Linux-Advocacy Digest #904, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Christopher Smith)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Courageous)
Re: Qt goes GPL ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (T. Max Devlin)
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 (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jack
Troughton)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Smith)
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: 5 Sep 2000 01:15:54 GMT
In article <8p0t63$8us$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>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: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:16:32 GMT
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :> Translation: M% left the bug in place.
> :
> : Isn't the rm -rf /* bug still in place in most Unicies?
> :
> : How come they didn't remove this?
> :
> : Isn't the workaround "Don't run rm -rf /*"?
>
> Why don't you try running it? As a normal user, you can only harm
> your own files. You would leave the operating system untouched.
> This is expressly why running as root should be and is avoided
> except when absolutely needed.
You avoided the question. rm -rf /* still deletes all files
Windows 9x doesn't have security, so your point is moot. I personally
dislike Win9x, so again, this isn't relevant.
WinNT and 2K have security and permissions which are superior
to *nix (DAC instead of G/U/E) so again this bug is a moot point.
So basically, this "bug" boils down to: If you're stupid enough to
Win9x, and you're stupid enough to put your FrontPage web as the
root of your C: (which I've never personally heard of anyone doing
before), and you're stupid enough to then delete that web, you experience
this bug.
This seems even more difficult and circumstancial than someone typing
su
password
rm -rf /*
Each involve about three steps, but the latter is even easier.
Seems the rm -rf /* bug is more accessible and therefore more dangerous.
Note: I'm not arguing that rm should be removed, I'm merely illustrating
the futility of your arguments.
> One will also note modern Unix systems can lock down files beyond
> the standard octal permissions, such as with flags in 4.4BSD (see
> chflags(1)), preventing harm from "rm -rf /*" even by root.
> -Although this functionality isn't extensively used, as people
> are typically intelligent enough to not allow fools and small
> children to hold the root password in the first place.
The same is true for WindowsNT/2K, except you have even more options
for permissioning schemes than with *nix.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 5 Sep 2000 01:18:52 GMT
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 19:37:47 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[ snip ]
The questions are certainly reasonable. For a change, you seem to
be asking and not shouting. I will answer them to the best of my
ability.
>>The point is that noone cares if there is more than one tool sharing the
>>same API as long as there is a different API/tool available with
>>comparable functionality. The reason why noone cares is because it is
>>in practice fairly easy to use one API instead of another for a project.
>
>So I've gathered. Thanks for helping out. Tell me something else, if
>you would. Does an application developer who is developing a KDE
>application (let's just say its a customer requirement, OK?) have to use
>Troll Tech's QT tool?
That is correct. KDE is a layer that sits on top of QT, so it would be
necessary to use Qt.
However, I'll point out that GNOME offers parallel functionality to KDE.
So the customer could choose KDE/QT or GNOME/GTK.
>>Not true at all. You are overestimating the difficulty of learning a
>>new API. What you probably don't know, but I'll point out, is that the
>>GTK and QT APIs are very similar ( the basic signal/slot design concept
>>is used by both toolkits ).
>
>Are there other toolkits with similar end results that don't use this
>design concept?
Yes, there are. Wx-Windows uses a different design. More traditional
callback based models such as Tk and Xlib also differ at a fundamental
level.
> Does this change the character of solutions which might
>make on API a better choice than another, or is it merely 'programmer
>style'?
I don't believe so. Typically, QT and GTK applications will make heavy
use of the signal/slot paradigm.
Both are somewhat incompatible with more traditional designs.
The one area where there are compatibility issues is with language bindings,
and here, GTK has a definite advantage.
>>If I wanted to use a different library, I wouldn't consider having to
>>change APIs ( to GTK for example ) to be an onerous requirement.
>
>But it must certainly be less efficient than changing from QT to a
>QT-clone, or vice versa, wouldn't it?
I don't believe it would be that much different. GTK is similar enough
to Qt that a Qt programmer could start coding immediately if they had
the GTK docs in front of them.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:23:26 GMT
> I would think that most people who are in computing are also interested
> in the state of education.
And more than to the point, even newsreaders without personal
killfiles can still ignore threads.
C//
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Qt goes GPL
Date: 5 Sep 2000 01:23:31 GMT
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: 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've had absolutely zero problems with KDE 1.1.2. And while it may
have some rough edges in terms of usability, I'd still recommend it
without hesitation over ANY proprietary product. And guess what?
Most of those rough edges are *gone* in the 2.0 beta!
I use a handful of GTK apps as well, most notably XChat, and have had
only a single problem with these (which may have been due to user
error, since I was too lazy to try and figure out exactly what went
wrong.)
Regarding the GPL'ing of Qt: I'm very excited about this step, and
hope that it will put to rest the (IMHO) very legitimate concerns that
Debian and the FSF have held about KDE since its inception. I shared
these concerns, but the availability of a GPL'd Qt renders them moot.
We are blessed to have two excellent and totally free desktop
environments for Linux, *BSD, and other similar operating systems.
Both are improving at a rapid and accelerating pace. If I were the
vendor of a proprietary OS/GUI/browser/devtool/app behemoth, I'd be
just a bit worried right about now. :)
Joe
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:58:45 +1030
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :> Translation: M% left the bug in place.
> > :
> > : Isn't the rm -rf /* bug still in place in most Unicies?
> > :
> > : How come they didn't remove this?
> > :
> > : Isn't the workaround "Don't run rm -rf /*"?
> >
> > Why don't you try running it? As a normal user, you can only harm
> > your own files. You would leave the operating system untouched.
> > This is expressly why running as root should be and is avoided
> > except when absolutely needed.
>
> You avoided the question. rm -rf /* still deletes all files
> Windows 9x doesn't have security, so your point is moot. I personally
> dislike Win9x, so again, this isn't relevant.
>
> WinNT and 2K have security and permissions which are superior
> to *nix (DAC instead of G/U/E) so again this bug is a moot point.
I'll show a little ignorance regarding NT system details and ask this:
is it possible for a user (any arbitrary user) to delete system files?
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 21:36:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >> The difference in behaviour between a psychopath with a long view
>>> >> and a normal person is minimal.
>>> >
>>> >Criminal psychopaths
>>>
>>> Changing the subject again are we?
>
>>If you think that being a criminal isn't fully consistent with
>>taking a "long view" then you need your head examined.
>
>Changing the subject again are we?
>
>What did your quote say, 20+% of those in prison are psychopaths?
>The vast majority of people in prison ended up there because they
>lacked a long view.
>
>Unless they really thought that getting their rear-door reamed was a
>fair trade for 3 meals a day.
>
>Given that a large number of non-psychopaths are criminals and that
>a lot of criminal psychopaths end up in prison the equality, or even
>near equality of psychopaths with a long view with criminal psychopaths
>and the definative difference between psychopaths with a long view
>and normal people is a long way from being shown.
How utterly discombobulating.
--
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 21:32:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:42:14 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>So can you explain why GTK is not a "monopoly" ?
>>
>>If you can explain why it might be, perhaps.
>
>I already have.
Well I missed it. Quite squirming and start thinking.
>Because there is only one implementation of the GTK API.
>Why do you keep ignoring this question ?
What question? Why GTK is not a monopoly? I'm not ignoring it; I don't
know what the answer is, yet. I'm trying to find out. Quite squirming,
for christ's sake.
>FYI, here are some more "monopolies":
>
>OWL
>MFC
>XForms
>Tk
>Motif ( Lesstif is *not* a viable alternative for most developers )
OK, I'm going to assume (since you're too much of a PUTZ to just say it)
that these are all libraries and APIs. The only implementation of these
APIs is that library, and there is only one API that library supports.
Nobody ever considered the library different from the API, and
considered each to be a 'toolset' that a programmer uses when developing
an application.
So, why, if each of these is not considered a monopoly, but merely a
product, regardless of how the licensing or ownership is arranged in
each case, is QT even potentially considered a monopoly? Why would QT's
API suddenly be considered separately from the library code, and the
tool product which Troll Tech sells, which might raise questions of
whether the sole library for a tool API might have a monopoly on the
API?
Because the market wants it that way.
Its a beautiful thing, really, and a custom-made example of the whole
'monopoly' business I've been going on about. In this particular case,
Troll Tech "did the right thing", and acted pro-competitively, by GPLing
QT. And in the process, they've inadvertently innovated a business
model which has never been tried before; licensing the same library as
both GPL for 'free' software developers *and* still licensing it under
more typical tool licensing, so that they don't discourage development
by scaring away commercial development. They're now going to champion
an even more competitive environment then the GPL itself would allow
(but that's not saying much, the GPL is the most anti-competitive
license in existence), if they have enough acumen to pull it off, and
assuming that QT is a competitive product which some people might find
superior to the alternatives for whatever reason they might have.
The market caught this one. But had Troll Tech been stubborn, and
demanded a right to use network effect to give them an excuse to
monopolize their API simply because an 'accident of history' made it a
crucial commodity for Linux GUI software developers...
That's why we've got anti-trust laws (EU, too, and I presume even
Argentina.)
>>The legal definition of the relevant market in an anti-trust examination
>>is *not* "what is the product".
>
>It's not a definition, but it's obviously necessary to properly
>identify the product to identify the market.
Now that I've come to understand the issue of QT as library and API more
fully (and recognized that it was merely the market demand that they be
considered separate which enabled TT to be considered to be potentially
monopolizing), the following quote from the MS case seems appropriate:
"The significance of those cases, for this Court's purposes, is to teach
that resolution of product and market definitional problems must depend
upon proof of commercial reality, as opposed to what might appear to be
reasonable. 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." Jefferson Parish, 466
U.S. at 18; Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 481-82. In the instant case, the
commercial reality is that consumers today perceive operating systems
and browsers as separate "products," for which there is separate demand.
Findings ¶¶ 149-54. This is true notwithstanding the fact that the
software code supplying their discrete functionalities can be commingled
in virtually infinite combinations, rendering each indistinguishable
from the whole in terms of files of code or any other taxonomy."
In place of Jackson's final sentences, I'd restate the issue for this QT
question as "In the instant case, the commercial reality is that
consumers today perceive the QT API to be separate from the QT library
or tool, because now there is a separate demand. This is true
notwithstanding the fact that the prior to the current success of KDE,
but certainly not after the hiring of the founder of KDE by the owner of
the QT library (but not the API), there was no such market demand, and
QT was treated no differently then GTK or Motif or any other available
alternative library/tool/API combination."
>>and say "Aha! So I'm right; GTK and QT are both available
>>alternatives." Its not quite that simple.
>
>Isn't it ? They are two toolkits with ( more or less ) precisely the
>same functionality, and this is unlikely to change, since GTK can
>and will implement any useful QT features in GTK.
The market recognizes something that you might not want to. One of them
support a functionality that the other cannot commercially match. Its
necessary for KDE development. KDE was adopted by the market as a GUI
for Linux; its success engendered the danger of monopoly power to Troll
Tech. Rather than attempt to mitigate the problem, perhaps by
encouraging Harmony, they hired the founder of the KDE project.
This is what Jackson meant about it may seem prior to reason if you
consider only the abstracts, like what the role of a tool and a GUI are.
In examining the commercial realities involved, there was a market
demand for the QT API, separate from the QT library that Troll Tech
owned and licensed, and there isn't one for GTK.
Only by letting the market decide can monopoly be prevented to begin
with. If the market wants something separated, and you don't separate
them, you're essentially monopolizing just as much as Microsoft did when
they combined two things which the market wanted separately offered.
>>I'm not sure what you're babbling about. Is there any circumstance
>>where a developer wouldn't have the choice between GTK and QT, but would
>>need to use one or the other for some specific reason? If so, then each
>>would have to be considered a separate market, tentatively.
>
>I do not believe that such a circumstance exists. The APIs are very
>similar and moving from one to the other would not be terribly
>difficult. So no, I do not believe that a developer would have a
>compelling reason to choose one API over the other.
Well, the obvious circumstance, it would appear, is if you want to write
KDE software. ;-)
The market has spoken. QT is GPL-available, let's say. An innovative
business model, in fact, and Richard Stallman *likes* it. :-)
>>>My point is that "libraries that support the QT API" is not a valid
>>>market section. The reason why I make this claim is that a "customer"
>>>of QT, namely a developer that requires the functionality provided by
>>>that library, could choose a different library instead.
>>
>>Always?
>
>Yes. This is my assesment of the matter. The GNOME and KDE project have
>shown that they quite able to "copy" each others good ideas, and the
>end result is that there is not a great deal of functional difference
>between the two toolkits.
BZZZZ. (Sorry, I know I should do that, but, jeez louise, your comments
are *so* prosaic.)
Market perception is not determined solely by technological concerns.
If people *want* 'KDE', just because its KDE, or because they've got
other KDE and are scared to change, or because they like the acronym, or
the colors, we don't second-guess them. We just double-check they're
getting what they want. If the market wants KDE software, then any
company which tries to profit on developer's use of *KDE* (as opposed to
TT, whom the end users are entirely unconcerned about, and they wouldn't
no QT if it hit them with a stick), an open source project, is
potentially restraining trade.
>If anything, GTK has an advantantage since it is easier to bind to other
>languages ( so for example, if you needed/wanted to program in perl, you'd
>need to go with GTK )
So why don't you build a new KDE-like open source project around it?
Have fun.
>If there is something that QT can do and GTK can not, there's nothing
>stopping the GTK guys implementing it.
Nothing at all, but that's not the question. The question is whether
there's something they want to do with KDE, not whether there's
something they want to do with QT.
>>>The point is that you don't need to be a clone of QT to be a competitor.
>>
>>Thus making it even more non-sensible that TT didn't simply help harmony
>>clone QT to begin with,
>
>Why should they help Harmony ? It was never substantially more than
>vapor. The way it's supposed to work is that you actually lay down a
>working product, and then others help you.
Why wouldn't they? They wouldn't have been distracted by all this
lawyer talk, for one thing. Once KDE has competitive libraries to
support it, it might take off like a rocket. There's plenty of profit
to be made, if you're crafty.
In the end, obviously, they should have helped Harmony for the same
reason they GPLed QT in the end, themselves. Because the market wanted
them to.
>Troll *did* help them somewhat by making available very good
>documentation for their API. If I was cloning, the main kind of
>"help" I would want is good and accurate documentation.
Good for them. They may have stumbled along, but its obvious their
hearts or their heads were in the right place. We should hope it was
both, but who can tell?
>> or at least point out that they didn't need to
>>do a 'clean room' implementation of the API.
>
>What are you suggesting they should have allowed ?
They should have allowed developers to read their intellectual works and
learn from them, in order to enable them to compete in developing
libraries for the QT API. That's the way copyright is supposed to work
to begin with. The question should be who's the better programmer, not
who's got what bottleneck on development that they can profiteer on.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 5 Sep 2000 01:33:01 GMT
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:57:06 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 00:11:04 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>But nowhere does the definition of slander require that the slanderer is
>>lying. If I accuse Max of being a sex offender, he can still sue me for
>>defamation, even though I do not know that he is not a sex offender.
>>Ignorance is not a defence.
>
>The statement has to be false, but the slanderer doesn't have to be
>lying?
Correct.
> So, in other words, you've just slandered me, because it is
>false that I am a sex offender,
No, I haven't accused you of being a sex offender. Please read the post
again.
> and it doesn't matter that your are or
>are not lying when you say that?
Exactly ( besides the fact that I didn't accuse you ).
If I said that, it would be libel whether or not I knew that the
statement was false.
> IOW, your attempt to say that since
>you are ignorant of my putative record, you have a right to call me a
>sex offender, is an attempt to use ignorance in defense of slander?
It would be an attempt to use ignorance as a defence of libel if I
really believed that I had such a right. BTW, that sentence was very
hard to parse.
My point is that there is no such right, and ignorance is not a valid
defence.
Therefore, if I were to make such an accusation, I would most certainly be
guilty of libel.
>>Again, I refer you to the above example. If I accused Max of being
>>a sex offender, my intention could well be malicious even though I
>>do not know that he isn't. Ignorance isn't a defence.
>
>You do realize that you are comparing being a commercial software
>company with being a sex offender, don't you?
No, I am not. I am providing a compelling illustration of the fact that
ignorance is not a defence against charges of libel.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 5 Sep 2000 01:37:30 GMT
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 18:50:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[ snip ]
I think I agree with your reasoning here. The fact that Harmony died
due to "lack of interest" is an incomplete argument. One must consider
how the lack of interest arose to properly assess the situation. I
think everyone agrees on why there was a lack of interest in this case.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Troughton)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:27:54 GMT
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:33:12, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Jack Troughton wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 22:13:38, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> >That's certainly one interpretation, but is subject to question at the
>> >> >low end of the scale. If you're earning minimum wage, you're getting the
>> >> >LEAST the employer can get away with. If they could get away with less,
>> >> >they probably would.
>> >>
>> >> Good point.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And yet, around Detroit, even part-time burger flippers are getting
>> >50% OVER minimum wage AND insurance AND 401k plans.
>> >
>> >Why is that?
>>
>> Hazard pay... it IS Detroit, after all :)
>
>I'm talking EVERYWHERE....
>
>Not IN Detroit....AROUND Detroit.
Don't have much of a sense of humour, eh?
--
==========================================================
* Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
* http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
* Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
==========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 5 Sep 2000 01:42:37 GMT
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 20:52:08 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Of course I will not argue that. However, I must tell you Matthias is
>>one heck of a programmer. But yes, I am sure it was his involvment
>>with KDE that made TT aware of him. Why is that a problem?
>
>Its a problem because in hiring him, Troll Tech may have been executing
>an anti-competitive strategy to monopolize Linux GUIs.
Well there's an interesting theory.
>When was GNOME started?
Shortly after KDE started. GTK was around for some time, it started
before Qt was well known.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
