Linux-Advocacy Digest #877, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Rick)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Zenin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right! ("ostracus")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:13:22 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Rick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 09/01/2000 at 05:25 PM,
> > > > > Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > At the present time, public schools are massively under-funded. Class
> > > > > > sizes are extremely large. If you want better education in public
> > > > > > schools.. re-institute a students right to fail a course. Re-institute
> > > > > > having the student take responsibility for their own actions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Debunking this makes everything you post fit only for the bit bucket.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > What...as if this would contradict 25 years of the data which proves
> > > that you are a liar.
> > >
> >
> > Well... we all know you are very rude...
> >
>
> Facts are not always kind.
>
> Deal with it, liar.
>
... and you expect us to take such a rude and impolite person seriously?
I Dont think so.
--
Rick
* To email me remove theobvious from my address *
------------------------------
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: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:07:21 -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]> wrote in message
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> >> 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.
>
> You ask them. I'm already familiar with the economic realities and why
> your statistic is irrelevant. Go figure it out on your own time.
No...your not familiar with the pricing because the easiest thing you could
do would be to write the "cliff edge" price difference that you falsely
claim is the reason OEM's were forced to buy per processor licence deals.
Microsoft says that the price difference was negligable, undisputed court
documents show that over the course of several years only 40-60% of OEMs
even used the per processor license deals.
You pulled this "cliff edge pricing" lie out of your ass, admit it. The
difference between a $60 per processor deal and a $65 per copy deal makes
about a ONE QUARTER OF A PERCENT difference in the final price of a $2000
system, so tell me, what figures do you have to back up your "cliff edge
pricing" difference.
Oh....and you are still supporting Microsoft because you are fully aware of
the options yet you choose to use a Microsoft Windows operating system.
Whats up with that?
You are...how you say...[full of sheep dip] ??
>
> [...]
> >First you say it was because of "cliff edge" price difference then you
say
> >that price didn't matter. I don't get it. [...]
>
> You don't get anything. You're a god-damn moron.
I suppose I'd rather be a moron than a hypocritical (MS supporting),
compulsive liar like yourself.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:15:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:40:56 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>[ big snip ]
>
>This thread is going nowhere. I refer you to my comments about GTK being
>competition for QT in support of my opinion that Troll Tech do not have
>any kind of monopoly.
Depending on the circumstance, that might be true or it might not. It
comes down to whether, in any putative anti-trust trial, the 'relevant
market' is determined to be all GUI support libraries (such as both QT
and GTK) or only libraries which support the QT API. Either is
possible. In this particular issue, where the question concerned
harmony and cloning QT, GTK probably wouldn't have anything to do with
it.
But I am understating the importance of the cellophane decision. You
might very well have a point. The fact is, though, that we already know
that QT wouldn't win the suit; the question was whether they would bring
the suit.
>On the topic of the "threat", I'll concede that a lengthy post mortem
>could produce a better response than Erik's. It's not surprising -- he
>is freely willing to admit to being ignorant on matters of law. However,
>I think it would be misleading to claim that he "threatened" anyone.
It would appear he didn't intend to threaten anyone, certainly. The
question isn't whether he intended to threaten anyone, but whether his
action inhibited competition. I've said all along that you can't really
fault a guy for trying to inhibit competition, these days. Its been way
too long since people realized that you aren't allowed to do that. If
you're going to head a business, though, you really ought to ensure that
you're not ignorant on matters of law, particularly in this regard. I'm
not trying to admonish Erik personally; I don't know him and won't
second-guess him, and these comments were all years ago. I'm just
saying...
(BTW, is his name really "Erik"? I seem to have been replicating a
typo...)
--
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:19:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:49:36 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>If all you want is a "statement of intent", I took his response as a
>statement of intent not to sue unless some really unusual circumstances
>came up. I took it as a statement that the harmony project, as it stood
>then and there, was pretty safe.
As did I. Others took it as less than reassuring, even threatening. I
won't second-guess them.
>We can do a lengthy post mortem, and you can spend weeks working out
>what the "right way to say it" would have been. But you should consider
>the fact that he didn't spend ages thinking about his response.
I have considered that fact; that's what I'm debating. It was his job
to respond better, and he should have taken more time if that's what was
necessary. I don't fault him because nobody was there to say, "You're
supposed to encourage competition; say no, you won't sue." I'm merely
pointing out that this would have been the ideal.
[...]
--
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: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux.sucks,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:23:50 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Cooke wrote:
> >
> > "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ou3ls$bjadc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > >I posted here that something I did to my NT setup meant that
> > > >whenever I did an "empty recycle bin" it deleted all the files
> > > >on drive C of my machine.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is (or at least was) a similar bug in frontpage - saving a
temporary
> > > webpage to the root of a drive and then deleting temporary webpage
would
> > > delete every file on the drive without any warnings being displayed,
it
> > was
> > > reported as being the worst software bug ever but microsoft seem to
have
> > > hushed it up as usual.
> >
> > It warned you that doing that would be stupid, and warned you that
deleting
> > it would be stupid, and then deleted it.
> >
> > Where's the lack of warnings?
>
> Why should deleting a root-level *FILE* fuck up the ENTIRE FILESYSTEM.
>
> This is indicative of some INCREDIBLY, SERIOUSLY bad fucking
> programming.
Ah... I missed something out -- it wasn't a temporary webpage that did the
damage. It was putting a "Web" there -- which meant that the directory and
everything below that is treated as web content. Therefore, deleting the Web
deletes everything in that directory and below -- which being the root of
the file system deletes all of Windows on 95 & 98.
When you create the web at the root of the file system, it warns you that
you might not be doing something particularly smart.
Simon
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:26:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:53:28 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>>No, I'm afraid I can't do that, because I don't know. Perhaps you could
>>explain why GTK is an alternative to QT, and what it has to do with
>>Eirik's statement?
>
>Suppose I am a potential "customer" of Troll Tech.
>
>The product I am interested in obtaining is a development tool ( namely
>QT ). So the set of alternatives to QT is precisely the set of development
>tools with comparable functionality. GTK is an example of such a tool.
>
>One might try to claim that the "customer" is the end user of this
>developer's product. ( I don't know if you're trying to claim this,
>but you appear to do so implicitly ). My counter-argument is that
>the developer has the option of linking statically. The user does not
>need to license the libraries. For example, I use Netscape but I do not
>have a Motif license.
No, I'm not trying to claim that it has anything to do with end users.
I recognize the transactions involved in the commerce. The question is,
are you deciding which API to use, or are you deciding which library to
use, or are you, the market, stating that there is no difference because
you want the choice to be 'tool', with each being a library and API in
combination, such API not supported by any other tool, or would you
rather choose which tool based on either library or API (or API or
library based on tool), based on your preferences and market
availability?
I would think that, given the technical network effect (as opposed to
the marketing network effect which has so despoiled the term), it may
routinely come up that the choice of API has already been made, due to
various market factors or conditions, and one needs a library for the QT
API. The question is, would you like to have one choice of library for
that need, or two or more?
--
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: Zenin <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:27:36 GMT
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> >> Which strongly alludes to MS forging the "last updated" timestamp to
:> >> make it appear as if it had "been sitting there in a TechNet the whole
:> >> time"?
:> >
:> >Well, if you think that's true, how about the name, phone number, et al
:> >of the person who forged it? Presumably that level of evidence either
:> >way is easy to obtain.
:>
:> That sounds like an argument from ignorance.
:
: As does yours. Produce any kind of evidence that it was forged. At all.
http://slashdot.org/articles/00/06/28/0042228.shtml
"Strange note: the page where this appears has a footer that says,
"Last updated January 21, 2000," but when I did a search on
Microsoft.com during our little tussle[1] with them last month, I
didn't find it."
[1] http://slashdot.org/features/00/05/11/0153247.shtml
I'd say such "eye witness" testimony pretty much seals the issue.
Case closed.
: I'm sure someone will be able to produce a copy of MSDN from after the
: release of the article, but before it was released in the click-wrap
: executable, which verifies that it was indeed in the database before then.
: After all they do ship it to customers, so if someone has the MSDN library
: for that time frame, it should be easy to verify one way or another.
Then if it's so easy, we await your "proof". So far, the only
tangible evidence is a trivially forged string string "Last updated
January 21, 2000" vs the testimony of an eye witness. As MS would
have an extremely clear motive for forging such a date string and so
far as we know the eye witness has no ulterior motives, the Jury
must be compelled to pass judgment against MS.
: Without serious effort on my part, I don't have access to that data.
First it's "easy", then the next paragraph it's a "serious effort".
Which is it?
I think the time has come to put up or shut up, Mr. Cooke.
:> >BTW: My posting is currently alluding to the fact that Cmdr Taco is a
:> >transvestite.
:>
:> Oh, so it was an ad hominem attack, as well. Thanks for clearing that
:> up.
:
: Ad hominem attack against whom? I'm pointing out the fact that allusions
: on slashdot are not proof or evidence -- they're more often than not just
: half-cocked rumors and hearsay.
Yet you yourself are none to quick to refer to /. when it serves
your interests. I understand now, thanks.
:> >> No, sorry, but Microsoft's intentions and motives are abundantly
:> >> crystal clear on this matter. There is no gray, there is no opinion
:> >> any more then one can hold an opinion on the color of the sky.
:> >
:> >Given that you were the person who injected opinion into this thread in
:> >the first place, that's a mighty fine statement.
:>
:> Given... , X is... constructs should generally be more well thought-out
:> than that. You seem to be grappling with abstractions you haven't really
:> grasped.
:
: Allow me to explain:
:
: You're arguing from a point of supposition and happenstance. You have no
: evidence either way.
We have "eye" witnesses, we have official MS documents, we have a
rap sheet of prior offenses a mile long, and we have a clear motive.
Case closed.
If this was a murder trial, MS would be getting the chair.
: However, you are convinced that no matter what Microsoft does, it's done
: for 'evil' purposes.
If the shoe fits...
MS has *decades* of prior devious history, rarely if ever have their
actions not been self-serving to a fault. When 9 out of 10 actions
one takes are "evil", of course others are going to assume anything
else you do is most likely of "evil" intent.
: That may or may not be the case; however, until you find proof or evidence
: of such motivation, it is just your opinion and nothing more. Microsoft's
: motives and intentions are NOT abundantly clear on this matter: how else
: would you propose that Kerberos tickets provide Microsoft NT
: authentication information? Preferably following the Kerberos spec; after
: all, that's what Microsoft did.
The extensions aren't the real issue. The attempt to keep such
extensions a "trade secret" under threat of legal action, is.
IOW, if say...the Samba team (a huge thorn in MS's side for years)
attempted to build a compatible server using this spec after
agreeing to the terms, MS would sue them into poverty.
: Face it -- your issue is solely with the fact that they didn't document
: the algorithm used to come up with the value stored in the user-defined
: extension section of the ticket.
We don't claim they didn't document it; we claim they made a clear
and explicit attempt to restrict competitive implementations such as
Samba.
:> >As for their intentions being abundantly clear... yeah, right.
:>
:> Is that a response of some kind? Indeed, their intentions are
:> abundantly clear, and potentially criminal.
:
: Care to explain:
:
: (a) what their intentions are,
: (b) what evidence you have to back this up -- preferably with quotes of some
: kind from a Microsoft representative or an employee on the team that
: implemented the Kerberos functionality?
a) The intentions again, are clear as day and have already been
detailed quite extensively both previously and in this article.
b) You're asking for a confession from the defendant. In the US one
does not need a guilty plea to convict a serial killer. We have:
1) The Motive
2) The Weapon
3) Eye witness reports
4) Victim(s)
5) A prior criminal history of similar action
We convict murderers and sentence them to the chair with half as
much evidence as this.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:31:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 18:58:40 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>>>Well apart from your irrelevance, I see no one else flogging this
>>>dead horse ( I say dead horse, because harmony is dead due to lack
>>>of interest, not due to "legal threats" )
>>
>>Is that why Roberto still gets hate-mail for being part of KDE?
>
>The people who send Roberto hate mail are evidently more interested
>in sending hate mail than they are in developing Harmony ( or doing
>anything else constructive for that matter ).
I agree with your judgement on the matter. My point was that it is
obviously enough of a conundrum to still give them a preferred pretense
for hate mail. Controversy doesn't exist for no reason at all, and
neither my belated inquiries nor their lingering mental disturbances are
the entirety of the concern.
Just as I have, new consumers will stumble on old questions. If a clear
and calm description of events isn't available, the controversy will
recur as long as there is some pretense for it, however minimal.
--
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: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:32:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Tell it to the developers showcased here: http://download.cnet.com/
who
> >are
> >> >thriving BECAUSE there's one main standard.
> >>
> >> Tell it to Blue Mountain. Tell it to Real.
>
> [...Simon's 'FUD Report' snipped; if we wanted to read MS press
> releases, we'd go to their web page...]
You're the one spreading the FUD. Blue Mountain refused to communicate MS on
fixing the problem, when all it would have taken was adding a header. The
problem affected MS, Blue Mountain and other e-card vendors. Blue Mountain
refused to cooperate, took it to court, and won. End of junk email filtering
software.
Please state a factual error in any of what I just wrote. With references.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:33:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> > The average app today is approximately 350,000 lines of code.
> >>
> >> All the better argument for programming with portability in mind to
help
> >> leverage your product into more markets.
> >
> >Much easier said than done. [...]
>
> No shit. Competing is much easier said than done. Superior product is
> much easer said than done. Business acumen is much easier said than
> done. Deal with it.
How about you write us something along the lines of photoshop... or even
solitaire. Make it completely portable. And why not at the same time explain
how easy or not it was to do. Because unless *YOU* do it, it looks like
you've got a damn big opinion on you, and you're not going to accept anyone
else's experience to the contrary.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 04:34:11 GMT
> >You are mistaken.
>
> I'm not going to pull out any debate class handbooks, because I never
> took debate class, but yes, that is how debate works.
No. See below.
> >When the other side calls a "fact" (sic) into question, it is the
> >responsibility of the profferor of the fact to substantiate it.
>
> That depends on your level of rigor. I'm not one to discount Usenet
> debate, but he did substantiate it; he knew a book on the subject
> existed. That might not have been enough substantiation for you,...
If there was a citation made, I missed it.
> > >If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
> > >in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
>
> I'll agree that the fact it was an argument from ignorance was an
> inference; my description was an abstract reference to the underlying
> fallacy of that argument, not a representation of your words.
>
> All that having been said, its an argument from ignorance.
No, you have it backwards. "Argument from ignorance," more formally
known as Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam, occurs when it's argued that
something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false.
By attempting to make me disprove his position or accept his position
as true, it is YOU who are engaging in Argumentum Ad Ignorantiam.
Careful with the argumentative blades you wield, Mr. Devlin. They
have sharp edges, and will cut you.
C//
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:33:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 03 Sep 2000 19:19:52 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>>You've missed the point. The question was whether I was out of line,
>>not whether I was factually correct in every statement I've ever made.
>
>Your baseless accusation that Troll Tech "Threatened" anyone is what
>I'd call out of line. It's a false accusation, and that in my book is
>"out of line".
It wasn't baseless, regardless of your opinion on the matter. I didn't
even originate it, nor was my discussion of the possibility in any way
out of line, thank you.
[...]
>>When the context is a question on the part of a clean-room
>>implementation about whether you would sue someone 'cloning' your
>>libraries?
>
>The context is not obviously this narrow.
Yes it was. It was specifically that narrow.
>>He bobbled the ball, if not entirely fumbling it. Perhaps he should
>>learn the difference between copyright law and anti-trust.
>
>He didn't think about the question for a week. This does put him at
>a slight disadvantage. I doubt that either of us would do substantially
>better with an off-the-cuff response. In fact I don't think you did that
>much better.
Well I did. ;-)
[...enough already...]
--
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: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fragmentation of Linux Community? Yeah, right!
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:31:18 -0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ostracus escribió:
>
> It's about Qt ports to win32, I will snip the intro.
>
> [snip]
>
>> The problem I see with this is twofold. I don't think that TT would
>> appreciate an "end run" on their revenue model.
>
> I bet they wouldn't. If you want to do the port, you can still do it,
> though.
Only if there were no legal repercussions Also there might be other
unforseen repercussions as well.
>> Yes some of it comes from commercial development on the Unix side. But
>> some also comes from the Windows side as well. A fact re-enforced in
>> that QT for windows is ONLY on the professional edition. A free port
>> would dry up that particular revenue stream. As Jedi pointed out, who
>> would "legally" own any port to other platforms?
>
> The people doing the ports own the changes they made to perform the
> port.
Color me sceptical.
"a. Modifications must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the
Software." Who's copyright?
> The same people is allowed to distribute binary and source packages for
> the ported version (as long as the changes for the sources to the port
> are presented separate from the originals, such as patches).
>
> Just read the QPL.
I have
(http://www.trolltech.com/products/download/freelicense/annotated.html).
If one wants to stretch a few things (modifications) then it might be
possible. However I think they had something else in mind when speaking
about modifications
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire become
a great writer.
When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that the
whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a truly
emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl in pain and
anger!"
He now works for Microsoft, writing error 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
******************************
