Linux-Advocacy Digest #9, Volume #29 Fri, 8 Sep 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
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 (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. (Roberto
Alsina)
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 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...?
The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
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. (Roberto
Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:47:09 GMT
lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin wrote:
:> lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> >snip<
:> : Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I read "when the OS blows up,
:> : nobody can hack your data". In fact the data can be hacked even if the
:> : OS has blown up. The OS blowing up doesn't stop the machine from
:> : running. It can still be setting there running right along. If there is
:> : no hardware damage then hacking the data is easy. In fact, a networked
:> : NT machine may have the "OS blown up" and still be hacked remotely as
:> : it may leave some functions running that only use BIOS calls and can be
:> : remotely exploited.
:>
:> I'd be curious to know of a modern OS that used BIOS functions of
:> any kind after the system has been initialized. AFAIK, NT has no
:> reason to.
:>
: I didn't say the OS had to use the BIOS, just that something is running
: that makes use of the BIOS.
Applications don't have access to BIOS functions under most OSes
that run in protected mode. At least this is the case under unix
systems and AFAIK it is the case under NT as well.
: Whether NT uses the BIOS or not isn't revelant. It does, but that is
: another thread.
Beyond bootstrapping and general initialization of the hardware,
what services does the BIOS provide in a modern OS such as NT?
Please, you can name at least one, can't you?
AFAIK, real mode DOS under NT run in a VM and satisfy things like
direct BIOS requests via hardware traps. That is, the processor
throws an exception which the OS (in protected mode) catches and
services how it likes. The DOS app may "think" it's "talking to the
BIOS", but it really is talking to the OS.
: The BIOS is still there and something that accesses it can still be
: running.
That's just it; nothing can access it without going through the
kernel.
: NT does make it difficult for naif users to use the BIOS, but has
: preserved the ability to access BIOS for its "friends".
Such as?
>snip<
:> Crackers can exploit nearly anything in very creative ways and have
:> for ever. I remember an old ProDOS virus that wrote most its self
:> *between* the tracks of the disk so it could not be detected by
:> scanning any file.
:>
: MS still does that. They write data on tracks on your hard drive that only
: MS is intended to be able to read.
You've got to be joking. Even the most extreme of conspiracy
theorists wouldn't typically go this far...
:> : None of this means that the hardware would ever be usable for standard
:> : OS installation again. But there are commercial companies that make a
:> : profitable business of hacking data from systems with the OS blown up.
:>
:> Typically when an "OS blows up", it halts the processor. I'd be
:> very interested to see any CERT advisory notices about such attacks.
:> You wouldn't care to provide a URL, would you? Thanks.
:>
: Depends on how the OS blows up. You would want it to stop the processor,
: but results are unpredictable.
Since when are hardware traps unpredictable?
: Some OS (or applictions running on them. I will name no names)
You'll name nothing because there are none.
: will blow up due to known bugs that leave not only the processor running,
: but the application running also. When that application happens to handle
: the network connection....
If the OS is dead, all services it offers to applications are dead
with it, including any and all network services. But that's ok, if
by some fluke your application could still "run" without the
OS...you'd still drop dead pretty quick some trivial things, like a
page fault that can't be serviced.
Again, a single CERT advisory would prove your case. If you can't
present one, you have no case. Full stop.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:55:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 01:14:31 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>No, the customer is the customer who wants KDE. They chose that over
>>GNOME, for whatever reason, we won't second-guess them.
>
>KDE vs GNOME usually boils down to Qt vs GTK. You say "we won't second
>guess them", but in a scenario that is hypothetical, we must be prepared
>to assign reasonable motives to our characters.
Making money is the beginning and end of the allowable motives for
market behavior. That goes for customers as well as vendors.
>>[...]This provided a business opportunity
>>to Troll Tech, yes, but also to anyone else who wished to also support
>>the QT API, which Troll Tech defined, but does not own.
>
>Nice idea in theory. In practice, KDE requires Qt. Not just "an application
>that supports the Qt API", but Qt, as released by Troll Tech. Why is this ?
>Because the reality of the matter is that developing drop-in replacements
>for complex APIs is not terribly feasible.
If you're going to leave it at such a plain case, than any developer
desiring to try to market KDE software is free to use the QT software
without licensing constraints, as the only possible way to support the
KDE/QT interface, the QT API.
Matthias making KDE an open platform was not necessarily a responsible
move for a customer to make, and if TT wanted to sue him for making KDE
an open platform, thus providing market demand which allows QT software
to be used by anyone without TT's permission, they'd have to take it up
with him. In the end, they made the right decision, and recognized that
all he did was open the market for QT API-supporting libraries, and
they'd like to try to compete in that market.
>>How's that for a verdict from the street?
>
>It sounds like a verdict from someone who is ignoring the technical realities
>of the matter.
Good. That is the intent; we consider marketing realities in
anti-trust; technical realities are meaningless in their own right,
excepting how they influence market choices, and then only to the extent
of the impact of the choice, without any second-guessing about the
reason for the choice.
"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."
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
[...]
>Well I don't see why anyone would want to switch from Qt to some other
>"compatible" toolkit midway. If they did want to do so, a switch to
>GTK would be possible. It would require recoding, but most probably
>would not require redesign.
Not midway; after the fact, or at any time previous. If the boys had
KDE had written their software with an abstraction layer, they wouldn't
even care if QT or GTK was used underneath, though obviously they'd make
their jobs much harder if they wanted to take advantage of any unique
characteristics of either one.
>>Regardless, a QT-clone is a zero-cost change from QT, or vice versa.
>
>No, it is not zero-cost, unless you are prepared to assume that the
>so-called "drop-in" replacement really is drop-in. Again, you are
>conveniently ignoring the technical realities of the matter.
I say it is zero-cost, because it doesn't increase the cost of any
following product in terms of marginal expenses; variable cost. Sure,
there may be a fixed cost involved in changing the software to get it to
work again, after the change. But it doesn't matter if you've got a
million installations out there, none of them would care when the new
version comes out that uses QT-Clone, instead of QT. Not if the
developer is doing their job right, at any rate.
>>Obviously, switching from GTK to QT or vice versa is not going to be
>>considered anywhere near as efficient.
>
>It's not that obvious.[...]
Are you saying that switching from QT to GTK is going to be as difficult
as switching from QT to QT-clone?
> And it's certainly not obvious why anyone would
>want to switch between two versions of the same toolkit, especially
>when the switch is a move away from the toolkit's designer.
But I don't care *why* they would do it. Only whether or not they do.
If you're saying they don't, then you've undermined the whole pretense
that both QT and GTK are in the 'relevant market'. You see how that
works?
>>As I said in an earlier post, discussing the QT GPL, this was a great
>>case study. The market provided a demand, possibly quite different from
>>what was expected, and TT decided to compete.
>
>Nonsense. TT do not have any competition on their API, and they never did.
>Just as no other GUI toolkit vendor had competition on their API.
I guess developers don't really understand why their APIs aren't
protected as intellectual property, then. It truly does bring up the
question of whether their libraries deserve protection to begin with,
regardless of how much of a 'leap of logic' that might sound like. If
there really is no way to support an API but to use their particular
software, then their software essentially loses protection when they
publish the API, as anyone who's business requires access to the API is
free to copy the software, if the developer doesn't want to give them a
license.
That's why this QT issue is so counter-intuitive; because it makes that
mark. Troll Tech would have been better off if they'd promoted enough
competition on their API that there were libraries cheap enough to
prevent people from simply taking TT's original code and using that, and
maybe TT could have made some money owning or maintaining QT itself (but
no longer controlling the API, which is now a market, not a single
specification). As it is, now they've GPLed the damn thing, and may not
make a dime on it.
In a microcosm, I see it as similar to what's happening with Microsoft.
They don't own the PC spec, but they've prevented competition so well
that now the only choice the market has is to use Linux. Once things
start opening up, and people remember how powerful and resourceful
competition can be in advancing technology, who in their right mind
would lock themselves in to another 'secret source' vendor, unless they
had to? If Troll Tech hadn't GPLed QT, the market would have rejected
KDE. Thank heavens for the great men who started GNOME. It might seem
ludicrous, but you've gotta admit there was at least some chance, by
accident of history unseen, even, that TT managed to make KDE the
Windows of Linux, and put us right back where we started.
I'll be the first to applaud and congratulate Troll Tech for supporting
free software by GPLing QT. But I'll be the first to remind everybody
that it looked like if they *could* have gotten away with it, they would
have done it, with smiles on their faces.
A lot of people *still* don't understand what Microsoft did that was
wrong. There's no reason to believe that doesn't include a good number
of Linux software developers. Let's remember that every one of them
would like to profiteer off the community's assets, if given the
opportunity to do so without enough people crying 'foul' to stop them
from getting away with it.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:56:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:26:52 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> [...]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?
>
>Tricky question. The answer is yes and no. It depends on what precisely
>is meant by "developing a KDE application", for which there is no precise
>definition.
[...]
Need we go on? I think not.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:59:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> Well, I'll have to point out that's not the way you seem to characterize
>> it when you first mentioned it to me. Well, I should say you seem to
>> characterize it as being in response to your being part of KDE.
>
>I recall saying approx. "for being a vocal KDE advocate".
Yes, I recall you lying about it, too. I would expect that most of them
know that you are part of KDE, and not just an advocate.
>> Where you got the idea that I was referring only to messages about
>> harmony and the alleged threat, I have no idea.
>
>You asked if "folgging this dead horse", the dead horse being
>Harmony and the legal threat, which is, after all, what is being
>discussed in this (sub)thread, was the reason why I got hate
>mail.
>
>I say no, it's not. If you asked something else, I misunderstood
>you. Perhaps you were not clear.
No, what was being discussed is if Troll Tech and KDE aren't just a
Microsoft Windows wanting to exploit community property by trying to
lock Linux customers in to QT, just like Microsoft locks the industry
into Win32, currently.
Its flogging a dead horse because TT looked competition in the eye, and
something convinced them to do the right thing, and they GPLed QT.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 20:12:35 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[snip crap that I don't feel like debating right now]
And now here is crap I DO feel like debating right now:
> Matthias making KDE an open platform was not necessarily a responsible
> move for a customer to make, and if TT wanted to sue him for making KDE
> an open platform, thus providing market demand which allows QT software
> to be used by anyone without TT's permission, they'd have to take it up
> with him.
When Matthias founded KDE he was not a TT employee, he simply
developed software according to the Qt license. Why on earth
would TT sue him?
[snip even more]
> [...]
> >Well I don't see why anyone would want to switch from Qt to some other
> >"compatible" toolkit midway. If they did want to do so, a switch to
> >GTK would be possible. It would require recoding, but most probably
> >would not require redesign.
>
> Not midway; after the fact, or at any time previous. If the boys had
> KDE had written their software with an abstraction layer, they wouldn't
> even care if QT or GTK was used underneath, though obviously they'd make
> their jobs much harder if they wanted to take advantage of any unique
> characteristics of either one.
Oh, yeah, and the abstraction layer just pops into existence, right?
You are just moving the workload around.
[snip more]
> >>As I said in an earlier post, discussing the QT GPL, this was a great
> >>case study. The market provided a demand, possibly quite different from
> >>what was expected, and TT decided to compete.
> >
> >Nonsense. TT do not have any competition on their API, and they never did.
> >Just as no other GUI toolkit vendor had competition on their API.
>
> I guess developers don't really understand why their APIs aren't
> protected as intellectual property, then. It truly does bring up the
> question of whether their libraries deserve protection to begin with,
> regardless of how much of a 'leap of logic' that might sound like. If
> there really is no way to support an API but to use their particular
> software, then their software essentially loses protection when they
> publish the API, as anyone who's business requires access to the API is
> free to copy the software, if the developer doesn't want to give them a
> license.
You can do it. History shows noone has yet considered worth the trouble.
Except for very few specific exceptions, like the win32 API.
> That's why this QT issue is so counter-intuitive; because it makes that
> mark. Troll Tech would have been better off if they'd promoted enough
> competition on their API that there were libraries cheap enough to
> prevent people from simply taking TT's original code and using that,
The stupidity of this paragraph defies description. Oh, sure, they
would be better off if instead of buying their $1500 software,
people used the $150 competing one. Yeah, sure.
> and maybe TT could have made some money owning or maintaining QT itself (but
> no longer controlling the API, which is now a market, not a single
> specification). As it is, now they've GPLed the damn thing, and may not
> make a dime on it.
You just don't know what the GPL allows or disallows, right?
Hint: Opera Software sure ain't using the GPL'd Qt for the
port of their product.
[snip even more]
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:06:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> [...]
>> >> You're confabulating, as Eirik did, the idea of TT suing on anti-trust
>> >> grounds,
>> >
>> >Where do you get the idea of TT suing on antitrust grounds????
>> >The only sue involved here is a copyright violation one.
>>
>> 'Embrace and extend' is an anti-trust issue, not a copyright issue.
>> That is the point. It gets around copyright by treating it as a patent
>> that can be made obsolete, essentially. Its monopolization, not
>> infringement. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
>
>And how exactly would TT get sued about monopoly, for embrace and
>extend done by MS? You are getting so convoluted you can't understand
>yourself.
I think you mean "you're going so fast I can't keep up with you," but I
know what you're saying. The issue is *Harmony* getting sued, as per
Eirik's email statement where he dissembled when asked if QT would sue
Harmony. They asked about cloning QT, meaning they were concerned that
TT would sue them for infringement. Without confirming or denying that,
Eirik said that they might sue if given an anti-trust justification,
which would indicate an anti-trust suit. Thus leaving entirely
unsettled the question of whether TT would sue anyone trying to clone
QT, which would be based on copyright infringement charges.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:07:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> > >
>> > > Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> > > >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> > > [...]
>> > > >> You're confabulating, as Eirik did, the idea of TT suing on
>> anti-trust
>> > > >> grounds,
>> > > >
>> > > >Where do you get the idea of TT suing on antitrust grounds????
>> > > >The only sue involved here is a copyright violation one.
>> > >
>> > > 'Embrace and extend' is an anti-trust issue, not a copyright issue.
>> > > That is the point. It gets around copyright by treating it as a patent
>> > > that can be made obsolete, essentially. Its monopolization, not
>> > > infringement. It has nothing to do with copyright infringement.
>> >
>> > And how exactly would TT get sued about monopoly, for embrace and
>> > extend done by MS? You are getting so convoluted you can't understand
>> > yourself.
>>
>> 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?
In the email, he just named a vague threat of "embrace and extend" from
a place called "Redmond", but that was obviously just a random example.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:49:37 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39b4ec37$0$26553$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Windows is fairly priced, when you compare it to *comparable* products.
What qualifies as *comparable* products to various versions of Windows.
For pricing comparison and what do they cost in relations to the price of
the matching Windows version?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:57:57 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > If that ever happened, there would be such a cry, but there would be no
> > trace of the cry on usenet or the internet. How could it? Neither one
> > would function anymore and it would take a long time to rebuild it all
on
> > Windows 95 computers.
>
> Funny you should say that. Obviously the server hardware was UNIX-based.
I'm not
> about to dispute that, but most of the traffic that exists on the internet
is
> generated from people on Win9x computers. In a way, the internet as it
exists
> now was very much built on Windows 95.
>
Windows in any form could quite easily be replaced for client hosts by any
of a number of operating system, including unix.
However!
Do you honestly believe that Windows could replace all the internet servers
and routers and firewalls and backbones as easily?
------------------------------
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:08:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>I was answering you question of who would consider suing Trolltech.
Give it up, Roberto's just dissembling and purposefully
discombobulating. There's nothing to be learned from this exchange.
--
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: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 20:15:54 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:26:52 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> >> [...]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?
> >
> >Tricky question. The answer is yes and no. It depends on what precisely
> >is meant by "developing a KDE application", for which there is no precise
> >definition.
>
> [...]
>
> Need we go on? I think not.
Then why do you post? Or you had something worthy to say and
pressed post too quickly?
Just in case you believe what I write is somehow bizarre, let
me tell you that there are varying degrees of KDE integration
a app can achieve, and there is no "designed for KDE" seal,
so how much of a KDE application a piece of software is,
is really open to interpretation.
For instance: an application that follows KDE2's resource
layout on disk, but doesn't do Xdnd, is more or less of
a KDE app than one that does Xdnd and uses another layout?
Neither can be described as "a KDE app", IMHO. And then,
as you start adding more and more agreement to the KDE
"standards", it becomes more of a KDE app. It's a
spectrum.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
