Linux-Advocacy Digest #474, Volume #29 Thu, 5 Oct 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande] ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Consistency (Jim Broughton)
Re: 2.4! (Jim Broughton)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 17:38:59 -0500
On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 00:02:33 -0500, Bryant Brandon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>@On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 19:47:26 -0500, Bryant Brandon
>@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@
>@>In article
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>@>
>@>@>@>@>Before I run around trying to prove
>@>@>@>@>things for you, would you mind telling me what all I need to prove
>@>@>@>@>before I begin? You have a nasty habit of applying "bully rules"
>@>@>@>@>to
>@>@>@>@>your conversations. ie, changing the rules midway when you start
>@>@>@>@>losing.
>@>@>@>@
>@>@>@>@You have a nasty habit (you've done it here in this PC discussion of
>@>@>@>@your lab's issues) of blaming a lot of things without having a shred
>@>@>@>@of proof. I'm merely pointing out to you that you don't have that
>@>@>@>@proof, so you really don't have any idea what's wrong or whether
>@>@>@>@quotas/profiles are at fault (or would help).
>@>@>@>
>@>@>@> You don't want me to prove it. OK.
>@>@>@
>@>@>@I don't? I didn't say that. Learn to read. I said you can't because
>@>@>@you don't have proof. You aren't capable of doing so. You may want
>@>@>@to do it, but it probably isn't going to happen.
>@>@>
>@>@> I told you to be specific in what you wanted me to prove, and you
>@>@>refused. So, no matter what I prove, you'll later saddle it with more
>@>@>qualifiers/exceptions, and make me prove it all over again. But as
>@>@>soon
>@>@>as you're willing to tell me what to prove, I'll be happy to prove it.
>@>@
>@>@Prove the disk issue would be solved by quotas.
>@>
>@> No. I made no statement that it would, and in fact, I argued to the
>@>contrary.
>@
>@>-----------
>@>Message-ID:
>@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>@>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:12:13 -0500
>@>@@>@Sure. Now, do you typically have thousands of users logging into a
>@>@@>@single machine *locally*?
>@>@@>
>@>@@> No, just about thirty. Argument still holds, just with fewer users
>@>@@>and more data per user.
>@>@@> So, quotas don't help? Then why did you bring them up?
>@>@@
>@>@@Quotas help. Do you not understand how quotas help? What part of
>@>@@"quota" didn't you understand? Yes, too many profiles can overwhelm a
>@>@@hard drive, but that's not a likely scenario at all.
>@>@
>@>@ It seems to have happened. Yes, I understand quotas, but you implied
>@>@that they can solve this problem. They cannot.
>@>-----------
>@>
>@> When I tell you to learn to read, I'm not kidding. You have no
>@>reading comprehension skill at all. Dumbass.
>@
>@YOU, in fact, are the 'dumbass'. You incorrectly assume that "too
>@many profiles have overwhelmed the hard drive" when in fact you have
>@no proof of that in any way, shape, or form. You have made
>@ASSumptions every step of the way here, and my comment was intended to
>@simply draw attention to that fact.
>
> You asked if it can happen. The machine in question is proof that it
>can happen, simply because it has w2k installed on it. You see, we've
>been discussing thoughout this thread how the profiling thingy works.
>You have stated yourself, numerous times, that it is possible that a
>machine can fill the harddrive with profiles under w2k's system.
>
>Here's the proof:
...that I said it's possible. But you go beyond that. You have no
proof that that is the problem, and to place blame on that (without
proof) is silly.
>@It seems that way; my computers work; yours don't - AND you're paying
>@a staff of people to maintain them, yet they don't. When you, as a
>@paying customer, can't get any help, you certainly *do* appear to be
>@the moron....
>
> I'm a student. We get fucked on a regular basis.
Only if you allow it. Well... maybe it's just UNT and students that
will be happy with anything.
>We buy overprices
>books, then sell them back at half price, only to buy them again "used"
>at a "discount" for only 90% of the price.
Why would you do that? Find the SKU or unique number of the book and
buy it elsewhere.
> But, why am I a moron? Because _they_ are stonewalling? Interesting
>logic, but very, very stupid.
You pay them, you get screwed, you go back for more. That sounds like
moronic behavior to me. At my college, people there bent over
backwards to help students if there was a problem - everyone from the
prof to the lab folks to the administration.
>@And what does the teacher/prof/whatever in charge of the class say
>@about your problems?
>
> "Talk to the staff." As noted earlier in this thread, he has as
>little clout as I do--he's a student too.
Amazing that students teach, but anyway..... what does his boss say?
His boss? Repeat until resolution.
> Hmm, why do we have to repeat things so often?
You give up too easily. Why do you give up so easily?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 18:56:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>> El mar, 03 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>>> > Not every property of objects on the subvenient level
>>> >transcends to the supervenient level. The fact that corporations
>>> >do not have snivelling noses says nothing about whether or not they
>>> >can be psychopaths.
>>>
>>> The fact that corporations are not human, does.
>>
>>No, cretin. Psychopathy is a property of BEINGS, not humans. Aliens
>>could easily be psychopaths.
>
>Assuming they exist, the definition of human would probably extend to include
>them.
>
>>> >I'm not going digging for you!
>>>
>>> Then, AFAICS, it is just your opinion.
>>
>>Yeah, but nobody cares about your opinion cause you're an imbecile.
>
>And seing how you apparently, at least occasionally babble about things you
>seem to know nothing about (dolly?), you are... let me say it in verse.
>
>Repeat after me:
>
>I am the very model
>Of a modern major general...
>
>>> >Consciousness is irrelevant. He *has* lost (some of) his rights
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>
>>The ability to piss when he wants to.
>
>Not in the corporation I work for.
>
>>> >And btw, there is no human right about freedom of religion, only FROM religion.
>>>
>>> The UN disagrees.
>>
>>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not perfect and this can be judged
>>because human rights are *NOT* made in such declarations, they're only DECLARED.
>
>Sure. The UN, however, only declares rights they deem existing, one would
>assume. So, they would disagree with you about there not being a right to
>religion.
>
>>> >Corporations buy back their own stock all the time. Toys 'R Us did it a
>>> >while ago and it expected to have to do it for years to come.
>>>
>>> Not *all* their stock.
>>
>>They expected to do so indefinitely. (They expected to run an enormous
>>profit indefinitely.)
>
>Again, not *all* their stock. You see, if a corporation announced a plan to buy
>back all the stock, the natural price point for stock would be exactly the
>fraction of the assets of the corporation (I'm guessing, but it sounds natural).
>
>So, the corporation would have to sell all assets to buy all stocks. And the
>corp. would own all the stocks to no asset. The corporation would have
>self-destructed. However, I am no economist, so if someone with a clue cares to
>clear this up for me, I'll be thankful.
Well, I certainly don't have the credentials, but I'll verify that a
corporation that buys back all its stock would cease to exist; some of
the stock has to be owned by human beings. An artificial person cannot
wholly own itself; it is just an abstraction. Board members have the
corporation buy stock from other owners in order to increase the value
of their stock. It isn't quite as simple, Roberto, as fraction of
assets, as long as any stock is publicly traded (the price point is what
someone is willing to pay for it). But that's the point, the more stock
the corporation buys back, the more value there is in the stock that
non-board members own. This raises the value for those who own it,
reducing or increasing their desire to sell accordingly, and increasing
the value of the board-member's stock as well, which is the point.
While the corporation cannot buy back all the stock, if it buys back a
great deal, and then the board members buy everything else that would be
publicly outstanding, the rules would change drastically, as it would be
a privately held corporation. I've been a stock-holder in one of those,
and they don't work the same way, but are still corporations. The value
of the stock is considered the fraction of the assets, but the price is
set at whatever the board sets it, when they sell or buy or allow others
to sell or buy (generally, they require you to agree to secure
permission as a condition to buy). The value of the corporation is
based on their assets, not their stock, since speculative investment
which provides capitalization for publicly traded stock is not available
to them. But in all other ways, they are a security, and are governed
by the same laws. A different classification of the legal fiction of
corporations. Like 501(3)c corporations, which are educational
institutions.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 01:02:18 +0200
David T. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
> comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
> threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
> computer software, or even computers:
>
> Public v. Private Schools
> Global Warming
> Sherman Act Vaguery
> Bush vs. Gore on Taxes
> Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It
You know, some experts are now saying that Microsoft and the question
whether it should be split up or not have indeed something to do with
computer software.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:06:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> El mié, 04 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
>> >No, cretin. Psychopathy is a property of BEINGS, not humans. Aliens
>> >could easily be psychopaths.
>>
>> Assuming they exist, the definition of human would probably extend to include
>> them.
>
>In that case, I demand that you formally and rigorously define 'human'
>and explain why it includes or excludes 1) human psychopaths, 2) AI,
>and 3( corporations.
I have no delusion you will accept anything that anyone presents as
formal or rigorous, but for other's sake, if not yours:
Given, extraterrestrial, non-homosapien sentient beings
Human is defined as a sentient being. Sentient being is defined as one
able to communicate thoughts (evidence of cognitive abstraction) to
other sentient being through conscious actions.
Human psychopaths pass.
Artificial intelligence is not sentient.
Corporations are not sentient.
Aliens pass.
You're going to have to break down and explain, instead of just yelling
and screaming and acting as if it is far too trivial for you to stoop
to, what precisely about "Cogito ergo sum" you don't understand.
>And btw, you're a fucking cretin to not define human as homosapiens.
I again implore you to look up the definition of the word 'cretin' in
any handy dictionary. It's clear that it doesn't mean what you think it
means. <G>
[...]
>And of course, this is completely irrelevant since this situation never
>needs to come to pass in order to go from corporation to cooperative;
>what the original problem was and the only thing I gave a damn about.
>A corporation can issue stock to its employees at the same time that it
>is buying back stock from non-employees.
That doesn't turn it into a cooperative. Neither would it do so if the
employees never sold any shares to non-employees.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:08:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>IMBECILE! [...]
WHAT IS FUCKING WRONG WITH YOU, MAN? STOP YELLING AND CALLING PEOPLE
'IMBECILE' AND 'MORON', YOU CRETIN!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:18:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Richard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Fanatics don't have consistent belief systems.
>>
>> No, fanatics *are not required* to have consistent belief systems.
>
>Their own convictions forces it upon them. It's a psychological
>necessity. Normal people don't care if they have inconsistencies
>in their belief systems and they never bother to resolve them.
No, all people have some inconsistencies in their belief system, or else
their belief system is entirely consistent with reality, and they don't
have a belief system, they have knowledge.
>> And the belief system could be consistent, but have no grounding in
>> the observable universe (a common occurrence!)
>
>Yes. Extreme right-wing belief systems (eg, Libertarian) are
>very self-consistent (which is why you can get a lot of useful
>insights from them) but are totally unrelated to reality as
>they oversimplify human nature to the point of caricature.
You confuse "unfalsifiable" with consistent. It is the fact that they
are not self-consistent (their ideal of each person being independent is
applied outside their person) which undermines their position, and make
it inconsistent with the real world, which is always self-consistent.
>Anarcho-syndicalism is both internally and externally consistent.
>*Proving* it is another matter entirely.
You can't say it is consistent at all unless you can prove it to begin
with.
>> > It is not possible to have a 'consistent belief system' unless your
>> > belief system is entirely and only the laws of physics.
>>
>> Come back, Goedel, we love you!
>
><groan> The incompleteness theorem doesn't mean what people
>think it means. All it means is that the formalists (people
>like me) were right all along and that concepts without
>any sensible formal definition (like "truth") *do* mess up
>everything. Other than that, the thoerem is a trivial statement
>about the resolution of infinite problem domains using finite
>axiomatic sets.
It is a trivial statement about the resolution of infinite problem
domains using finite axiomatic sets. It does not mean that formalists,
let alone wannabe's like yourself, were ever right, or ever will be.
You're a post-modernist imbecile. How precisely does the concept of
'truth' "mess up everything?"
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis [Off-Topic Idiot Tres Grande]
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 16:25:35 -0400
"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
>
> David T. Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Aaron R. Kulkis has posted a total of at least 256 unique messages in
> > comp.os.os2.advocacy during the month of September, 2000 on five related
> > threads, none of which have anything to do with OS/2, OS/2 advocacy,
> > computer software, or even computers:
> >
> > Public v. Private Schools
> > Global Warming
> > Sherman Act Vaguery
> > Bush vs. Gore on Taxes
> > Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It
>
> You know, some experts are now saying that Microsoft and the question
> whether it should be split up or not have indeed something to do with
> computer software.
You are correct. Eight posts by Aaron in September, 2000 used this
header, although 2 discussed LBJ and the Vietnam war. However, the
judges have huddled and...all 8 posts must be disqualified leaving
Aaron's total at only 248 give or take a few depending on your server.
Fortunately, however, his award of the title:
OFF-TOPIC IDIOT TRES GRANDE
September, 2000
is unaffected by this revision. But a hearty 'Thanks' to you and others
who quickly spotted this error.
>
> --
> Fan of Woody Allen
> PowerPC User
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Consistency
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 23:25:57 GMT
Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
>
> Raul Iglesias wrote:
> >
> > XF86Config is sometimes at /etc and others at /etc/X11; sometimes
> > there is /opt/kde, /opt/gnome and /opt/netscape, others there are all
> > of them at /usr/bin; sometimes lynx.cfg is at /etc/, others it is at
> > /usr/lib;
> > sometimes there is /etc/rc.d/rc.local, others /sbin/init.d/boot.local;
> > kernel
> > is at /boot, while kernel modules are at /lib/modules; shared libraries are
> > at /lib, /usr/lib, /usr/local/lib, /usr/X11R6/lib, and sometimes at
> > /opt/gnome/lib and /opt/kde/lib (in fact, wherever /etc/ld.so.conf says);
> > sometimes network configuration is at /etc/sysconfig/ and others it is not
> > there, sometimes FTP and web homes are at /home while others these
> > are at /usr/local; and I think I could write several inconsistencies more.
> > What I mean is, flexibility is good, but the LSB is a thing we already
> > need. I feel confortable with all of that, but just because I know where
> > the things are, but I understand that people that start feel a little lost.
> > What do you think about this ? This is not a "Windows v.s. Linux" post,
> > just a "how to improve Linux" one; I'd like to read your answers, how is
> > it LSB progressing ? I think Redhat, Debian, SuSE, Mandrake, and all
> > of them should cooperate to make GNU/Linux a little more uniform
> > in the areas where it is needed.
>
> On one hand, you're right, on the other you aren't, just install where
> you want, freedom of choice par exellance.
>
> RedHat is very near to GNU/Linux 'standards', Madrake too, Slakware too,
> SuSE jumps out of line heavily.
>
> I'm currently using my own little setup that once was an Rh 6.2
> installation, now I moved quite a lot of things to /usr/local to keep my
> /usr dir free, my kernel is not in /usr/src (I only left the symlink).
>
> What I miss with most boxed distros is a directory tree, just a sheet of
> paper or two that read(s) where common files are, like libraries etc..
> Good way to get new users informed. I personnaly don't need that kind of
> stuff because, as I said, my system is very customised, but newbies are
> certainly confused how to install things in the dirs they want them to
> have. For example on SuSE /usr/local is not a standard path at all, but
> most software installs there normally, so if a SuSE newbie compiles a
> prog, he won't find it, and the prog won't find its libraries.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
Some of these (inconsistancies) come down from other operating
systems such as the BSD group where alot of the software seems to
get installed into usr/local. I do not like to have to chase down
files that are more then 3 or 4 levels deap in any operating system.
I like /usr for non system critical stuff /opt for GUI window managers
and there attendant software. RedHat unfortunatly (6.1) did not use OPT
for the GUI stuff and stuck it in /usr/share and /usr/bin so chasing KDE files down
became a MAJOR pain. With KDE2 I have used OPT again and all is now well.
Keeping X windows files in /usr/XllR6 is also a great idea. It makes
upgrading/downgrading as easy as renaming the old X11R6 directory
then mkdir a new /usr/X11R6 and install the new one.
Seems as if the main ie root directory structure is the ONLY standard and
everything else is chaos.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 2.4!
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 23:27:36 GMT
Todd wrote:
>
> "Bartek Kostrzewa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Well, I just moved to 2.4 test 9... I must say, I'm impressed! All my
> > USB devices working... great... great... great *jaw lying on the ground
> > after compilation* ... WOW! I love it!
>
> yawn... Windows 2000 has had USB support since its inception. Also, Windows
> 2000 has *drivers* for the USB devices so that you can actually *use* them.
>
> What good is USB support with the drivers for the devices?
>
> > Hmm.. with this kernel, and some more work by the GNOME foundation and
> > Helixcode Linux can finally kick some real butt on the Desktop (together
> > with NVidia hardware, we just need a damn open-source GL driver *g*).
>
> Linux is going to need a hell of a lot more work before it is suited for the
> desktop. But then again, don't take it from me, just look at the market
> today.
>
> > I'm so proud.
>
> Only a Linux user would be proud of a hacked OS that just got a feature that
> has been around on other OSes for quite some time.
>
> BTW, according to recent tests on www.tomshardware.com, NVidia hardware runs
> OpenGL faster on Windows 2000 than under Linux.
>
> Why even use Linux??
>
> -Todd
>
> hehe... I can just see the flames comin' now. It's just so easy to counter
> linux with Windows 2000.
>
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > <<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
I dont recall anyone saying wintrolls please reply here.
Anyone else see an invitation for this?
Go away.
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
Following Air and Water the third most abundant
thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 16:30:10 -0700
"Barry Margolin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xn7D5.49$Uc7.626@burlma1-snr2...
> In article <8riv3k$cgd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >It's interesting to compare this kind of legal reverse engineering with
> >Netscape's copying of Moasic from the U. of Illinois's NCSA.
>
> Netscape was founded by one of the authors of Mosaic, so they could hardly
> argue that he'd used clean-room reverse engineering! And it seems very
> likely that even if he started coding the new browser from scratch that he
> would do many things the same way as he'd done them before; while this
> isn't literal copying, it's probably close enough that they would have
lost
> a copyright infringement suit.
How do you explain that some bugs in Mosaic were identical to bugs found in
Netscape?
Simon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
