Linux-Advocacy Digest #977, Volume #28 Thu, 7 Sep 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Stuart Fox")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Remote Control Sofware for linux (Brian Langenberger)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:06:39 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
[snip a lot, this was getting way too long]
> > I either missed it, or didn't understand it. Could you indulge me
> > by explaining it a bit?
>
> Certainly, I will; however, first could you answer these questions?
Yes, but I'm getting tired of being questioned constantly by you.
I'm sure you can answer SOME questions by yourself. Nothing
personal, but really, this sort of police interrogation is
not worth the effort.
> Has the usage of Qt with KDE, including the discussions reguarding it usage,
> led more programmers and orther in software development to be familiar with
> the existance and the capabilities of Qt?
Yes. And this was obvious.
> Has to usage of Qt with KDE lead more programmers to being familiar with Qt
> and its API?
Yes. And this was obvious.
> Would the porting of unix software to non-unix platforms always qualify for
> the use of the free version(s) of Qt?
I don't understand the question. What platform are you talking about?
What software is being ported? Is the software originally using Qt?
If it's an absolute: there surely is some software that when ported
to some platform may require access to a non-free version of
Qt to be compiled.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that a *new* license
of Qt has to be obtained. You can just ask someone to compile
it for you. Just like you need someone who has a decent
windows compiler to build it (and they are all commercial).
If you are trying to imply that KDE provides TT with
business, just ask, and the answer is probably yes.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:47:44 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 10:13:19 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 19:03:40 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >> >
> >> >> None of those companies have sought to acquire an essential facility
> >> >> entangled in Linux. Troll has. The examples you have cited are nothing
> >> >> more than corporations acting as Patrons of Free Software projects.
> >> >
> >> >And what precisely has Troll tried to acquire? Inquiring minds want to
> >>
> >> Control/ownership of the means of communication between
> >> OS and applications.
> >
> >From who have they sought to acquire such a thing?
>
> From duped end users. This is where any vendorlock ultimately
> comes from. Unfortunately, most end users don't think in long
> term consequences. Your cabal is famous for this.
Since when did those duped end users own the means of
communication between OS and applications? I didn't knew TT
tried to take over control of unix sockets or named pipes,
BTW.
You know, it would make you look a lot better, if you
could state things in perhaps a slightly less nutty form.
> >> >know. Because they sure as hell didn't acquire Qt. If you are talking
> >> >about hiring people, then I see no difference to hiring Alan Cox.
> >>
> >> Sure it is....
> >>
> >> Redhat doesn't peddle vendorlock. Everything they create in
> >> terms of new interfaces is free and clear and reusable by all,
> >> including their competitors. Alan himself doesn't work on
> >> anything that would directly or indirectly contribute to
> >> artificial compatibility barriers meant to enrich a particular
> >> corporate interest.
> >
> >Reiser seems to believe differently, but that's just his opinion, not
> >mine.
> >
> >What i say below is not true:
> >
> >Think about it, linux 2.2-current is whatever Alan releases.
> >RH could influence Alan to coordinate releases with RH, thus
> >making RH the only company with up-to-date kernels in their CDs.
>
> No. Alan would quite literally have a shit fit if his
> most current code weren't freely available to the world.
> Most certainly, anything Alan does is freely shared with
> the community.
Hm? There's no CVS repository. Whatever Alan's current code
is, there is no way to get it except whenever he puts it
up as a tarball. until then it's not shared.
> This is in distinct contrast to the manner in which QT
> has existed.
Indeed, since you CAN get current QT.
> >From now on, it's true again:
>
> Alan's kernels are available to anyone that chooses to
> be on the bleeding edge. They aren't merely limited to
> Redhat. The best you can come up with is a disputable
> amount of "lead time".
And that is all I claimed. Glad you agree.
> >How was it? The appearance of conflict of interest is a
> >conflict of interest, mjcr?
> >
> >> This absence of any sort of control of interfaces (real or
> >> imagined) is why Sun is a part of the GNOME Foundation rather
> >> than some KDE equivalent.
> >
> >Blah, blah, blah. I bet the Sun CEO told you that.
>
> I just know what my own CEO or VP would say.
And I must take your word for what the reasons for Sun's
actions are. Allow me to disregard them as rantings from
an outsider.
> Gratis and suitable beats just plain suitable.
It depends, really.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:02:19 GMT
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aoMt5.984$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But didn't they already know not to integrate the browser in Win98 before
> it's release? Didn't they get a conviction before for bundleing Win95 with
a
> copy of IE?
No - overturned in Appeals. Same judge (Jackson), got smacked down by the
appeals court for overstepping his bounds.
> I was refurring to the saying "No; I just try to give everyone the
courtesy
> of a fair shake of the stick", i'm not familiar with that, so i want to
know
> what exactly you emant with it
I'm not sure of the etymology of it to be honest... but it means to give
someone a fair and unbiased hearing. It may have something to do with court
jesters, but I'm not sure. Or possibly pikes :)
Si
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:04:01 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p8f37$upd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So how do you unbias the statistics?
Go to Electronics Boutique (EBX) and ask people as they walk in the door?
Check the shelf stock? See which computers are selling more?
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 18:25:02 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:00:41 +0100, Stuart Fox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> It is the HIGHT OF ARROGANCE to consider that man has even a noticable
> >> impact on climate,
> >
> >
> >It is the height of arrogance to consider that we don't. It is exactly
this
> >arrogance that means we have such a problem with pollution now.
>
> What is arrogant is to think that we can destroy the planet. The
> planet and her ecosystem can heal itself. WE are the entity that
> we have to worry about with our questionable enviromental practices.
>
> Life will continue, we won't.
Jedi, it's not often I agree with you, but this time I do
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:27:39 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p8f37$upd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8p4b0o$5q4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8p43fg$prs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:8p3v1i$1m1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:kPat5.50418$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:836t5.794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Also, consider this: currently, < 1% of our target
demographic
> > > uses
> > > > > > > Linux..
> > > > > > > > < 4% uses Mac. The other 95 or so % use Windows.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nah, 0.5% uses Amiga ^_^
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not according to my stats, they don't....
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you care to provide us with your statistics? What is the
> > > population
> > > > > and the bias factors? Is the raw data available?
> > > >
> > > > No, the raw data isn't available. I provided you with the statistics
> > > above.
> > > > And it's based on number of web hits from each OS.
> > >
> > > So, you are trusting that the http clients are delivering you valid
> > > information of their identity and not spoofing another http client
> > software.
> > > You are limiting your survey to only those users who connect to
certain
> > > websites or a particular website. You are not considering those who
> have
> > > multiple computers and only use their Windows boxes for "web browsing"
> and
> > > their other non-Windows boxes for real work.
> >
> > What if it's about half a billion web hits over a months time on 150,000
> > different websites? Is that a large enough sampling? If so I've got some
> > stats to show you.
> >
> > If not can you describe a better and more accurate way than a random
> > sampling of five hundred million users in a month?
>
> How do you compensate for the users who don't frequent those websites
either
> by choice or by imposed policy? What about those with platforms that can
> not run http clients? What about those who may have chosen to not let
their
> browser report the correct OS or client software? How do you compensate
for
> those?
>
> How do you normalize the data? You would need to compensate for those who
> may only hit those sites once or twice a month or a year compared to those
> who hit it several times a day.
>
> Do you eliminate the repeat hits by those who repeat hit the sites by
having
> to refreash their screens?
>
> Stats like those you are citing are heavly biased by a self-selected, even
> though unknowingly, population.
>
> So how do you unbias the statistics?
I don't need to unbias the statistics, I just believe that the numbers are
very accurate and the things you speak of such as refreshing the pages would
be done to all clients, and ip spoofing, I would guess, is done by about 1
out of 10,000 visitors (if that). You can trash the numbers all you want, no
OS user % stats are perfectly accurate. I base decisions on the stats though
because I think they are the most accurate available at any given snapshot
in time.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:28:57 GMT
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:50:08 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>What do you expect from the guy who said that software products
>can't
>> >> >>>be damaged because it's all just bits?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>What, they get dented in shipping;
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Ah, so [...]
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> >Of course, being the world class developer that you are, you'd know this
>for
>> >certain, wouldn't you?
>>
>> Your ass = product without IE
>> Hole in the ground = program which doesn't run
>>
>> When you've learned the difference, try again.
>
>Do you know anything about software development, Mr. Devlin? NO. YOU DON'T.
>
>Until recent releases of Gecko, there was and has been no other
>componentized solution for software developers to use for an HTML rendering
>surface. Ergo, developers used IE.
No. You're just defining the notion of component to suit your
own ends. Netscape was used in exactly the same way IE is now
except there were no low level shenanigans necessary to pull it
off.
>
>Removing IE breaks the apps which DON'T RUN AFTER IT IS REMOVED.
>
>Do you have a clue?
Sure we do. That's why we recognize your flimflam for what it
is. All those apps in question really need is an html viewer
of some kind. Merely removing IE shouldn't necessarily break
apps that want an HTML browser any more than removing vi from
Redhat would break slrn.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:30:34 GMT
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 16:53:09 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 7 Sep 2000 00:51:49 -0700, Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 01 Sep 2000 07:23:23 +1000, Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >The "previous version" check for the Win95 upgrade CD is is "check for a
>file
>> >named win386.exe" on the disk.
>>
>> Are the Win9x upgrade media even capable of starting with
>> bare media. The Win95 upgrade didn't seem to be capable of
>> it. One would have to build an OS of some sort on the system
>> disk or the install media in addition to the upgrade files
>> themselves.
>
>*cough* bullshit *cough*
Then again, where again is fdisk on the Win95 upgrade media?
What are you going to use to boot your newly wiped system? The
aforementioned upgrade media won't manage the task for you.
>
>I've FDISK'd enough systems to know. It works on a bare system. There's this
>thing called a <""> Boot Disk <"">. You insert it into your <""> Death Star
><"">. I call this the <""> Alan Parsons Project <"">.
No, it is you that is full of shit.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:36:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> Why do you think I'm not paying attention to you saying that. I've
>> remarked on it at least once, I know. I didn't say "why are you on a
>> particular side of the issue", I asked "why are you confounding the
>> issue" with the seemingly conflicted comments which you make *about*
>> your seemingly conflicted comments.
>
>I didn't make any conflicting statements... unless you assumed I was on
>a particular side of the issue (particularily on the side that has no issue
>with the licensing).
I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be the only one to read those words and
begin to suspect that you believe the licensing to be enforceable. By
suggesting that I had assumed (which I seldom do, I'm afraid to say) you
weren on the side that has no issue with the licensing, and you continue
to try to confound the argument, I'd guess that you are on the side that
has no issue with the licensing, but you don't wish to address that.
Understandable, of course. But you'd be better simply not addressing
it, then, or making the point that you don't want to address it clear
without seeking to mask your position.
[...]
>Somebody made a blanket statement that it is illegal wo write DVD software
>for (IIRC) Linix. That unqualified statement is wrong - it can be done if
>you have a license.
The statement is not wrong, even without the qualification. It can be
done even if you don't have a license. Its going to take a high court
to rule on it, at sometime in the future, I guess, so you might have a
technical point is disputing it. But only if that were the context the
poster was seeking to discuss, and it wasn't. We're all well aware that
it would be legal if you had a license. The discussion began, of
course, you may recall, with a consideration of DVD as a barrier to
entry, simply because Linux doesn't have it (and also partially that the
behavior of the benefactors appears to be unethical in itself; we were,
after all, discussing Microsoft.)
So perhaps I'm being presumptuous, but I think I have a good nose for
these things. And I'd say it is distinctly possible that the reason you
refuted a claim that it is legal whether you have a license or not,
which was indeed the 'blanket statement' and was not provided any
further qualifications by the author, is because, again, you believe it
is illegal to do so without a license.
That's really not an odd position to have, of course. Its certainly
shared by a large number of people in some form or other. Yet, it
intrigues me that you would feel the need to qualify a statement
provided as opinion with what looked to be a purposefully ambiguous
statement, and then continue to confound the issue at what seems to be
every possible opportunity you can find. Why do you do that?
>> It is not illegal to write such software - if you don't have a
>> license.
>
>Apparently it is - or at least the license holder is willing to take people
>to court over the issue - and get the police involved.
All the more reason not to provide the pre-requisite 'burden of proof',
eh? After all its *licensing*. They were going to *pirate* stuff, and
we all know where *that* would lead....
The fact that someone who has billions of dollars to gain by
profiteering so blatantly on DVD storage will take people to court for
cracking a trade secret on a piece of software necessary for millions of
people to gain access to their property by providing system developers
the information they need to gain access to essential compatibility
functions is hardly, I mean barely, I mean pathetically NOT, the same as
something being illegal.
>I think we have hit the point of misunderstanding. Just because I say that
>a license is (apparently) required does not mean that I think it should be.
No, and you made that point clear on a growing number of occasions.
There is no misunderstanding.
>> So I'll ask you straight: Do you believe that it is legal to write DVD
>> software on Linux without a license, and do you believe that whether it
>> was reverse engineered would change that?
>
>I beleive that it should be legal. I don't know if it is legal... that
>will be decided in the court case.
Well, perhaps we have hit the point of *real* misunderstanding. Maybe
my comments have already clarified it, but its worth repeating to make
it clear.
It is legal until some court determines it is illegal, not the other way
around. So we know it is legal. And since you don't think it should
become illegal, you really have no reason for all this pretense of
ambiguity. Perhaps if you knew that at the time, you wouldn't have
bothered trying to convince people that it is illegal to do so by
repeatedly pointing out "of course its legal, as long as you have a
license."
Obviously, I'm not saying that nothing is illegal until the perpetrator
of a crime is convicted. Stealing is illegal, murder is illegal,
monopolization is illegal. But accessing a DVD you legally purchased is
not illegal, and enabling others to do the same is not illegal, either.
There's lots of money to be made if that truth is not upheld, and so
there is some controversy and even fear involved in proving the issue.
But like the Microsoft case, I'm hoping this signals a turning point in
the public perception of business. Its illegal to take someone's money
dishonestly, and 'profit motive' is not justification for profiteering.
--
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: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Remote Control Sofware for linux
Date: 7 Sep 2000 17:38:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Hi I wanted to know if there is any software like
: PC Anywhere for Linux.
>From what I gather, X11 does the same task as
Symantec's pcAnywhere. For remote file sharing,
NFS should do for LAN work. Both come standard
in any major Linux distribution.
: I want to be able to boot
: into Linux or Win-98 if my computer has both.
Here's an official guide to setting up a Linux
for dual-booting:
http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-6.2-Manual/ref-guide/s1-dualboot-choosing.html
though I expect there are many, many others. Since I don't
dual-boot, I can't offer much help in that regard.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:44:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:c36t5.802$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > 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
>
>And how exactly are they stopping that from happening?
>(See below before bothering to answer).
>
>
>> > 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
>
>Ah so they stop people without money from developing DVD
>software on alternative platforms. Well that is different than
>not allowing people to write a DVD player for alternative
>platforms.
Still playing the game, I see. Just what is your motive for defending
these extortionists? Perhaps you have your own little scam going in a
similar way? The fact is that charging an exorbitant amount of money
for a license to something is, in fact, no different from simply
refusing to license it at all, at least if you are going to go so far as
to try to use threat of lawsuit and court entanglements to deter people
from exercising their rights to create software in order to access their
property, and their right to make it publicly available if you desire,
regardless of who stands to lose money if you do so. The case revolves
around disclosure of trade secrets, not people writing a DVD player.
So what is the reason you have for continuing to post in defense of
MPAA? It wouldn't concern me at all if you weren't so careful to
repeat, at every opportunity 'it isn't illegal if you have a license',
since obviously nobody is either unaware, or concerned, with that fact.
--
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: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:46:01 -0400
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Do you know anything about software development, Mr. Devlin? NO. YOU DON'T.
>
>Until recent releases of Gecko, there was and has been no other
>componentized solution for software developers to use for an HTML rendering
>surface. Ergo, developers used IE.
>
>Removing IE breaks the apps which DON'T RUN AFTER IT IS REMOVED.
>
Simon, forget it. It's like trying to explain basic algebra - to a
parakeet.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
