Linux-Advocacy Digest #26, Volume #29 Sat, 9 Sep 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Epson 460 ("Jeepster")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (Andres Soolo)
Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn..... (The Ghost In
The Machine)
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 15:16:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 18:10:12 -0400, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>You are correct. That is what I meant. My point is that Max has been arguing
>>>with me as to what my intended meaning was ( since it's quite clear that
>>>the literal meaning clearly does not in any way accuse him of any felony )
>>
>>No, I haven't. I've been pointing out that the excuse you used to say
>>"Max is a sex offender", was just that
>
>It's not, Max. I am the sole authority on what my motives are, you are not,
>and your posturing as such simply makes you look like a pompous ass.
>There can be no debate on this. I can see inside my own
>head, and you can't. Therefore I am clearly right and you are clearly wrong.
Hopefully you won't read this, because you said you killfiled me, but
for the others who might be trying to make sense of all this 'sole
authority' stuff in light of my previous comments, I'll briefly address
the issue of whether I can or cannot tell what someone's motives are.
Mr. Rebbechi claims to be able to see inside his own head, and stated
that I cannot. Yet an unassuming analysis of his words make it rather
obvious that using 'Max is a sex offender' in the example he did could
have been motivated by nothing but inflammatory reasons. As I've
already pointed out, it was not even a very good example of the point he
was pretending to be trying to make. So it comes down to a debate, but
not on whether or not *I* can tell why Donovan posted those words. I
think any reasonable reader would have to agree that the real debate
would be whether *Donovan* could and did, in fact, 'see inside his own
head', and recognize why that was the example which seemed to most
appropriately fit the circumstances and communicate his ideas. I'd
suggest that it is more than plausible that, while he was in fact
discussing slander and needed a potentially false statement to provide
an example, the only possible reason that 'Max is a sex offender' would
occur to him as appropriate would be because he is an immature twit who
wished to insult me, not because he was interested in any reasoned or
reasonable argument on the subject of slander.
>I have no desire to converse further with you, Max. You are an obnoxious ass
>who not only refuses to listen, you put your fingers in your ears and try
>to lecture me on what I "really mean".
I do not put up with bullshit, no. And if you can't come to grips with
the fact that your actions were obvious in their intent. You simply
constructed a scenario where it seemed to make sense for you to be able
to say 'Max is a sex offender' with the *seeming* intent to try to get
me all outraged and emotional, so you could whip out the 'fatal blow'
you had planned when you pointed out that you didn't actually say that
this was a fact that you were posting. It was merely a premise for an
example of slander, but you couldn't handle it when I refused to play
the game, and never questioned or cared whether you had stated it as
fact, supposition, or even an example of a false statement. I simply
and resolutely pointed out that you were putting up a facade, not an
argument.
I'd prefer you not post at all, but if merely refraining from
'responding' to my comments is the best that I can do, I'll be satisfied
with that.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 19:16:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Vann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 09 Sep 2000 16:52:31 GMT
<jVtu5.255$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > - At the top of the screen, we have a MS Win95-ish
>> task bar, completely with pop-up menus, shortcuts on the bar (like IE4
>> shell integration or Win98), a SYSTRAY-like program notification area
>> on the right-hand side. It's bad enough they copied everything lock,
>> stock, and barrel, but they even had to put it in the same positions.
>> Linux developers are copying off of the $millions of research
>> Microsoft did to develop the Win95 interface to make it efficient and
>> conducive to productivity.
>>
>> - We have Icons on the desktop that look remeniscent of
>> Win95. Of course, with the icons on the left-hand side.
>>
>> - We have another Win95 taskbar knock-off on the bottom of
>> the screen complete with clock.
>>
>> - We have a web-browser file navigator just like the IE4/
>> Win98 "View as Web Page" function that so many Linux idiots make fun
>> of Microsoft for, yet try so hard to immitate (KDE, Gnome, and now
>> Eazel)
>>
>> - We have the ability to "view as icons" which is a
>> direct knock-off of Windows 2000's "View as Thumbnails" option
>
>I don't know if you are a troll, or just ignorant, but the idea behind
>linux is that you have *choices*. Some people like how Windows looks,
>so you can make linux look like Windows. I, personally, think Windows
>is butt ugly, and so I use Blackbox for a window manager. It looks,
>and behaves, nothing like Windows. So, you see, I can make my
>linux desktop look/act like Windows is I want, or I can make it act
>like something else. The important thing is, I have a *choice*.
It's even more intriguing when one throws in the choices of
writing one's own window manager -- something I plan on doing,
although it probably won't get wide exposure; I like the KDE window
manager way of "snapping" to a border as one moves a window (something
like this will undoubtedly be available in Windows Me, except that it
will also include force feedback on a special mouse device; the
KDE method is purely visual, slopping a bit from the current mouse
position), but dislike all of the other stuff which I really don't need.
At home, I use fvwm (not fvwm2), which is extremely simple, but has
several features which I also like, one of them being the ability to
put a window in a blank area of the desktop if the blank area is big
enough. It also doesn't have that tacky bottom icon bar -- although
I will agree that it's convenient to be able to find processes
down there; most of the other window managers seem to like to
cover up their icons, or have a separate window containing them which
takes up too much desktop for my taste.
I'm also familiar with a few methods of window management; the one I
liked best was actually not an X desktop at all, but an old Apollo
DOMAIN system, running Aegis. (Yes, it's dead. Sigh.)
The 'DM' (Display Manager), as they called it, had a command
window that could be used to type in commands such as
'cp' (create process), 'es' (enter string), 'en' (enter RETURN),
'xc' (copy or cut, I forget which), and 'xp' (paste).
It also had 5 preset window slots; a newly created window would
be guaranteed to appear in one of those slots. Key bindings are
definable to execute a sequence of commands, not unlike Athena
translation sequences, but a little more understandable.
(I don't know if I want to steal all of the control keys, though.
Maybe if there's a property on the window...I'll have to think about it.)
I should have most of the information available from the O'Reilly
manuals (I have an older set, but it has the basics) to write
a window manager that emulates this in part. I suspect someone
else has written something like this already, of course -- but
why not write my own if I want to? :-)
One can also write one's own widget set (I plan to do that, too),
or use available ones such as Gtk or Qt (I like Gtk, but don't
like some of its issues with respect to focus maintenance on
list widgets; Windows can at least navigate lists using nothing
but the arrow keys and the space bar; I intend to do something
similar although I may end up doing something wildly different;
I don't know yet).
With my luck, I'll have all this finished just before 2038.... :-)
By that time, we'll probably have computers that plug into the
brain...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Jeepster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Epson 460
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:14:28 +0100
Cheers m8.... I will try!
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pdujt$cqnar$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> From the specification on epson's uk website they claim it offers Epson
> ESC/P emulation.
> If this is done in the printer's internal firmware then it may work with
the
> Linux Epson 400 driver.
>
> Another alternative would be to install VMWare on Linux, install win9x
under
> vmware and use it
> to emulate a windows printserver. You may then be able to connect to the
> emulated windows using
> samba and use the 400 driver to talk to the network printer and windows
may
> hopefully do the translation
> to the winprinter language used by this printer?
>
> I would be interested in knowing how well this works as it could be the
> answer for users with other winprinters
> which emulate other printers when shared over networks. Maybe same
solution
> would also work with winmodems?
>
> Another answer would be to use Linux ESP print manager available from
> www.easysw.com as this claims to
> support every printer made so should support yours (this is apparently
also
> available on the applications CD available with Mandrake).
>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 15:21:10 -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:
>> [...]
>> >> Oh, yea, and I bet they'd be sued for 'lying'. They'd never be able to
>> >> post to Usenet, without people saying "you're a big fat LIAR". Cut me a
>> >> break. Get a grip.
>> >
>> >Have you ever heard about corporate image? Believe it or not,
>> >some of us would refuse to use software produced by a company
>> >that backed on its word not to sue a free software product.
>>
>> Some of us would refuse to use software that was infringing on someone
>> else's intellectual property, too.
>
>Is that some sort of veiled accusation?
Not at all, was yours?
[...]
>If the company had told the infringer "go ahead we will not
>sue you", then they would lose image anyway.
Apparently, you earlier comment *was* a veiled accusation. What makes
you think that harmony, or any other QT-clone, would have been
infringing?
[...]
>> >Well, then you had the context, stop whining. You can't hold against me
>> >that I provide references, can you?
>>
>> That's not a reference, dummy. Its a pathetic gesture.
>
>If that's pathetic, then what's your contribution?
Pointing out that your 'reference' was a pathetic gesture.
Quit ankle-biting, Roberto. You know I can beat you at this game. I'd
rather have a real discussion without all this posturing and pretense.
--
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: "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: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:18:47 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> So don't remove the parts that break the apps; just everything else.
> >
> >The appeals court said you don't remove anything.
>
> Except IE. Which is the parts that break the apps if they're not their
> and the apps rely on IE. Oh, you mean the later decision preventing
> Win95+IE from being sold, but leaving Win98 for the anti-trust trial.
>
> You know, if Microsoft hadn't felt so strongly that they needed to
> support their lie, they might have been able to get out of all this in
> one piece. But you know how it is when you're dishonest. You have to
> tell another lie to support the first, and then another to support the
> second...
>
> >> And don't feed me a line of BULLSHIT that this would be the whole of
IE.
> >> I don't write software for a living, but I'm not stupid. If the apps
> >> need some part of IE, then obviously they should be labeled "Only for
> >> use with the Win98 with integrated IE platform."
> >
> >And this benefits consumers HOW?
>
> By giving them a choice. WHY?
>
>
> >>Of course, any
> >> consumers who purchased the Win98 without IE would be free to install
> >> IE, and that should provide precisely the same system, shouldn't it?
> >> You're not saying Microsoft doesn't know how to update DLLs when you
> >> install a product, are you?
> >>
> >> (Yes, I know I'm fantasizing, ....
> >
> >Now your making some headway into reality.
>
> What, that Microsoft doesn't know how to update DLLs? Yea, that's
> obvious to anyone with more than half a brain that's been screwed by a
> new Office or IE or FrontPage install; it happens all the time.
>
> Hey, 'JS/PL', we were making some headway. Quit with the ankle-biting.
We were making headway?
You mean you were about to admit that Netscape had tried to compete in the
courtroom when competing in the free market with an inferior product began
to fail. Enter - the DOJ in search of a high visibility case and a judge
trying to write his own swan song. And you had a formula for hilarity.
Too bad it all didn't work - as we all shall soon see.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 19:21:05 GMT
lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Zenin wrote:
>snip<
:> 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.
:>
: Almost but not quiet true. Bios can still be accessed undet NT4.0, just
: not very easily. The old DOS function calls are still included in NT
: albeit with different names.
Give even *ONE* example, I dare you.
: They definately made it difficult for users to access them. But to aid
: their own and other porting tasks, they had to leave them in.
Again, name just one.
: I haven't tried to access the BIOS in Linux, I haven't had too. But if
: that turns out to be possible, it is a new big security hole. I'll have to
: research that one.
You can run DOS apps under Linux that make "BIOS calls" for
days...but they have once talk directly to BIOS. Same with NT.
:> : 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?
:>
: Many legacy applications still use int21.
Which is caught with a hardware trap and handled by the KERNEL, not
the BIOS. It isn't a real INT21. You know absolutely knothing
about system design.
:> 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.
:
: I think that is the way the MS-DOS prompt window is suppose to work. But
: Word doesn't run in a MS-DOS prompt window.
What's your point?
:> : 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?
:>
:
: Word, Excel, AOL, look at their "partners" list.
What would Word, Excel, and AOL possibly use BIOS calls for...even
if they had access to them (which they don't)?
:> >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...
:
: Nope. They used to simply mark some sectors "BAD" and use them. Now they
: are more subtile. This is an old copy protection trick from 5-1/4" days.
: Such tricks included tracks hidden after the last track, tracks that could
: be read/written only if the drive speed were changed (drive speed is under
: software control), writing between tracks. If you have security concerns,
: the best bet is to break your hard drive disk.
You're on drugs man, give it up.
:> :> : 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?
:
: Sence even watch dog timers aren't guaranteed to always work. To work they
: have to be tied to a hardware interrupt that will be recognized for a jump
: to BIOS. Considering that the BSOD sits there forever, this isn't
: happening.
What do you think painted the BSOD on your screen?
:> : Some OS (or applictions running on them. I will name no names)
:>
:> You'll name nothing because there are none.
:
: OK NT when it BSODs. Explorer.exe when it performs an illegal operation
: (about twice a week for me). MSWord. Netscape. For some reason, I can kill
: Netscape and it sometimes leaves a zombie running that doesn't register in
: task manager.
Lay off the drugs man...
:> : 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.
:
: The OS can blow up without being completly dead. Sometimes the OS may
: appear to be dead, but the scheduler is still running. The BSOD is one
: example. The main thing that seems dead there is the user interface. In
: truth, most OS are fragile and will die completely 99% of the time. But
: just because you got a BSOD, don't walk away and leave the system on. One
: of my friends got a $800 monthly bill from the phone company because his
: BSOD system spent the night pinging his isp. The phone companies position
: was "it isn't our fault. Talk to MS. And next time be sure to power down
: your computer"
"Don't smoke crack son; it's a ghetto drug."
--Bob Roberts
--
-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: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: 9 Sep 2000 19:23:41 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>IIRC, he got the Differential Engine readied and run out of resources
>>while trying to build the Analytical Engine.
> I'm pretty sure that Brian had it right. The Analytical Engine remains
> entirely theoretical. They did build a Difference Engine a few years
> ago, though.
Yes, he was right. According to "Ot abaka do kompyutera" by R. S. Guter
and Y. L. Polunov, Moscow 1975, Babbage gave up all rights to unfinished
Difference Engine in 1843 and tried to construct the Analytical Engine
but all he accomplished was the project. Ironically, mere fifteen
years later, English government and a certain Donkin agreed to build a
copy of a difference computer invented by Georg Scheutz of Sweden. After
Charles Babbage's death in 1871, his son Henry Provost Babbage decided
to carry on his father's life work and in 1888, the then readied
Analytical Engine (a revised and simplified model) was able to compute
products of form $n\pi$ for n values of 1 ... 31 with 29 correct decimal
digits, after which it ceased to work due to a problem in carry
transmission.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Beware of friends who are false and deceitful.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: So ya' wanna' run Linux?...I have a bridge for sale in Bklyn.....
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 19:25:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Sep 2000 22:07:40 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said Andres Soolo in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Babbage was definately ahead of his time. He kept tinkering with
>>> the Difference Engine as he thought of new ways to improve it
>>IIRC, he got the Differential Engine readied and run out of resources
>>while trying to build the Analytical Engine.
>
>I'm pretty sure that Brian had it right. The Analytical Engine remains
>entirely theoretical. They did build a Difference Engine a few years
>ago, though.
As I recall -- presumably, someone's written a webpage about this --
the Analytical Engine would have been a monster, and totally undrivable
with the then-current technology. Nowadays, we probably have harder
gears, better oils, and better motors.
Of course, nowadays we also have electronic transistor switches... :-)
I wonder how big a modern Pentium would be (10 million transistors)
if implemented using gears, rods, and such...
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "What's that big building for?"
"It emulates a modern microprocessor using nothing but
gears, pivot rods, and a single big motor."
"Wow...uh...um...impressive..." :-)
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 15:27:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> Every intelligent person reading this message can tell you're being a
>> numbskull.
>
>I don't know the exact URL to those pages. I gave you a URL that is
>ONE FUCKING CLICK AWAY. You can go and do the click, or I can
>go and do the click. Guess what? I prefer that since YOU want to
>see the page, YOU do the fucking click to see it.
Which click? It may be 'one fucking click away', but there are a lot of
links on a web page, sometimes; its knowing which click you need to find
what you're looking for that's the problem. I don't need a click to
access a web page; I rarely use them, as I have little patience for
waiting up to ten or twenty seconds for a page to load, just so I can
click on a link to go and wait for another page. I don't use the 'web'
that way very often; I usually use urls, not clicks. The reason every
page on the web has a unique url is so that you can save me the trouble.
If you'd rather not, than you should save your typing, as well.
>Now, if you are too stupid to know where to click, or too lazy to
>do the click, or somehow believe that typing
>"http://www.kde.org/credits.html" is easier than "http://www.kde.org"
>and following a link, then you are way too stupid, lazy, or generally
>worthless to waster time on you.
I didn't say I was too stupid, nor too lazy. I asked where some
information was, and you said "its over there, somewhere". Forgive me
for pointing out that such a response is worse than useless. I try not
to be an ogre, really. I would prefer you think it is worthless to
waste time on me, so why don't you stop wasting time and try to use it
to say something or learn something, instead of always posturing and
trying to ridicule me? How about you state your opinion calmly and
*completely* with enough justification so we might discuss it like
rational adults, instead of going on and on with this prattle?
--
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 15:30:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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?
For turning the QT API into the "the market for libraries supporting the
QT API". I'm not saying they would have been successful, but it is
basically because of his actions that they eventually 'had to' GPL QT.
I'm not worried if you accept this or not; I don't think its much of an
issue either way. But can you understand it as a hypothetical point?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
