lot
>of your own astroturf.
I work for ELTRAX, soon to be Verso Technologies. We are big in ASP and
network services. I work in the Manages Services group, which
implements Network Operations Centers using software like Netcool, HP
OpenView, NerveCenter, Concord Network Health, Remedy ARS, etc. I do
consulting and educational presentations and instruction. AFAIK, we
have no particular arrangements with Microsoft or any Linux vendor.
--
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: "JS/PL" <[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: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 16:30:27 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >Some oems
> >> >went for that particular deal, but none were ever forced to do it, it
was
> >> >one of three options OEM's could choose to negotiate.
> >>
> >> You're full of sheep-dip, as usual. Economic realities forced them to
> >> do it,
> >
> >How so?
>
> How not?
Ask the 40-60% that DIDN'T opt for the per processor pricing.
> [...]
> >Since you know there was "cliff edge" pricing between the per processor
> >license deals and the several other deals MS offered, (e.g. per machine,
per
> >windows copy)and since the operating system was/is about 3% of the total
> >price of a system, what was the difference in prices between the various
> >deals Max? And what effect did those differences impose on the final
price
> >of a system?
>
> Monopoly.
>
> >You don't even know do you, yet your using it.
>
> It doesn't matter what the price of the deals were; what matters is what
> was the competition, and did they bring down the price of the deals.
> Most problematically, ppl *raised* the price of *supplying* Windows for
> the OEMs, and *raised* the price of non-Windows alternatives. Do you
> know how?
First you say it was because of "cliff edge" price difference then you say
that price didn't matter. I don't get it. When you sober up could you sort
out your position.
Ohh.. and I noticed your still using Windows by choice. What's up with that?
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 20:34:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> david raoul derbes wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Forrest Gehrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >david raoul derbes wrote:.
> >
> > >So while their AGI was 17.4% of the total AGI reported by all
> > >taxpayers,
> > >they paid 33.2% of all tax revenue garnered by the IRS. Their average
> > >tax rate was 27.6%. Compare this with the bottom 50% of filers whose
> > >AGI share was 13.8% on which they paid 4.3% of total revenue at an
> > >average tax rate of 4.5%. Any mystery why many polls tell us that
> > >most Americans don't give a rat's ass for a tax reduction?
> >
> > But most Americans do pay federal income tax. My guess is that even
> > the guy who pays a couple of hundred dollars would prefer to pay
> > less, especially as it is likely that the guy doesn't make very mcuh.
>
> It wouldn't be too much of stretch to estimate from the IRS data of 1997
> that 60% of Americans pay less than 10% income taxes and that this
> item would not be at the top of their list of concerns.
>
With EIC, millions of Americans don't pay any taxes at all -- and lots
of them receive money back.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 20:37:06 GMT
Got ya' there didnt i?
/IL
> AFAIK, ATAPI is a SCSI lookalike, so why not run it as such?
>
> Kent
> --
> What was your username?
> <Clicketyclick> - B.O.F.H
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:38:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >> If you aren't at liberty to choose then a technical
>> >> viewpoint is quite meaningless actually.
>
>> >You are able to choose - license the technology... if cost is prohibitive
>> >to you then so be it.
>
>> [obviously inappropriate sig delimiter snipped]
>
>No it was obviously not a sig delimiter - it was a delimeter
>for a totaly separate thought.
Oh. It looked like a sig delimiter. I was wondering why it seemed to
be in the middle of the message.
>> >That said yes I am all for having a revered engineered GPL system
>> >for DVDs.
>
>> Huh?
>
>Basic conversation thus far:
>
>- Can get a system without Windows[...]
No, I meant 'huh' as in "you are able to choose -- that said, I'm all
for GPL DVD." If you don't support the person who decided there was no
need to pay for a license, why do you support his software? Or, should
I say; if you support the reverse engineering of DVD, why did you
prattle on about how "you have a choice; just buy a license"? I'm just
trying to figure out what you're saying; perhaps a review of the
conversation might be useful, but it didn't seem to shed any light on
the apparent conflict in your statements.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 15:59:19 +0100
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 19:19:31 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I've seen posts from various people over the past couple years about open
>source companies that do make money. There must be some... can anyone point
>to any - especially public companies - that are open source and profitable?
Define "open source company". Must all their software be open source,
or just some of it?
If the latter, the 2 biggest examples are Sun and IBM.
--
*****[ Phil Hunt ]*****
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 12:23:48 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Yjxs5.122$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> None of that you say contradicts what i have posted before except for one
> thing...wich *ide* cd-rw:s do Linux support and *how*? (not counting
> cheating like scsi-emulation)
Why is it that when someone takes advantage of a feature provided by Linux
is called cheating just because another OS fails to deliver the same
feature?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 16:58:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Ah... well too bad I am only looking at it from a technical
>> >view point then......................
>
>> Yes, I'd say that's too bad. For your argument, that is. The
>> discussion is an ethical one, not a technical one. The question isn't
>> "how do we get permission"; the question is "why would we need
>> permission?"
>
>There is nothing in the conversation thus far to indicate that it is
>an ethical question... see other posting for the summary of the
>conversation thus far.
I'm getting the feeling we're talking about two different things. DVD
licensing is not a technical issue.
--
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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 17:00:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >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?
>>
>> No, no, I meant "them", 'mjcr'. I'm trying to be responsive, here.
>
>O.K., understood.
>
>>
>> >RPC?
>>
>> Don't make me laugh. A standard that says "insert standard here" isn't
>> much of a standard. RPC + CORBA, maybe, as I understand it... Even
>> then, RPC is a horribly *unoptimized* method, IMHO.
>
>Point of explaination:
>
>By RPC, is wasrefering to the orignal unix Remote Procedure Call libraries,
>tools, and protocols that facilitate distributed processing, not what
>Microsfot calls RPC. This RPC is what NFS, NIS, etc are based on. I was
>not even considering CORBA when I mentioned RPC.
Well, I wasn't considering Microsoft RPC when I mentioned RPC. Its that
original RPC that I was referring to. NFS and NIS aren't 'based on it'
so much as use it; they are linked to it in the same way, I suppose, as
RMI is linked to Java.
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 21:06:05 GMT
eh?
well you see...Windows *has* support for practically *any* ide cd-rw...so
whats your point?
/IL
> Why is it that when someone takes advantage of a feature provided by Linux
> is called cheating just because another OS fails to deliver the same
> feature?
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
