Linux-Advocacy Digest #31, Volume #29 Sat, 9 Sep 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic
Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth stagnating)
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they (lyttlec)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
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: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:11:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>HTML is a lousy help file construction, and a browser is
>> about the most *unhelpful* help system possible, save for its
>> rudimentary ability to mimic a real help system if you break the
>> paradigm enough.
>
>So your saying that most graphical help files in Linux which use the
>netscape browser suck or are lousy?
Yes.
>Why don't you write a better system to help everyone out?
Because I don't write software, maybe.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:14:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> You're correct. Its Microsoft's decision. And they made the wrong one,
>> which is why they're being broken up. Because its *supposed* to be the
>> market's decision whether Microsoft made the right one, but they
>> wouldn't listen, so the government had to get involved. It ain't my
>> fault.
>
>I guess your forgeting that the higher court agreed that it was ok to
>integrate the browser,
How long is it gonna take before you learn how to *think*? No, there
was no court that ever "agreed it was OK to integrate the browser".
They said it wasn't a prima facia violation of the consent decree, and
nothing more.
>which is the precise moment the the judge in
>collusion with the DOJ decided that they had better radically "expand" the
>charges (mid trial), which by the way is precisely why MS will walk away on
>appeal.
You are deluded.
>And software decisions rest completely with the developer - no one else.
In a competitive market, you're right, because then we're not stuck with
the stupid decision made by the developer, but can rely on a free market
to point out which developers are making stupid decisions, and give them
alternatives to emulate, if they're stuck.
In a non-competitive market, anti-trust decisions rest completely with
the government - no one else.
--
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.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 19:05:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> ZnU wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'd need to see the specific implementation. If it's that much trouble,
> > it's probably being done wrong.
>
> Hotline does something like that on the PC. There's a floating window
> that has a little toolbar in it. They did this because Windows doesn't
> permit you to have a menubar without a window open, so you need at least
> one window open for every app.
>
> Of course, Hotline decided it would be a good idea to put their logo, a
> banner, etc. in this annoying toolbar. And even worse, it's present but
> totally unnecessary on the Mac. Fortunately, it can be windowshaded.
>
> In general, I hate toolbars. They take up lots of screen space, the
> icons are generally unfathomable and require hovering the mouse over
> them to see what they do, and they're usually no faster than a menu
> choice, since they're such a small target. They only work effectively
> in web browsers...and I assume the dock in OS X will add to that list.
So, in other words: MDI was developed as a hack to solve a specific
problem. It has since been adopted and reimplemented in different ways by
others ever since. The original need is long gone (or should be), but it is
still in use to this day in one form or another.
In spite of all the different implementations there is no single
implementation that pleases everyone.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: When it's time to not be nice... (was Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and
Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux growth
stagnating)
Date: 10 Sep 2000 02:14:10 GMT
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:20:02 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>Interesting; it might be worth trying to compute the coordinates of
>that, as well, now that I know this.
It's easy once you've done so for the icosohedron ( subdivide each edge
into thirds )
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:15:46 GMT
Simon Cooke wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8pcivr$nj1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > By the time Microsoft came out with Windows 95, there were already
> > > > over 40 million Windows 3.1 users using trumpet winsock and Mosaic
> > > > or Netscape.
> > >
> > > Rex. You should really... I mean *REALLY* look this stuff up before
> posting
> > > it. The internet did not exceed 10 million estimated users until about
> > > 1996. There is no way that 40 mllion Windows 3.1 users could have been
> > > using the internet in 1995.
> > >
> > Depends on how you define internet. In the early 90s the 40,000,000
> > number included "intranet" and BBS (such as early AOL and its
> > competitors) users that were later folded into the internet.
>
> Given that this post was written this year, I suggest we use today's
> definition for the internet, rather than jump in a supposed timewarp back to
> 1995 where the "Internet" actually meant exactly the same as it does today.
>
> (AOL/Compuserve/FidoNet and Intranets were not considered part of the
> internet -- however, JANet, BitNet, etc etc. were considered separate
> portions of the internet)
>
> Simon
I was just quoting where the 40,000,000 number came from. It was all the
users who eventualy merged into what we know as the "internet" today.
The number wasn't made up from thin air, but has some foundation in
fact. Because the number does have some foundation it is fair to say
"40,000,000 Windows 3.1 users using trumpet winsock and Mosaic or
Netscape". They just weren't necessarily connected to the "internet" as
it defined today, but the "intercommunications networks" as they existed
then. Even today, most of my use of browsers and winsock have nothing to
do with todays "internet".
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:17:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> and I
>> >> doubt that lack of a web browser would make a product like Quicken
>> >> malfunction in any real way, though obviously all those wizz-bang
>> >> features which use the browser wouldn't quite function very well.
>> >
>> >They wouldn't function at all, and Quicken would not run.
>>
>> Booooooooolllshite.
>
>Well, buy Quicken. Do the 98-Lite haemorrhage hack. See if it comes up with
>"Unable to load library" when you try using it.
You are misrepresenting the issue. This does not address the point of
discussion at all.
>I can guarantee that you'll get at least one error message, and at that
>point the app will fatal-out. Because without the browser, you've got no
>FUCKING UI.
Then it isn't a browser, is it? Maybe Microsoft, since they wrote the
software, might have been able to continue providing a user interface
(sexually active or not) without requiring the end user to accept their
browser software in order to get a workable product. Then again, maybe
they're as moronic as you are, and wouldn't understand what that means,
either.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:19:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Sorry, but that's complete bullshit. There was never a requirement for MS
>to
>> >ship Sun's JVM.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's a small mistake. It is Sun's _JNI_ (Java Native
>> Interface), not their 'JVM' (Java Virtual Machine), that Microsoft was
>> explicitly required to include and did not, to prevent cross-platform
>> functionality. Like it matter.
>
>Your attitude towards accuracy in debate says it all Max. You definitely
>*are* a moron.
Tell me, Simon. What difference *within this discussion*, do you think
it makes? Considering it is entirely irrelevant what a JNI or a JVM do,
but merely that one of them was required to be included by contract and
Microsoft DIDN'T, I wonder why you feel this is a matter of any
importance.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 22:20:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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.
No, I mean 'we were making headway', as in I thought there was a chance
you weren't a completely delusional moron.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:36:43 -0500
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Given that this post was written this year, I suggest we use today's
> > definition for the internet, rather than jump in a supposed timewarp
back to
> > 1995 where the "Internet" actually meant exactly the same as it does
today.
> >
> > (AOL/Compuserve/FidoNet and Intranets were not considered part of the
> > internet -- however, JANet, BitNet, etc etc. were considered separate
> > portions of the internet)
> >
> I was just quoting where the 40,000,000 number came from. It was all the
> users who eventualy merged into what we know as the "internet" today.
> The number wasn't made up from thin air, but has some foundation in
> fact. Because the number does have some foundation it is fair to say
> "40,000,000 Windows 3.1 users using trumpet winsock and Mosaic or
> Netscape". They just weren't necessarily connected to the "internet" as
> it defined today, but the "intercommunications networks" as they existed
> then. Even today, most of my use of browsers and winsock have nothing to
> do with todays "internet".
I'm sorry, but BBS's were not using Netscape in 1995, and Intranet hadn't
even been coined yet. I doubt many companies were using Intranets and
Netscape much in 1995, certainly not 30+ million users.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:24:46 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pbra2$gej$[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?
OS/2 would have been (Possibly still is, if the client version is around) a
match - it certainly *used* to cost about the same as Windows. MacOS would
be a good candidate for comparison upgarde pricing, which is also about the
same.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:38:27 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Please explain to me why, if a componentized browser architecture is so
bad,
> >Netscape 6 has gone to a completely componentized version (that is
already
> >being used in at least one 3rd party browser, kmeleon). And guess what
> >else? It's based on COM. Not COM itself, but what they call a cross
> >platform COM (or XPCOM) that is virtually identical to COM in most ways.
>
> And guess what else? There's still a monopoly, which means whatever way
> the monopoly does it is a 'good idea'.
>
> COM sucks, 'componentized' applications suck, but I think you'll find
> that if you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll see that there's a
> lot that sucks. None of it sucks worse than Microsoft software, but
> just about all of it sucks a little.
>
> Componentized is a great idea. For developers. For operational
> functionality; it sucks. Shared libraries don't suck (much).
> Componentized applications do.
All said without a single iota of information to support your position.
Most of the industry disagrees with you.
------------------------------
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 22:25:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 00:19:55 -0400,
> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>No, I haven't accused you of being a sex offender.
>>
>>No, you said I was a sex offender.
>>
>>>Please read the post
>>>again.
>>
>>I did; you put an 'if' in front of it, so you could pretend that you
>>hadn't called me a sex offender, but nobody who is smart enough to read
>>Usenet is stupid enough to miss that the reason you brought up the
>>entire argument is so that you could type the words "max is a sex
>>offender". Stop acting delusional, like you didn't know you did it.
>>
>
>Max, this is even more absurd than most of your ramblings. Donovan
>most specifically did _not_ call you a sex offender.
I didn't say he called me a sex offender. I said he said I was a sex
offender. The difference is trivial, true, but that's only because the
matter is trivial; he came up with an excuse to say "Max is a sex
offender", while thinking that he was sealing himself off for
responsibility for such pathetic attempts to use emotional rhetoric in a
manipulative fashion. Its a tired troll trick; we've all seen it a
dozen times on Usenet. Its immature, amateurish, and moronic. If I
were you, I wouldn't be defending it on pretense.
>If you had read and
>comprehended the post in question you would know that. So, either you
>did not read and comprehend it, or you are stirring up trouble. I wonder
>which ?
I am stirring up trouble. I'll stir up trouble for any dickhead who
confuses schoolyard games for honest discussion. Wanna make something
of 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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:28:16 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> COM sucks, 'componentized' applications suck, but I think you'll find
> that if you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll see that there's a
> lot that sucks. None of it sucks worse than Microsoft software, but
> just about all of it sucks a little.
>
> Componentized is a great idea. For developers. For operational
> functionality; it sucks. Shared libraries don't suck (much).
> Componentized applications do.
Why ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:30:59 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It would be simpler to keep every piece of data in the computer in ASCII
> text files, as well, but in some cases, a more efficient method is
> called for. HTML is a lousy help file construction, and a browser is
> about the most *unhelpful* help system possible, save for its
> rudimentary ability to mimic a real help system if you break the
> paradigm enough.
>
> It makes a usable, if not useful, format for documentation (nothing
> beats hard copy), but for on-line help, its just too horribly wrong to
> be considered sensible. Easy? Hell, yea. But doing a crappy job
> delivering a service is always easier than not, in the end. That's why
> we need competition, or the software turns to crap.
1. What is bad about HTML as a help file format.
2. What better idea do you have ?
------------------------------
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 22:29:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> 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.
>
>And where, please, does anti-trust (that YOU brought into the argument)
>appear, when TT sues Harmony?! That just makes no sense. Who would
>be the monopolist? Monopolist of what?
Redmond. Remember? When *Eirik* brought it up? Read the email
archives again. I guess it never occurred to you that TT would have no
grounds to sue 'Redmond' on infringement charges merely because they
tried to 'embrace and extend' QT. That's not an infringement issue.
>> 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.
>
>You seem to be a very confused person. He said nothing about
>anti-trust.
>
>As a matter of fact, do you have any idea of what
>embrace-and-extend is?
Yes, I know damn well that it isn't an issue of copyright protection.
If it were, it wouldn't be possible.
>> Thus leaving entirely unsettled the question of whether TT
>> would sue anyone trying to clone QT, which would be based on
>> copyright infringement charges.
>
>What do you expect a company will do if they see someone
>infringing their copyright?
Are you saying the Harmony project would have infringed their copyright?
That's quite an accusation. Its a good thing they aren't still around;
they might try to sue you for slander.
--
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 22:31:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> So its not really an issue,
>> anymore. In fact, it means the fact that 'Matthias Ettrich, founder of
>> the KDE project, was hired by Troll Tech' is a very good thing.
>
>Cool, then stop trying to make it look like some sort
>of conspiracy.
You're deluded again. I don't deal with conspiracies. Collusion, on
the other hand, is a serious issue. And its *you* that made it look
like a 'conspiracy', not me. If there wasn't a conspiracy, why were you
so reticent to answer my questions?
--
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: lyttlec <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:35:08 GMT
A SERFer wrote:
>
> lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Zenin wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >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. 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.
> >
> >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.
>
> I think you misunderstand - when you do 'bios' calls (like in old
> MS-DOS programming) under NT or a DOS emulator on Linux, this is
> *virtualized* - you don't get to see real hardware or memory.
> Its not a security hole.
Just today I saw an article about security holes in DOSEMU shipped with
some versions of Linux. On Slashdot, I think. But I don't run DOSEMU so
I let it pass by. But the point is the memory space occupied by the BIOS
can be accessed. I don't know of any reason why it would *have* to be
accessed after boot under Linux, but I don't know of anything that
absolutely prohibits access either. root can do most anything. MS
products, OTH, permit "trusted" applications to access the memory space.
You and I aren't suppose to be able to do so, but, with sufficient
effort, we can.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
