Linux-Advocacy Digest #918, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:15:32 +0200
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8opag1$umt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> Alright, I'll bite...
> > >>
> > >> Do you mean the ones that demand a previous version of Windows?????
> > >> or is this perhaps a case of installing the upgrade on one disk while
> > >> retaining the previous version of Windows on the other?
> > >>
> > >> The only Microsoft upgrade disks I've ever seen since about Windows
> > >> 3.11 and MS-DOS 5 have checked for the existence of an earlier
> > >> version before allowing the installation of the later versiion.
> > >
> > >Win95 will ask you to insert the first floppy disk from Win3.11 before
> > >proceeding - thus avoiding having to actually install Win3.11 first
> >
> > I'd never seen it do that, though I suppose it might be possible. But
> > that simply confounds the point. I don't recall anybody saying that if
> > I don't still have a readable first floppy disk from Win3.11, I don't
> > have a legal license to Win3.11.
>
> If you've lost it, and can prove you actually owned it, then ring up
> Microsoft and they'll send you a replacement for media cost (or an
> equivalent thereof).
Besides, you should backup your software
> > All of the ways around the 'upgrade packaging', unfortunately, are
> > simply further illustrations of the problem itself. You're trying to
> > justify the actions of a monopolist, and may be somewhat successful in
> > an attempt to obfuscate the point that they are anti-competitive
> > actions, it does not change the reality of the claim that they are
> > unacceptable. If they weren't dubious to begin with, I'd certainly give
> > even MS the benefit of the doubt. But they aren't; they're a
> > fabrication. Microsoft's upgrade packaging is offensive and incredibly
> > costly to the consumer. You aren't going to explain that away by saying
> > that its possible to get around the problems, or there's some thin
> > justification for the problems to begin with.
>
> If you can think of a better way to be able to make even a token gesture
at
> avoiding rampant ripping-off by people buying upgrades when they don't own
a
> qualifying product, then please enlighten us all.
The people who would do that just get a copied CD
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:36:52 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> >So you're saying that you can't install an upgrade onto the *bare* disk
of a
> >comcrap or packard hell?
> >(You can if you know some tricks tho, not telling tho)
> >
> >> Full non-oem versions are transferrable to any machine (or person) so
long
> >> as only one copy is installed.
> >
> >I wasn't talking about installing onto another machine, reread my comment
>
> Yes you are.
>
> From the point of view of a licence manager, a fresh machine is
> another machine. That's why the licence matters moreso than
What? So a user isn't ALOWED to format his system, and *reinstall* the
software he *bought* the licence for?
> whether or not the end user was manipulated into buying a previous
> copy of the OS.
>
> Besides, most PC user are manipulated into buying their OS just
> like Mac Users do anyways... So that's no real distinction.
Mac users hardly have a choice, PC user have, but most don't know it
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:42:10 +0200
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8oobif$krq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > Darwin (the cli-based MacOSX server) is available for x86 & is free...
>
> Darwin is OS X with all the interesteing bits removed. As such, it's Just
> Another Unix and barely worthy of notice.
I find the same to be valid to any M$ product, barely worthy of mentioning.
BTW, John Carmack is building a GUI for Darwin
> [chomp]
>
> > > >Right. But not enough to justify the price tag.
> > >
> > > The only thing which could possibly justify that price tag is monopoly
> > > power. I wonder if, after the current case is finally resolved, the
> > > gov't isn't going to start going after Microsoft for all the other
ways
> > > they've monopolize, or if the breakup is going to provide them with a
> > > clean slate. WinME pricing is certainly a potential violation, and I
> > > think the issue of WinModems is a sure-thing conviction. What other
> > > obvious attempts at monopolization have Microsoft implemented, do you
> > > think might be used as examples?
> >
> > Their constent raping of standards comes to mind... 'kerberos anyone?)
>
> Was implemented precisely as the standard dictates.
How about their browsers, and how they introduced propriety systems into
webpages? Like eg what's it called again, ActiveX?
Or their Java engine? (That got them a conviction)
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:46:55 +0200
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in
berichtnieuws [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christophe Ochal
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Fri, 1 Sep 2000 09:55:49 +0200
> <nILr5.463$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> >P3xr5.28431$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ><cut>
> >
> >> > Yup. Magic Sac on the ST was faster than the Mac it emulated.
> >>
> >> I sometimes still miss my ST... lol
> >
> >I remember the flamewars between Amiga & Atari users... hehe ;)
>
> We could resurrect them, if you like; I'm an old Amigaphile, and
> I think jedi is an Atari aficionado... :-) :-)
I'm not old at all, but an Amiga user with an attitude :)
> Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
^_^
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:56:31 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
tcXr5.8505$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ZMNr5.475
> > > FYI, the "fuss" was because MS didn't document their extensions, which
> the
> > > standard did not require for the extension field.
> >
> > Ah, but isn't Kerberos supposed to be an open standard? And didn't they
> > leave open the extentions to provide means of adding features? If M$
uses
> > these, and don't document their extentions, doesn't this break the goal
of
> > an open standard?
>
> Then the standard should have specified that extensions must be
documented,
> though I'm unsure how they would enforce that.
>
> There's nothing wrong with creating a superset of a standard, which is
what
> MS did. They were fully compatible with said standard, while proding
extra
> features.
Features? sounds more like 'chains' to me, and as for then using an open
standard in a closed way, it shouldn't be done, and it sure as hell should
be fought in court
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:15:53 +0200
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8oobv8$gif$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qILr5.467$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 8on6tk$e6a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <cut>
> >
> > > > Ever heard of POSIX, sweetheart?
> > >
> > > Sure have, darl, pity it's not especially helpful.
> > >
> > > I await your detailed explanation of how to write anything more
involved
> > > than commandline Unix apps with POSIX. POSIX doesn't even include X,
> > IIRC,
> > > let alone equivalents to things like DirectX and OLE.
> >
> > No, posix is a standard interface towards the kernel iirc, it doesn't
> > provide any GUI functions, as far as i know, there's no 'standard' for
> that
>
> My point exactly.
>
> I sincerely doubt it will matter to Max, though, even if he does
comprehend
> the implications.
I have high hopes that Max is an intelligent person
> [chomp]
>
> > > > Why, DVD software, obviously. Is that hard to define?
> > >
> > > Creating DVD software is simply a matter of licencing the necessary
> > > technology. You might have trouble doing it with an Open Source
player,
> > but
> > > that's irrelevant.
> >
> > I think it's relevant, not opening their technology to alternative
> platfroms
> > is imposing people with some restrictions in the 'fair use' of their
> > purchased product.
>
> They are in no way closing their technology to alternative platforms.
"Open
> Source" is not an "alternative platform", it's a development model.
I said 'opening up', i didn't mean they should go open source, i meant that
they should allow people to write a DVD player for alternative and small
platforms
BTW, iirc belgium law allows 'reverse engeneering if the goal is to provide
compability'
> (Note: I don't agree with what they're trying to do against DeCSS,
however,
> that's irrelevant to this issue.)
DeCSS has my fullest support (and if i had the source i'd be on my webpage
as we speak)
> > > > I don't know
> > > > what DivX and Sorenson are, but I'm a bit familiar, at least, with
the
> > > > DVD issue.
> > >
> > > They're proprietry codecs. You know, the types companies spend
millions
> > of
> > > dollars developing and perfecting and like to see a bit of financial
> > > reimbursement for their efforts.
> >
> > Then why not allow people to actually *USE* them on alternative
platforms?
>
> They do. Unless you can identify precisely where and how use on
> "alternative platforms" is disallowed.
The licence, it's to expensive for anyone to go out & buy one, with the
intent of having it freely available, linux isn't by far the smallest
alternative OS out there
> > If there were a DVD player for the Amiga i'd have a DVD-Rom drive by now
>
> So licence the technology and write one. Or pay someone else to. No-one
is
> stopping you.
The financial state of both me & the amiga market is stopping me
> > > > Not that its any different than the USB issue, or the old
> > >
> > > What USB issue ?
> > >
> > > > Kerberos issue, or any of the other mechanisms and specifications
> > > > Microsoft has tried to control in order to restraint of trade.
> > >
> > > Microsoft implemented their Kerberos exactly how the specification
> > defines.
> >
> > So what was all the fuss about then?
>
> It was Microsoft. People like those kicking up the fuss don't need a
> reason, because all they understand is "is Microsoft, is bad".
Iirc the fuss was because they didn't document their extentions
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:20:47 +0200
D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
RROr5.6085$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qILr5.467$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > They're proprietry codecs. You know, the types companies spend
millions
> > of
> > > dollars developing and perfecting and like to see a bit of financial
> > > reimbursement for their efforts.
>
> > Then why not allow people to actually *USE* them on alternative
platforms?
> > If there were a DVD player for the Amiga i'd have a DVD-Rom drive by now
>
> They do allow them to use them on alternative platforms... it is
> called a license. What part of that do you not understand?
I understand fully, that doesn't mean i agree with *needing a licence to be
able to write my own DVD player*
DeCSS is a little goodie that would allow people to write a DVD-Player
without needing a licence, i have no problems with having to pay a licence
to use this or that program, i have, however a problem with the idea that i
would need a licence to be allowed to access data.
Now, what did MPAA do with DeCSS? they attack it as if it were made by
satan, and claim it's made for piracy (btw, they use other tricks for this,
plus, nothing stops you from duplicating a DVD-rom)
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:22:18 +0200
D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
czYr5.6260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >> Then why not allow people to actually *USE* them on alternative
> platforms?
> > >> If there were a DVD player for the Amiga i'd have a DVD-Rom drive by
> now
>
> > >They do allow them to use them on alternative platforms... it is
> > >called a license. What part of that do you not understand?
>
> > The part that allows for a licence on something that by all
> > rights, and even by recent law should be free to be reverse
> > engineered.
>
> So no technical reasons - just moral ones.
What moral ones? The 11th commandmand : "Thee shall squash small OS's"?
> > Nothing in DVD warrants intellectual property protection.
>
> I am not commenting on that... I thought I made that part clear.
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[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: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:27:46 +0200
D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
Ajjs5.6999$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > >> >They do allow them to use them on alternative platforms... it is
> > >> >called a license. What part of that do you not understand?
>
> > >> The part that allows for a licence on something that by all
> > >> rights, and even by recent law should be free to be reverse
> > >> engineered.
>
> > >So no technical reasons - just moral ones.
>
> > No technical reasons. Legal ones.
>
> What legal reasons do you have for not being able to create
> DVD software for, say, Linux? The legal issues are that
> you have to license to stuff and keep it closed source.
What if you link with a GPL program, as most are on linux?
You do know the GPL right?
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 13:35:04 +0200
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8op5p2$pka$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:sILr5.468$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 8omt44$1k4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <cut>
> >
> > > > Read http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm, and come
back
> > > > when and if you'd like to discuss this competently.
> > >
> > > No thanks... I happen to disagree with the findings of fact.
> >
> > Sure, after all, the US law doesn't apply to M$, does it, and i mean,
> > Windows is sooo good & stable & fast that no-one would use another
system
> > right?
> > /sarcasm off/
> >
> > There's a reason why they call it 'findings of fact', because they are
> FACTS
>
> Nope, not necessarily. They're facts as seen by a Judge who spent most of
> his time sleeping in court. And ignoring a great deal of MS evidence.
Oh, right, like the forged video they had about IE? Or their statement that
it IE couldn't be removed from win98?
(btw, it *CAN* be done, as proven by a guy, don't remember who tho)
give me one piece of "evidence" that M$ produced that was valid
You're an M$ lover, and an idiot to boot
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:57:28 GMT
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
>
> Front Page is touted as a "content" creation tool for ordinary people,
> not IT professionals. As such it ought to be geared to the experience
> level of these ordinary people.
>
Who needs FrontPage? Just use NotePad. (Or vi).
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here to always trust e-mail sent using Microsoft software
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Sep 2000 07:57:40 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Just in case you think I cared: [ ]
Apparently, you do.
> You moron, he said I'm a sex offender, while pretending not to. How
> stupid are you?
>
You really should take an English course. What is your native language?
> I'd say you're just simple, and sorry.
>
Now you start the insults. You really should stop doing this, Max. It hardly helps
your arguments.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
