Linux-Advocacy Digest #894, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 16:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Qt goes GPL (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL) (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
You can't help the world if you are angry at it. (Perry Pip)
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Perry Pip)
A guise for Marxism (Was: businesses are psychopaths (Perry Pip)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Perry Pip)
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451792.ws44t^-.00000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("Joe R.")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Qt goes GPL
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 16:01:16 -0300
abraxas escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > How many CDE users do you know?
> >>
> >> Personally? A couple dozen.
> >>
> >> That I know of? Thousands.
> >
> > Ok, now, how many users of KDE and GNOME do you know?
>
> Personally, a couple dozen. That I know of, probably tens of thousands.
So my guess of 5% was about right ;-) The unix desktop market,
if you discount linux, is almost too small to be seen.
> >> Now dont get me wrong, this is not to say that I particularly dislike KDE,
> >> as a matter of fact, ive been downloading snapshots two and three times
> >> weekly just to see whats up. I do recognize the commercial value of KDE,
> >> as well as that of GNOME, and I find them both a little too buggy to use
> >> either one consistently.
> >
> > I find KDE 1.1.2 way less buggy than the CDE that came with
> > Solaris 7, but that's maybe my bias.
>
> Actually, I think that KDE 1.1.2 is very stable. The main reason I switched
> back to windowmaker was because I couldnt stand Konsole; it just never could
> get the hang of vt100...Now I understand that this is a lame reason to stop
> using KDE, but on the other hand if im not going to use everything that
> comes with it, I may as well just install the libs and run kde apps inside
> other windowmanagers.
Well, I find kwm is convenient, but that's just personal opinion.
I could never get the hang of window maker because window cycling
through the keyboard never worked like I liked.
And well, what can I say, I used netscape until very recently for web
browsing, so I doubt anyone uses 100% KDE programs :-)
> On another note; why not simply add gtk+ functionality to KDE? I realize
> that this would likely be a large undertaking, but it is possible that if
> it happens NOW, kde will be in a much better situation in 12 months.
What do you mean by gtk+ functionality?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 15:07:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Of course, it cuts "against" and Max has still got it reversed in suggesting
>Jackson is applying it.
I didn't suggest Jackson is; he did.
"All four elements are required, whether the arrangement is subjected to
a per se or Rule of Reason analysis."
Note the 'per se' analysis is the 'technical tying test' (is the
combination intended to deter competition or benefit the consumer). He
is not using that, as he described. The problem is, as exemplified by
the MS II decision, that the appeals court didn't realize that in the
case of a product which could be sold economically in any combination of
configurations (software), it is a false dichotomy. This per se rule
was not used in the precedent which Jackson based his decision on.
"While the Court agrees with plaintiffs, and thus holds that Microsoft
is liable for illegal tying under § 1, this conclusion is arguably at
variance with a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit in a closely related case, and must therefore be explained in
some detail. Whether the decisions are indeed inconsistent is not for
this Court to say. "
>By shorthand, I generally accept that a finding that the browser is a
>distinct product/market, eg no tech tying, is the kiss of death for
>Microsoft (except as to remedies).
How could anybody even question whether browsers were a separate market
from operating systems, or that Microsoft combined the two by
'integrating' IE into Win98? Even Microsoft must admit this. They just
don't understand why its illegal, they can't deny they did it.
[...general confabulation snipped...]
>My view is that the browser, the web middleware client will subsume the OS,
>as part of a larger process where the Client subsumes the Server, especially
>via clusters.
Well, assuming that this isn't just the random babblings of a
'visionary', which is what it sounds like, you might be right. But it
hasn't already happened, so I think you should read these words from
Judge Jackson, as well. He is discussing his grounding in the
precedential cases, Parish and Kodak.
"In both cases the Supreme Court instructed that product and market
definitions were to be ascertained by reference to evidence of
consumers' perception of the nature of the products and the markets for
them, rather than to abstract or metaphysical assumptions as to the
configuration of the 'product' and the 'market.'"
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
--
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] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL)
Date: 4 Sep 2000 19:17:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4 Sep 2000 17:35:11 GMT,
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Subject says it all really. Check out http://www.trolltech.com
>> for more info. All I can say is think of the
>> bandwidth saved from all those flame wars :)
>>
>
>Its too late.
And not enough. You still can't develop closed source apps with Qt/KDE
without paying sizable royalties to Troll Tech. With Gtk/Gnome you
can. I can't blame the guys at Troll Tech for wanting to pay their
bills, but others have to pay their bills as well, or have other
reasons for not wanting to release source code. Thus for many,
Gtk/Gnome is a more flexible choice.
>The time wasted in getting to this point has insured Gnome
>a place in the large unix market, having just recently displaced CDE as
>the default desktop for HP/UX, Solaris, etc.
It wouldn't make a difference anyways. HP and Sun want their customers
to be able to develop closed source apps if they want to.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 4 Sep 2000 19:18:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:02:21 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 19:46:04 -0400,
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >OK, the South is devastated. Rather than help it rebuild, the government
>> >spends money on a transcontinental railroad.
>> >The painful political consequences I meant were the Jim Crow laws, not
>> >the threat of another secession.
>> >
>>
>> So now your are blaming Jim Crow Laws on the transcontinental
>> railroad?? Why should the settlers in the West be forced to live in
>> the Dark Ages so that someone's (your?) lazy asshole ancestors
>> wouldn't have as much phoney justification to keep their *lazy*
>> *asshole* Dark Ages tradition of exploiting another race??
>
>Maybe the South deserved what it got, maybe it didn't,
>but if you refuse to consider alternative uses of the
>resources employed in building the railroad, then you
>aren't doing economics.
You have not proposed one *reasonable* alternative use of the
resources employed in building the railroad that wouldn't deprive the
settlers in the West political and economic unity with the rest of the
nation. Your suggestion that the people in the West should have
suffered this isolation to prevent the crooked assholes in the South from
being more crooked is totally absurd.
>>
>>
>> >History threads don't fare too badly in c.o.l.a.,
>>
>> Not to badly for people like you who want to rewrite it.
>
>Yeah, right.
>
Yes, right.
.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 4 Sep 2000 19:18:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 13:08:09 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>
>
>>
>> : Land guys at Nicaragua, have them march to the west coast, and have
>> : other ships pick them up there. Yes, the Navy would already have to
>> : have ships in the Pacific, but that's cheaper than a transcontinental
>> : railroad.
>>
>> Those ships would not be there in the Pacific. Remember we are talking
>> about a scenario where someone's taken over the west coast.
>
>And who could have taken over the entire West Coast at that time?
Why are you only considering "at that time"? Did it ever occur to you
that time tends to move foward. Maybe you are still too young to
realize how fast time moves. Military strategies aren't simply made
for the present, but for the future as well. And the future always
carries uncertainty. Was their any way of knowing for sure back then
how powerfull someone could become??
>Japan? Just after the overthrow of the shogunate and the
>reestablishment of the emperor (1868)? no.
>
Sure, but what if they attacked around 1900, or say around 1917. Japan
had already won wars with China and Russia by that time. They could
have destoyed most of the Pacific Fleet with a surprise attack, and
then cut the supply line at Nicaragua leaving nothing but a bunch of
Donner Parties to assist the underveloped and isolated California.
>Britain? The British didn't war with the US during the Civil War.
>Were they going to the fight then? No.
Britian had actually engaged in an alliance with Japan in 1902.
>So who was threatening the West Coast?
>
The question at the time was not "who was threatening" but who *could*
threaten in the coming years. And someone eventually did. There was no
telling in 1862, when the TCR act was passed and signed, if even China
would have gone the way Japan did. The Government back then had alot
more forsight then you are willing to admit.
>> Sea travel also has an awful lot longer route than the railroad route,
>> even with the central american shortcut. Rails were just as fast as
>> boats by then, and the rail route would be more direct.
Sea travel is also much much more vulnerable to enemy attack.
>True, but did the US need that speed?
Is it enough just to be able to "win" a battle or should the military
try to be strong enough to minimize how many American lives will be
lost in the process??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: You can't help the world if you are angry at it.
Date: 4 Sep 2000 19:18:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:25:04 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>> No society is perfect. But if you want to make it better you have to
>> start with a positive attitude.
>
>Wrong cretin, in order to fix a problem, you first have to acknowledge
>the problem exists and it has to piss you off enough for you to do
>something abou it.
If you don't have a positive attitude you can't see the problem in a
rational, objective and clear way. When people anger control their
actions it only causes them to do things that are counterproductive.
>Which is why you're unlikely to ever contribute
>anything significant to humanity since you compulsively rationalize
>away everything that's deeply fucked about the world.
I'm not rationalizing away the worlds problems. I am pointing out that
your way of whining an griping about it like a baby and passing the
blame on others only makes things worse. You can't help the world if
you hate it. Chill out first. Then approach the problems in a
realistic pragmatic way.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: 4 Sep 2000 19:18:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:17:48 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:20:03 GMT,
>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Clinical Description of the Psychopath
>>
>> > No loyalty to any person, group, code, organization, or philosophy;
>>
>> Most CEO's are actually quite loyal to the corporation, their
>> families, and their philosphies.
>
>Most CEOs of large corporations do not dominate the decision making
>of their corporation.
Ok, let's assume thats true.
>And in fact, what you're saying is a blatant
>lie since most CEOs of large corporations have no trouble firing all
>their employees and rehiring them in order to steal their pension
>funds
But you just said they don't dominate the decision making. You're not
making a very coherent logical argument here.
>Your post is yet another testament to your crushing idiocy and
>utter inability to construct anything resembling a coherent logical
>argument.
See above.
>This argument is over, say what you
>like because I won't respond.
Good. Let's see.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: A guise for Marxism (Was: businesses are psychopaths
Date: 4 Sep 2000 19:18:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 00:26:31 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>As for happiness, that isn't a motivation in my case. If all injustice
>were wiped from the face of the universe then I would be less miserable
>but I still wouldn't be "happy". I am gratified to be free from the
>handicap of trying to achieve, or even believing in, happiness.
>
That sounds very depressing indeed. Too bad for you:(
>You say you would "like" to see a
>small-medium country go the anarcho-syndicalist route, well I'm
>*desperate* for the entire planet to go that route.
Anarcho-syndicalism is just a marxism hybrid under the guise of a
fancy name to hide that it is just another form of marxism. The
fundamental problem is that any time a country tries this bullshit the
ideal of anarchy inevitably fails, and totalitarian state socialism
ensues to fill the vacuum. You wanna talk about psychopathy and
exploitation let's talk about Lennin and Stalin.
What anarchists fail to admit to themselves is that humanity is not
yet socially evolved enough for a very large society without some form
of controlled hierarchy. This is not to say it can't be possible some
day. But such evolution is not going to come thru a violent or
agressive uprising. Nor will it come thru renounciation of happiness
or any other angry or negative action. If it comes, it will come thru
improved communication and understanding of one another.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: 4 Sep 2000 19:19:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 02:52:54 GMT,
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Note: humans are programmed by selfish genes to act in a selfless
>manner
That's the most optimistic thing I've heard you say. But how evolved
are we, really?? People can certainly get along altruisticly in small
communal societies, where people know on another personally and share
values and ideologies. But in a larger society, where most people are
strangers, and values and ideologies differ, things tend to become
more impersonal and altruistic human behaviour seems to break down.
And if you really think humans are so evolved then why do you then
predict that humanity will go extinct in 100 years??
>(that this takes the form of emotions that compel us to
>act in this manner is irrelevant)
So then why do you say it's OK for my DNA to know that I am part of a
larger whole and have enligtened self interest but it's not OK for me
to feel it in my heart??
>and thus we could not possibly
>be anything but selfless.
But we are. And you are too. Please don't try to tell us you never
have any selfish emotions or never do anything selfish. You're just like
anyone else, Richard.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451792.ws44t^-.00000000001
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:19:44 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Not surprisingly, he didn't respond to the
proof of his continuing lies. Oh, well. To the digest improper!
[Wake me, will ya, when Tholen has something significant to say? Thanks!
Bye!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
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: 4 Sep 2000 19:19:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 01:10:41 -0400,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Perry Pip in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>>The ship's systems comprise more than an operating system.
>>
>>Redman is clearly talking about the OS.
>
>I wouldn't go that far. He identified the failed system *by* their OS,
>which indicates, of course, that there was some sort of link.
You snipped the quote. His specific words were:
"shutdowns that resulted from NT."
and
"numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown"
That to me seems like a prettey strong link.
>But it
>could have "merely" been that the systems which were NT "happened" to
>have the applications which failed. It wasn't necessarily because of
>NT, and Redman, from what I've read, never said it did.
Once again: "shutdowns that resulted from NT", Redman said.
>He just
>identified the systems that failed as "the NT systems", generically.
>
>Chances are, of course, that it was a failure caused by the application
>which was running on the crappy OS.
In Unix an application failure does not bring down the OS. It's not
supposed to in NT either, but the fact is in some cases it does,
because Microsoft has not cleaned up the problems in some
areas. Memory leaks are a problem on NT too, causing any NT system to
fail if it isn't rebooted every so often.
A much for pratical alternative for high level user interfaces to
SmartShip would be something running Solaris on a VME backplane like
http://www.solarsy.com/solar07.htm, which meets applicable
mil-specs. You can also use mil-spec PPC based VME backplane boards
running VxWorks for embedded control..
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:25:21 GMT
In article <8p0db1$a4v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maximo Lachman) wrote:
> Roberto Alsina ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) escribio:
> >>alguien escribio:
> >> (*) Having children you can't afford is NOT "living within your means"
> >
> > What should someone do if he could, at the time, afford a child
> > and later can't? Suggestions? Infanticide doesn't count as one.
>
> It does in the minds of certain national socialists (Slobodan) or
> international socialists (Hillary). But the worst are the environmental
> socialists who believe in the rights of animals and trees, but not of
> children. Socialists are the 1st to espouse the gov't seizure of kids
> from
> their parents or guardians without due process. Remember little Elian?
Sure. But you apparently don't.
The Democrats were the ones who wanted to send him back. The Republicans
were arguing in favor of keeping him here.
Apparently, family values only apply when they're the "right" values.
> That also goes on every day in Yankee Doodooland against poor people, in
> order to keep money flowing into the child "protection" racket at
> taxpayers'
> expense. The U.S. hypocrites make Castro look like a saint.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:28:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Courageous
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But a better thing would be to make the public schools at least as
> > good as the private schools. I believe, perhaps naively, that this
> > can be done; and even more naively, that it isn't simply a matter of
> > money.
>
> It's much a matter of money; halving the class sizes requires doubling
> the number of teachers, for example.
If you believe that class size is the only thing wrong with the schools,
of course.
--
Regards,
Joe R.
------------------------------
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 15:30:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> [...]
>> >If your trouble is, as it seems, that it makes it hard for you
>> >to clone Qt, that's your problem, not TT's, not mine, not
>> >KDE's. Yours.
>>
>> How does having the code open make it harder to clone? Why would a
>> clean-room process even be necessary?
>
>A clean-room is used normally to prove you are not copying the
>code, since copying the code is illegal.
>
>Jedi's contention is that since the code is available, it's harder
>to prove that you are not copying.
I should think it would be easier to prove you aren't copying, because
it would be easier to get the job done without copying. If you were
supporting a certain function, and you had a specification of the
necessary inputs and outputs, wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to write
a program to do that if you'd already seen another program that did
that?
Is the contention that it makes it too easy to use someone else's code,
or it makes it too hard to use their ideas? Because if copying their
code is, literally, the only feasible way to copy the ideas, the courts
say you're allowed to do that.
I know this is just theory, as no courts have tested much of this at
all, due to that ubiquitous 'threat of a claim' which naturally prevents
testing the issues. The reason I go on about this sort of stuff is
because it seems to me to be an effective way to whittle away people's
general concern for their own rights. We voluntarily give them up, in
order to prevent them being taken away. A gradual process makes this a
slippery slope.
I'm not a programmer, so maybe I can't say, but it seems to me a
programmer, if he's going to expect his work to deserve copyright, is
going to be able to put a little imagination into *improving* someone
else's code by using their ideas but doing it better, and that process
should certainly not include intentional ignorance in order to make the
process as inefficient as possible. Perhaps there's a bit of the ol'
chinese wall in there, too.
What do you think?
--
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]>
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 12:23:52 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8outs2$liu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're kidding, right ? You seriously consider the current method to be
> *worse* than the ones above ? The only one that anyone might consider as
> better is the "trade a manual page for an upgrade".
No I am not kidding, I am speaking with the experience of someone who has
lived through the times that these other mothods were predominate and I have
worked with each of them from both the consumer and producer side of the
equation.
The current method is the worse of the possibilities because of its has a
failure mode that is its critical weakness. The requirement of readable
distribution media from a pervious version of the product. All media
becomes unreadable with time. If someone has been upgrading every year or
so using the current method for 10 years, then his media to prove his right
to upgrade is 10-years or more old. When it it fails to be radable at all
and perhaps the company responsible for the software is nothing but a
memory. How can the person again install the most recent version of the
software from its still readable media?
Of course the best possible upgrade would be fair pricing. Price the
product to provide a fair profit and yet be low enough to be acceptable to
both old and new users without having to resort to upgrade gimicks.
If a fair price for a product would be $50.00, don't price it at $200.00 and
so that providing a $100.00 upgrade deal would seem to be a bargin.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 15:33:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >for comparisons of private school costs, with public, see
>> >http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-025.html [...]
>> ^^^^
>>
>> I don't think so. Thanks anyway; I've had my bullshit quota for this
>> month.
>
>And once again we see the usual Max approach to things he doesn't like.
>
>Ignore them and continue spreading the same old lies.
I don't listen to the fools at the Cato Institute. That's hardly
ignoring anything or spreading lies.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
