Linux-Advocacy Digest #954, Volume #28 Wed, 6 Sep 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Slip Gun)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] ("2 + 2")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: More non-compliance from Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: More non-compliance from Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Stuart Fox)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Sue Spence)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:56:57 -0400
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Hxmt5.8928$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Christ, what a troll. When you've figured out your ass from a hole in
> > the ground, try again. I don't respond to trolls on rhetorical
> > comments.
> >
> > You said removing IE would 'damage' the software. I said that's
> > bullshit, because its bullshit. Software doesn't get 'damaged' like
> > that.
>
> It does when the sum components of the software called "IE" include
> components necessary for the software called "Windows" to function. In
> order to fulfill the requirement to remove IE, you must remove each piece
of
> software which has IE functionality. That includes such things as common
> controls (which include HTML rendering into listviews), the help subsystem
> which uses IE to render the HTML and display it, the shell and Windows
> explorer, which really just run in an IE shell, and quite a few other
> components.
>
> You can't just remove IE without replacing these components with something
> else.
And will go down in history as a prime reason that the government has no
place dictating the content of Microsoft's or anyone's intellectual
property.
------------------------------
From: Slip Gun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 18:01:56 +0000
Wise words :-)
What will it take to break those bastards?
Cheers,
Ed
Thomas Corriher wrote:
> I completely agree. Their next "desktop" was Win 95. This
> was when Microsoft changed its' design priorities from producing
> better software to crippling other's software. "DOS isn't done
> till Lotus won't run." We have many other examples like their
> having given Netscape the wrong TCP/IP stack specs for the
> Win 95 release. None of us can forget the dirty tricks played
> on Dr DOS or OS/2 either. The list appears endless. With a
> monopoly position, a company does not need to concern itself
> with such trivial issues as stability, reliability, standards,
> security, professional ethics, or even price. Customers will
> return for more because they do not have a choice. Customers
> can only hope that they are at least given a kiss before the
> company 'gives it to them'.
>
> I liked Win 3.11 (WFWG), also. It was cute, and it was fast.
> Note to the Penguins reading this: I am not being sarcastic.
> WFWG got the highest praise of any system that MS ever
> produced. It was great for individuals use, or for very small
> networks. I was using it when Win 95 was released. I remember
> that Win 95 was released so far behind schedule that it was
> nicknamed "Win Ever". I knew there were going to be problems
> with this release when one of my regions best gurus stated that
> people should avoid Win 95 like a leper. He said that he knew
> it would be very good for (his) business, but his ethics
> required him to advise people against downgrading to Win 95.
> My nose smelled something rotten with Win 95.
>
> By the way, DOS was renamed after it was bought ("innovated")
> by Microsoft. It was originally called QDOS. QDOS was an
> acronym for Quick and Dirty Operating System. The original
> name, Dirty Operating System, seems more appropriate than the
> new name.
>
> Changing the lingo and "buzz words" for a product is an
> effective strategy for a marketing company in its' promotional
> efforts. If we describe Microsoft in terms of being a
> marketing company (which it is), then we can honestly state
> that they have always been very good at what they do.
>
> They promoted Win 95 in the same way that they have promoted
> everything else. They were praising WFWG highly prior to its
> release. I do not remember the exact wording of their self-
> praise, but I am sure they frequently used the words "features"
> and "innovations". Just before Win 95 was released, they made
> their signature vaporware announcements about how Win 95 was
> "even better!". They described how it would be the "best yet!".
> They stopped their boasting just short of saying that it would
> end world hunger, poverty, and war. (Remember that Bill G. has
> been mapping out our "Road Ahead". He is my hero.) When
> Win 95 was FINALLY released, they completely reversed their
> marketing of WFWG. They began attacking the technical failures
> of WFWG to show it as a second class operating system. They
> suggested that the only logical thing for people to do was to
> "upgrade" to the new "innovative features" of a "modern", and
> "32-bit operating system". Their endless marketing cycle
> repeats like clock-work. The question is always: "Were they
> lying to us when they released the last version, or are they
> lying about it this time?" I think the answer to the question
> is that they are always lying, so it was a bit of a trick
> question.
>
> For all their failures, no one can claim that they made the
> mistake of overestimating the intelligence of the average
> person. You will be more sucessful in business if you also
> do not assume your customers are intelligent.
>
> >Those who trade away their privacy in favor of security
> >will soon find that they have neither.
>
> Very true. I suppose that great minds think alike! :)
>
> --
> From the desk of Thomas Corriher
>
> The real email address is:
> corriher at surfree.
> com
--
Those who trade away their privacy in favour of security will soon find
that they have neither.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 14:13:32 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > >
> > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > >
> > > > > I think you getting a little tangled, up untl this last message of
> yours
> > > the
> > > > > question has been about Trolltech suing, not being sued as you have
> > > > > transformed the discussion just now.
> > > >
> > > > I know that in the original argument the "threat" was TT suing
> > > > harmony.
> > > >
> > > > However, I am also aware that for such a suit it makes no sense
> > > > to talk about anti-trust, as Max is doing.
> > > > After all, who would TT sue, if the alleged monopolist is TT itself?
> > >
> > > Someone injured by Trolltech's alleged violations of antitrust (or
> equivlent
> > > laws), who also has the desire and resources to persue the matter.
> >
> > Why would TT sue someone injured by TT? Read what I ask ;-)
> > The point is: TT can not be at the same time be the only one threatening
> > to sue
> > and the monopolist, and the suit be about monopoly!
>
> I was answering you question of who would consider suing Trolltech.
Well, that question is not even in the quoted part, how's anyone
to guess?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:26:47 -0500
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What GPL software are you thinking of? Most libraries (what one
> would "link" to) are LGPL, not GPL (there are brain dead exceptions
> such as readline, but they are few and far between). LGPL code has
> no problem linking with non-GPL code.
However, the FSF explicitly discourages the use of LGPL.
Read this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
"Why you shouldn't use the LGPL for your next library"
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 12:28:23 -0500
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9Jrt5.912$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> Msmt5.8927$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <cut>
>
> > > give me one piece of "evidence" that M$ produced that was valid
> >
> > I just did.
>
> Ok, i accept these :)
>
> But is this proof that they are infact, "innocent?"
Of course not. Just that you're paying way too much attention to rumor than
fact.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:13:35 -0400
"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >snip<
> :>So... for example, Half Life would cost $250 a copy.
> :>Would you buy it?
> :>Probably not.
> :
> : No, I didn't buy it at $50, either. I'll wait till my brother gets
bored
> : with it, and use his.
>
> Off-Topic:
>
> If you want to play Half-Life, I suggest you buy your own copy and
> not wait for your brother. So far, I've yet to meet anyone that has
> liked Half-Life and has stopped playing. Half-Life (or more
> correctly, the add-ons such as Team Fortress, Counter-Strike, and
> FireArms) isn't a fad game for most people that play no more then
> basketball is a fad game. If you like it...you'll like it for good.
>
> >snip<
> : You haven't bothered telling me why I need new software, anyway. I'm
> : still playing DOOM II, and there's dozens more add-on levels than I'll
> : probably get to in my lifetime. (OK, that's a fib; I actually bought
> : StarCraft two years ago, so I'm still playing add-on levels for that,
and
> : only occasionally playing DOOM II.) I don't need Half Life just because
> : its flashy new trash, 'superior' to what I have or not.
>
> You *need* Half-Life man, I'm telling yah, you won't regret it.
>
> "This is not your father's Doom" :-)
None of them have anything on "Scorch"
http://www.classicgaming.com/scorch/scorch12.zip
It plays a little quick on todays computers if you don't slow it way down.
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:17:25 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>I'm going to do what I have suggested others do, ie set out an Elements of
>>Proof, in this case.
>>Elements Necessary (Key in Microsoft Case Only)
>>I Sherman Act Violation- requires both I and II Cites
>>A Possession of Monopoly.
>>1. Control Prices
>>2. Can Exclude Competition
>>3. Benefit to Consumer. Some would disagree on whether this one is
>>necessary.
> [...]
>
>I wouldn't disagree on whether it is necessary; I would say it is
>entirely out of place. It is obviously lifted from the 'per se' rule
>for technical tying, which is considered a restraint of trade, not
>monopolization. Including it here can be nothing more than a method of
>attempting to defend a monopoly on the grounds it 'didn't do any harm',
>a position which is not supported in any way by legal understanding of
>the law against monopolizing, AFAIK.
It's been discussed a lot. I haven't seen much legal material on it.
Basically, it comes from the school of thought about how market leaders
benefit consumers when they use high tech, go for market share and keep
prices low.
>Having a producer in the market which has the ability to control prices
>(even raising them a bit above what competitive competition would
>otherwise allow) or exclude competition (including suppressing
>development and attempts to enter the market by initially tiny
>competitors, who may indeed bring superior characteristics or additional
>price competition to the market) is never of benefit to the consumer,
>regardless of what 'trade offs' YOU may be willing to give in order to
>defend your favorite monopoly.
Actually I have mostly focused on remedies. I can't understand why the
desktop monopoly was not ended in the DoJ remedy. That is what would benefit
consumers.
Secondly, Microsoft should have been FORCED to keep the server OS. Because
they, and Linux, my favorite REAL LOW PRICED competitor, bring needed
competition in this area, despite all the McNealy rants.
OTOH, I don't care if Sun keeps Java, just so they make it work.
Java is considered by many to be the standard, and market leader, in the "n"
tier server software market. I say great, as long as they can go for share,
reinvest profits to improve the technology, and keep prices low to keep a
revenue flow that allows for investment in improving the technology.
Let the market choose.
This benefits the consumer, and is EVERYWHERE in the modern economy.
If a company raise prices, they lose market share and the stream of revenue
to invest in tech. A competitor comes in, grabs market share, and, with it,
the revenue stream that can be invested in tech to improve the product.
Look at low end shopping carts. You have the DoJ's ideal situation. Lots of
competition among piddly products, none worth a crap.
No one is making the money in the low end mass market, to improve the
product, get market share and invest the money in the tech for a high grade
product.
Low priced, high tech, large market share, mass produced. This is the modern
economy. It benefits the consumer.
Now all of these little wannabe software companies like the idea of
pretending that real innovation in even these little software products is
the key.
No the key in competition is in the basic platforms. The major advance in
software has been frameworks and now components.
A public policy must look at the competition for the middleware PLUMBING.
As long as Sun is selling multi-million dollar servers, it will never allow
Java to do anything for the average computer consumer beyond a dumb device.
So the basic problem with the antitrust case is that the individual and
business consumer is not being helped by a DoJ that does not know how to end
the desktop monopoly with a minimum of interference with Microsoft's ability
to compete in BOTH basic middleware and server markets.
Finally, a little imagination could make the remedy square with the proof.
That if middleware represents the competition, why not focus on a middleware
solution?
Max, I hate to say this buddy, but the DoJ appears to have hired your
GHOST!!!!
Yes, they have confused themselves. Too much pretend intellectualism.
1. End the desktop monopoly NOW.
2. Ensure middleware competition.
Seems simple doesn't it?
Max, I'm askin' you to IMMEDIATELY send the DoJ a message by carrier
PIGEON!!!!!!! Yes, that's the only answer.
2 + 2
>
>Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>--
>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: "2 + 2" <[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: Wed, 6 Sep 2000 13:22:18 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>But that's the key. The phrase get established as a legal principle by
being
>>cited repeatedly, linked to actual cases where the facts may vary.
>
>The phrase is cited repeatedly *because* it is a legal principle,
>*establishing* the link between the cases *outside* of the fact, which
>vary.
>
> [...]
>>Legal reasoning, and lawyers are trained on points like this, is not to
let
>>a conclusion (like "all actions which prevent competition," are illegal)
>>dominate the analysis.
>
>Quite true. If consumers are going to be trained on points like this,
>I'd rather it be "all anti-competitive acts are illegal", which is the
>entirety of the Sherman Act in law, and will stand them a sight better
>in consumer analysis. I'm not arguing with what the courts find
>illegal, and never have, that is the point. I'm arguing against the
>'popular wisdom' which seeks to defend monopolizing, which is,
>specifically and pointedly, a criminal activity.
I see I failed to persuade you about arguing conclusions.
See my other post as follows:
"If a company raise prices, they lose market share and the stream of revenue
to invest in tech. A competitor comes in, grabs market share, and, with it,
the revenue stream that can be invested in tech to improve the product.
Look at low end shopping carts. You have the DoJ's ideal situation. Lots of
competition among piddly products, none worth a crap.
No one is making the money in the low end mass market, to improve the
product, get market share and invest the money in the tech for a high grade
product.
Low priced, high tech, large market share, mass produced. This is the modern
economy. It benefits the consumer."
Max, you're in the wrong industry. You should be a FARMER. Lots of old
fashioned competition there.
2 + 2
>
>--
>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: 6 Sep 2000 17:38:15 GMT
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 03:42:10 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>the main point being that ignorance is not a defence against libel.
>
>The main point was to have a pretense to say "Max is a sex offender". I
>though we went over that, already.
I'd like to take this opportunity to define what I consider to be necessary
ground rules for any kind of reasonable discussion.
For a sensible debate to take place, I and only I must be regarded as the
definitive authority on the meaning of my own words.
If misinterpret one of my comments, I reserve the right to correct you.
You do not have the right to offer an alternative theory on what I "really"
mean ( well, you do, but I am within my rights to say "I don't mean that",
and you have to accept it )
Likewise, I undertake to discuss the actual content of your post, rather
than try to redefine what you "mean" and put myself on a pedestal as the
authority on "what you really mean".
It is impossible for us to have any kind of sensible discussion if we
allow ourselves to rewrite someone else's arguments. This strategy should
be seen for what it is -- a moderately refined version of the strategy
of sticking ones fingers in ones ears and saying "na na na ... I'm
not listening".
In short, your style is immature, arrogant and disrespectful, and I don't
believe that you are reasonable enough to be worth talking to right now.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More non-compliance from Microsoft
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:34:58 GMT
I don't use Hotmail. I use Sendmail, perl, and linux for all of my
server-side smtp needs. Many of the end users who subscribe to one of the
mailing lists that I administer are on Hotmail, however, and it's a pain in
the ass for any conscientious mail administrator that Micros~1 can't comply
with basic rfc's like smtp, html, and mime. If you don't recognize that as a
problem, then perhaps you don't administer any mailing lists, or you are not
terribly concerned about the experiences of your end-users.
> There are no *nix boxes where you are?
>
> > I was just testing html mail in hotmail and found that an html mail with
> >
> > www.foo.com
>
> --snipped
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More non-compliance from Microsoft
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:34:55 GMT
I don't use Hotmail. I use sendmail on linux for all of my server-side smtp
needs. Unfortunately, many of the people who subscribe to one of the mailing
lists I administer use Hotmail, and it's a pain in the ass that the service
doesn't conform to the standards set in the RFC's for smtp, mime, and html.
if you don't see that as a problem, then perhaps you don't do any mail list
management, or are not particularly concerned with the experience of your end
users.
In article <8p5efk$to4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then quit using it.
>
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en]C-CCK-MCD {UCLA} (Win98; I)
>
> There are no *nix boxes where you are?
>
> > I was just testing html mail in hotmail and found that an html mail with
> >
> > www.foo.com
>
> --snipped
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:41:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >
> >Well it works here, so I guess I must be dreaming.
>
> No, just naive and optimistic.
So if I don't know that it doesn't work - it does? (actually, I proved
this at work today. Just as my colleague was telling me something
wouldn't work - it did)
>
> >Point out the errors in my statements, and I'll be glad to help you
out,
> >otherwise butt out and take your drivel elsewhere.
>
> It isn't errors in your statements, its errors in your thinking. I'll
> be glad to help you out and tell you what they are, but I'm not going
to
> waste my time doing that if you are going to insist that Microsoft
> software is 'great stuff, works fine, lasts a long time'. (Yes, I
know
> you didn't say that; note the single quotes. Its your *thinking*,
> remember, not your statements, which are in error.)
I don't even think that. Working with Microsoft software pays my
bills - it's a job, I get to meet & work with (exceptionally?)
intelligent people on a daily basis. If MS software was perfect, I'd
be out of a job.
If you had heard the number of times I've cursed poorly documented MS
software just this week you wouldn't say that I think it's great
stuff, works fine, lasts a long time. I think it's OK stuff that
usually works.
>
> When you stop denying that Windows, 2K or any other, is crap pushed
by a
> monopoly, and start getting angry about it, the way you would if you
> understood the truth of the matter, then you will be on the road to
> recovery. Drop me a line, then, and I'll help you sort your butt out.
>
Being a monopoly hasn't got a lot to do with it for me I'm afraid.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Sue Spence <[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: 6 Sep 2000 09:54:11 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Zenin says...
>
>Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >snip<
>:> You are correct, the certification is only valid for that exact install
>:> on that exact hardware which did not include a net card. Installing a net
>:> card or on a different PC or with different service packs installed will
>:> make the certification invalid - More empty MS vapourware.
>:
>: Really? Wow... well, better get rid of the DoD's certification scheme
>: then -- as it's obviously the biggest pile o' crap in existence.
>
> Well, lets just say for any form of "client" or "server" this
> particular certification is completely meaningless, as either pretty
> much requires a NIC installed and in use.
>
>: The precise certification given is MEANT to be on a system which is NOT
>: network connected. It's meant to show that the system is reasonably immune
>: from physical attack.
>:
>: If it's so much empty vaporware... show me some unix OSs which have this
>: kind of certification *at all* -- or even better, WITH a network card.
>
> What would be the point? Unix has been a "network" centric
> operating system since day one.
That's just not true. Unix comes from the days before the network was a
ubiquitous part of the computing world, and has had all that stuff added onto
it. You're probably just too young to remember those days. NT, being
relatively new, has more claim to the title of "network centric ... since day
one".
------------------------------
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: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 17:57:58 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Fcrt5.905$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erm... apart from a $140,000 setup fee? Duping DVDs is expensive.
>
> So was duplicating CD's
Duplicating DVDs is still currently expensive, and unlikely to go down for a
number of years, at the very least for DVD9's.
> > Now, what DeCSS lets you do is extract the MPEG data streams, which you
> can
> > then run through a converter, and split over two CDs which will play in
> most
> > DVD players. You can then dupe them to kingdom come.
>
> Or you can write a player that *plays* the Mpeg stream
Uhuh...
> BTW, current software used for duping them just grabs the outputstream of
an
> existing player
True...
> > Unfortunately, that's a big whopping side effect of DeCSS. *shrugs*. DVD
> > piracy is the latest cracker fad -- there's whole sites (and whole
tools)
> > being written just for this purpose. Kind of cool in some ways -- but I
> can
> > see the MPAA's point.
>
> So can i, but that doesn't *prove* it was written for piracy
True... however, that's what they'll see, because that's where they're being
threatened. They don't care about an Amiga DVD player, or a Linux one --
they just care about knock-off VCDs.
Simon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
