Linux-Advocacy Digest #79, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Media Player in Linux? ("Moderator")
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: How low can they go...? (Jonathan Revusky)
Re: Windows+Linux=True ("Moderator")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (sfcybear)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (lyttlec)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (lyttlec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Moderator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Media Player in Linux?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:21:32 -0400
You can set Netscape MIME types to load mpg123, timidity, and xanim
for their respective filetypes.
--
"Hellfire rages in my eyes
Blood will fall, not rain this night
The coming curse, your anti-Christ, I am the Watcher's eye
I vindicate and cleanse the Earth of all mankind."
-Iced Earth
gena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hi!
> I have a question.
> Does anybody knows if there is a plug in for Linux to play Media Player
> files?
> Thanks.
>
------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:23:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So if "EVERY vendor had the complete option to include or not the MS OS
>> with their systems as they chose", as you say, why is it that none did
>> so, and when asked they reported that they could not afford to do so,
>
>It's interesting that as soon as viable 3rd party came about (Linux) OEM's
>began selling systems with Linux pre-installed, isn't it? Linux has been
>around for a long time, but it wasn't viable from an OEM perspective until
>the last 2 years or so. As soon as a large number of customers began asking
>for Linux, the OEM's responded. This suggests that the "Monopoly" was due
>only to a lack of alternatives, not because there was a barrier to entry by
>those alternatives.
You're delusional. That 'viable from an OEM perspective' is just your
circular reasoning. In point of fact, the 'last 2 years or so' is about
how long Microsoft has been under indictment for breaking the law by
raising barriers to entry by alternative OSes. You think its mere
coincidence that this just 'happens' to correspond to the time when
specialty OEMs started gaining enough ground that 'the public' started
hearing about them? Of course you do.
And you may recall (or check Deja, if you have the fortitude) it was a
good two months ago that I pointed out that the soft-headed morons who
defend Microsoft would no doubt point to the growing overthrow of the
monopoly, bolstered by the routine and frequent legal indictments which
Microsoft is now subject to, to the 'see, they weren't a monopoly after
all' idiocy.
No, there was no 'barriers to entry' erected by Microsoft. Of course
there weren't....
"At trial, Microsoft attempted to rebut the presumption of monopoly
power with evidence of both putative constraints on its ability to
exercise such power and behavior of its own that is supposedly
inconsistent with the possession of monopoly power. None of the
purported constraints, however, actually deprive Microsoft of "the
ability (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and (2)
to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by new
entry or expansion." IIA Phillip E. Areeda, Herbert Hovenkamp & John L.
Solow, Antitrust Law ¶ 501, at 86 (1995) (emphasis in original); see
Findings ¶¶ 57-60. Furthermore, neither Microsoft's efforts at technical
innovation nor its pricing behavior is inconsistent with the possession
of monopoly power. Id. ¶¶ 61-66.
"Even if Microsoft's rebuttal had attenuated the presumption created by
the prima facie showing of monopoly power, corroborative evidence of
monopoly power abounds in this record: Neither Microsoft nor its OEM
customers believe that the latter have - or will have anytime soon -
even a single, commercially viable alternative to licensing Windows for
pre-installation on their PCs. Id. ¶¶ 53-55; cf. Rothery, 792 F.2d at
219 n.4 ("we assume that economic actors usually have accurate
perceptions of economic realities"). Moreover, over the past several
years, Microsoft has comported itself in a way that could only be
consistent with rational behavior for a profit-maximizing firm if the
firm knew that it possessed monopoly power, and if it was motivated by a
desire to preserve the barrier to entry protecting that power. Findings
¶¶ 67, 99, 136, 141, 215-16, 241, 261-62, 286, 291, 330, 355, 393, 407.
"In short, the proof of Microsoft's dominant, persistent market share
protected by a substantial barrier to entry, together with Microsoft's
failure to rebut that prima facie showing effectively and the additional
indicia of monopoly power, have compelled the Court to find as fact that
Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market. Id. ¶ 33."
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>> because of Microsoft's own predatory conduct, and why did *Microsoft*
>> act as if the OEM's did not have any choice but to concede to their
>> demands, whenever the OEMs wanted something that wasn't sufficiently
>> beneficial to Microsoft? (Such as removing the IE software or the IE
>> icon, having Add/Remove actually remove IE, supporting dual boots, or
>> any alternative OS, releasing software on schedule instead of delaying
>> to give them time to 'integrate' unasked-for features, etc., etc.,
>> etc.?)
>
>This is rich. The Linux 2.4 kernel is almost a year late. If software
>delays were about Monopolization, then the industry would not be in the boat
>it's in. In fact, software delays are a direct result of competition.
>Product specifications change in mid-development due to new competitive
>issues that come up.
"168. Once Maritz had decided that Allchin was right, he needed to
instruct the relevant Microsoft employees to delay the release of
Windows 98 long enough so that it could be shipped with Internet
Explorer 4.0 tightly bound to it. When one executive asked on January 7,
1997 for confirmation that "memphis is going to hold for IE4, even if it
puts memphis out of the xmas oem window," Maritz responded affirmatively
and explained,
The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp, we have to [ ]
position the browser as "going away" and do deeper integration on
Windows. The stronger way to communicate this is to have a 'new release'
of Windows and make a big deal out of it. . . . IE integration will be
[the] most compelling feature of Memphis.
Thus, Microsoft delayed the debut of numerous features, including
support for new hardware devices, that Microsoft believed consumers
would find beneficial, simply in order to protect the applications
barrier to entry. 169. Allchin and Maritz gained support for their
initiative within Microsoft in the early spring of 1997, when a series
of market studies confirmed that binding Internet Explorer tightly to
Windows was the way to get consumers to use Internet Explorer instead of
Navigator. Reporting on one study in late February, Microsoft's
Christian Wildfeuer wrote:
The stunning insight is this: To make [users] switch away from Netscape,
we need to make them upgrade to Memphis. . . . It seems clear to me that
it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of
IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make
people use IE instead of Navigator.
Microsoft's survey expert, Kumar Mehta, agreed. In March he shared with
a colleague his "feeling, based on all the IE research we have done,
[that] it is a mistake to release memphis without bundling IE with it."
170. Microsoft's technical personnel implemented Allchin's "Windows
integration" strategy in two ways. First, they did not provide users
with the ability to uninstall Internet Explorer from Windows 98. The
omission of a browser removal function was particularly conspicuous
given that Windows 98 did give users the ability to uninstall numerous
features other than Internet Explorer - features that Microsoft also
held out as being integrated into Windows 98. Microsoft took this action
despite specific requests from Gateway that Microsoft provide a way to
uninstall Internet Explorer 4.0 from Windows 98."
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>Further, it can be easily proven that distributors of products almost never
>have any control over the end-product in any other market. For instance,
>suppose Safeway wants to have Tide specially marked as "Safeway Tide".
>There is certainly no monopoly in laundry detergent, yet it's highly
>unlikely that Procter and Gamble are going to allow this, especially if
>Safeway is changing the labels themselves.
"To the extent that Microsoft still asserts a copyright defense, relying
upon federal copyright law as a justification for its various
restrictions on OEMs, that defense neither explains nor operates to
immunize Microsoft's conduct under the Sherman Act...."
"Microsoft has presented no evidence that the contractual (or the
technological) restrictions it placed on OEMs' ability to alter Windows
derive from any of the enumerated rights explicitly granted to a
copyright holder under the Copyright Act. Instead, Microsoft argues that
the restrictions "simply restate" an expansive right to preserve the
"integrity"of its copyrighted software against any "distortion,"
"truncation," or "alteration," a right nowhere mentioned among the
Copyright Act's list of exclusive rights, 17 U.S.C. §106, thus raising
some doubt as to its existence."
>Your argument is specious and off course.
Your argument is plagerized from Microsoft press releases. If 'Safeway'
wanted to burden themselves with the expense of re-packaging Tide, there
is not a damn thing that Procter and Gamble could do about it, save
attempt to prevent it under 'trademark' grounds. They'd receive about
the same reception as Microsoft got; these are specious arguments.
[...]
>Until those conclusions have been held up by the higher courts, it's
>impossible to say "it's been proven in a court of law".
That is unmitigaed and complete bullshit. If you want to remain
delusional and think that some 'hail mary' rebuttal of anti-trust law
and Supreme Court precedent is going to magically melt away on appeal,
feel free. Don't bother wasting our time with it, though.
>Judge Jackson has
>already been proven to have made tons of procedural and factual mistakes in
>past rulings against MS.
Jackson made one mistake, at most, which was to presume that since a
prima facia showing of restraint of trade was evident, the consent
decree's interpretation of 'integrated products' should resolve on that
point. The Appellate Court disagreed, and so overturned his injunction,
while pointing out the reasons why such prima facia evidence was not
sufficient to provide a de facto conviction under the per se 'technical
tying' rule.
>In fact, every decision that Jacson has made
>against microsoft has been overturned on appeal. *EVERY* decision against
>them. That's not a good track record. Would you bet your life savings on a
>horse that had never won a race?
"Shit in one hand, and wish in the other..." The only (and singular)
decision that was 'overturned' was the contempt injunction. Provide
some support for your argument if you expect us to take it seriously.
>Every company has the power to control the prices of their own products.
>This makes no sense. And if MS could exclude competition, why does Linux
>not only exist, but get more viable every day?
You don't understand anti-trust law at all, is that what you're saying?
And for that reason, we should all be subject to monopoly prices, a lack
of competition, and a massive suppression of innovation that has lasted
for more than a decade? 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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:31:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So provide us with a single convincing example of this 'technology'
>> being used *in practice* to achieve any benefit. REAL LIFE, please, not
>> hearsay or thought experiments. I mean, we all know that Melissa and
>> ILOVEYOU were not merely theoretical. I would hope we could point to
>> some truly remarkable benefits of this wonderful design. So where's the
>> "good or" part which crapware monopoly technology is put to, in the real
>> world?
>
>Well, third party developers sell office integrated add-ons. For instance,
>see:
>http://www.bnsgroup.com/bnsgroup/default.asp?region=US
>or
>http://www.milehi.com/products/timecards/ouvp.htm
>
>There are literally hundreds if not thousands of developers selling
>commercial add-ins for Office.
Yea, and Microsoft 'sells' millions of copies of Windows. You'll notice
I asked for examples of this technology being used *in practice* _to
achieve any benefit_. I'm frankly not at all interested in a couple
small-time companies trying to *sell* stuff; prove it works in real life
usage, or save your breath.
Its certainly not a very common practice, nor are there very many
companies using this approach. Hell, there were more than a hundred
'developers' trying to sell Excel 'add ons' in the early 90s, and they
were just *spreadsheets*, without any real interoperability issues. I
don't want theoretical protestations of innocence, I want SOLUTIONS;
time-tested, widely implemented, and unquestionably beneficial. Perhaps
you'll just write it off as personal bias, but I honestly and seriously
doubt you're going to be able to find any. In which case I'd prefer you
stop going on and on with these empty protestations of innocence and
ignorance.
--
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:33:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>> Outlook is complete an utter crap for each and every potential use. I
>> know; I have to use it. As an expert in the implementation of
>> operationally functional, I can tell you with no fear of contradiction
>> that Outlook is a monstrously useless piece of dogshit. Except, of
>> course, in comparison to 'nothing at all'.
>
>And in comparison to Notes client...
I'm certainly not a huge fan of Notes; neither are most Notes users.
Having seen the results in both medium and large companies, I'll tell
you, again with no fear of contradiction, that Outlook is to Notes as a
pile of dogshit is to a pile of potting soil.
--
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: Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:31:04 +0000
Simon Cooke 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
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> You honestly haven't a clue, Erik, just how far and wide my knowledge
> > >> and information are on this or any other technical subject.
> > >
> > >Do you know the difference between interpolation, extrapolation, and
> factual
> > >analysis, Max?
> >
> > Yes, why?
Max may know the difference between interpolation, extrapolation, and
factual analysis, but I sho' don't.
Could you explain the difference to me, Simon?
Jonathan Revusky
>
> Because you do a lot of extrapolation without any factual analysis.
>
> Simon
------------------------------
From: "Moderator" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:34:56 -0400
I think that the CLI can be replaced with a speech system to help with the
learning
curve. The ideal system in terms of ease of use and innovation would have a
touch-screen
interface. Big, round icons on a desktop load different programs. No menu,
no
'My Computer' or 'Recycle Bin' to delete with, as these things are hidden
from the user.
Maybe six or eight icons on the desktop max, one for internet, word
processor (which also
handles HTML pages), spreadsheet, mail, news, drawing, music, and that's
about it. Games
belong on your Nintendo. Scrolling down is done with the arrow keys.
Typing is
done with keyboard. Copying files, uploading files, deleting and renaming
files are done
by speech, ie, "change the name of the document bill to jim", or "delete the
spreadsheet
titled may2000". You still have to learn to master a keyboard which takes
time, but not as
much as learning to use a keyboard, mouse, and then CLI/GUI. It's not
outside our capiability
to produce such a system now, the only problem is that corporations are
scared of innovation
and I doubt a company would put any serious effort into producing such a
system.
--
"Hellfire rages in my eyes
Blood will fall, not rain this night
The coming curse, your anti-Christ, I am the Watcher's eye
I vindicate and cleanse the Earth of all mankind."
-Iced Earth
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XXkv5.355$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> aaa...c'mon! command line interfaces is much harder to learn than a GUI
> based one...
> (altough i have to admit...i really like the Bash shell in Linux,
specially
> the tab-completion)
------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:38:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Unfortunately, IE 5.5 broke several COM behavior contracts. Bugs have
>been
>> >filed in their databases on them after long talks with QA people there...
>> >but it would appear unlikely that they'll be fixed *sigh*.
>> [...]
>> >Ummm... how do you bind to this? (cough) might be useful. Any links to
>any
>> >docs? I've not found any yet myself.
>>
>> Don't tell me we're making a disbeliever of you, Simon. Won't Erik get
>> lonely?
>
>Supercilious bastard. I investigated the spell checker myself a couple of
>months ago for a project I was working on, and I recently got stung by the
>COM interface problem with IE5.5.
>
>So ... in other words... you're not making *anything* of me.
You wish. Your experience was nothing but a case study in monopoly
crapware, and you know it. I'm glad you had enough integrity to own up
to the facts; it has indeed raised my opinion of you. Regardless, you
still don't seem to have enough brains to figure out what it really
means, in the end. Think harder.
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: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:29:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 17:31:47 GMT, sfcybear wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> >Funny, we have all sorts of Wintrolls posting
>
> "Wintroll", huh ? Unlike most of the usenet goons here, I've
contributed
> to Linux ( code, documentation ).
>
> I don't need to carry on like an obnoxious zealot to prove anything,
> because unlike the zealots, I am content to let my contributions
> to the community do the talking.
>
So that's why your here, HMMMM???
> > that these tests are
> >meaningless but have NOTHING to back up the claim!
>
> One doesn't need any data to argue that a test is meaningless.
> On the contrary, those who are trying to argue that the test means
> something need to provide the data.
Data has been provided, read the tread.
>
> > No numbers to counter
> >the claims. Nothing at all to back up there claims!
>
> Well, it's the Linux zealots who are making the "claims" here, so the
> onus is on them to submit some supporting data. Thus far, the data
> submitted is vastly inadequate. By your absurd logic, you'd have to
> do test that show Linux serving webpages faster to refute the
mindcraft
> test.
The Linux "zelots" have provided numbers! Please read the first message
of the tread! The fact is even _Linus_ says that the second Mindcraft
test was accurate! This test showed NT as faster than Linux.
>
> --
> Donovan
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:42:01 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> >Actually you can. Alternate shells for Windows do exist and are readily
>> >installable and usable.
>>
>> Readily installable, maybe; usable, possibly. Readily usable? No such
>> luck; you ignore the flexibility of the Unix system. Windows can't even
>> come close:
>
>No - YOU ignore the flexibility of Unix Max, since your solely a Microsoft
>patron.
I've pointed out on several occasions that you are incorrect in this
statement. I can only conclude that you must be entirely unconcerned
with how dishonest and knowingly false your statements are. But then, I
think everyone around here already knew that.
--
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.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:45:04 GMT
"Se=E1n =D3 Donnchadha" wrote:
> =
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:39:24 GMT, lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> =
> >> >
> >> >How do you address the issue of the loss of control of the appearan=
ce,
> >> >quality, performance, and behavior of the software to the whims of =
thoses
> >> >who developed the rendering software AKA browser. How do you also =
address
> >> >the issue of the program's user interface going haywire should a mi=
nor
> >> >upgrade via a service pack cause the renderer to no longer render t=
he
> >> >program's user interface the way that the programmers of the progra=
m had
> >> >intended?
> >>
> >> What's there to address? You just described the normal relationship
> >> between platforms and applications.
> >
> >No it isn't normal.
> >
> =
> Of course it is. Applications have always relied on platform services.
> =
But it has not been "normal" that you should loos control of the
appearance, quality, performance, and behavior of your software at the
whims of others. Modern computer science is now in its 7th decade. Up
until the MS revolution, "normal" has been about gaining more control
over over the appearance, quality, performance and behavior of your own
software and reduction of sensitivity to the whims of others.
> >
> >The platform should *free* you to use your talents
> >and abilities. Not make you squander them on trying to guess what some=
> >marketer thought he could con or force people into buying.
> >
> =
> Oh, for the love of... Could you translate that into something
> meaningful?
> =
Tex and Latex on any Unix box vs HTML.
Standard HTML vs. IE HTML vs. Netscape HTML. =
ANSI Standard C replacing assembly language vs. VC++. =
Java vs. anything MS.
Open Source vs. closed source.
GPL vs. DMCA
DeCSS vs. DMCA
Notice that all the items on the left increase your freedom compared to
the things on the right. For example Standard HTML reaches a broader
audiance than either IE HTML or Netscape HTML and is in fact easier to
write and more secure. =
Tex and Latex give you more control over the quality and appearance of
your documents than HTML. If you are targeting the print media, that is
the way to go. =
> >
> >That's why I
> >refuse to buy any OS that doesn't include a true command line interfac=
e.
> >
> =
> Oh, OK. That makes lots of sense. You want a command line interface
> because reusable HTML components a-la IE force you to squander, eh,
> what, again?
> =
Freedom, quality, portability, 12% of my market. I don't think it a good
investment to write off 12% of my market just so I can pay more money to
Bill Gates. I will choose the option that gets me 100% of my market for
free, thank you. It does mean more work for me, but the marginal cost is
way positive. At first it would seem the extra work I would have to do
to use Linux and Java would offset the marginal profit. However, that
extra work is offset by the decrease in time spent trying to guess the
whims of others (programmers in Redmond). =
> >
> >HTML is good for turning out mediocre barely good enough products in
> >short time. At the cost of surrendering your soul to anonymous coward
> >
> =
> OOOH KAAAY! I think we're done here!
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:48:11 GMT
Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ok I have an app that will crash DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and
> > Windows 98. But no one will let me try it on their NT machine. I am
> > writing a new one based on a utility program provided by an OEM to be
> > used to upgrade their Flash BIOS. It looks all a cracker would have to
> > do is steal administrator privaliges in order to wipe the BIOS on an NT
> > based system. (He has to be root to do that on Linux. Same difference)
> >
>
> Send it me, I'll try it.
>
> --
> Nik Simpson
Meet me face to face and we will discuss it. I live in Arizona, but can
meet either here or in Las Vegas.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
