Linux-Advocacy Digest #642, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows (Tim Smith)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (mlw)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
claire_lynn = "S"? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux (mlw)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:39:54 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> David T. Johnson writes [to Marty]:
>
> > You continue to repeat the same arguments which futilely attempt to
> > characterize my replys to your personal attacks and name-calling as
> > 'harassment and denigration' of OS/2 developers. You have falsely
> > accused me of harassment and denigration of OS/2 developers. For that,
> > you will have to answer.
>
> Marty has also falsely accused me of a "smear crusade" against an
> OS/2 ISV. What do you suppose causes such strange behavior?
I have never met him or spoken with him so I don't know. Is he over 18?
> Meanwhile, he's not said anything about Glatt's libelous claim
> that my own OS/2 software lost its certification. Makes you wonder
> if Marty recognizes a real "smear crusade" when he sees one.
His comments have convinced me that is pointless to attempt to reason
with him.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:46:13 GMT
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:14:59 GMT, lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|>
|> I thought it came optimized perfectly right out of the box and ready
|> to boot after which you should not have to reboot it for at least 28
|> months or so baring act's of God and such?
|>
|> Could I be wrong here?
|>
|> claire
|>
|> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:39:46 -0700, "Seth S."
|> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>
|> >Hi,
|> >
|> >I'm in desperate need of an expert or two to help me develop an article on
|> >troubleshooting (or optimizing) RedHat Linux 7. If anyone thinks they can
|> >help, or knows of someone who can, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|> >
|> >Thanks,
|
|Just to save someone a bit of trouble. By tradition any Linux release
|ending with an even number is "experimental". That is they have lots of
|new features that might not all work well out of the box. Odd numbers
|are traditionally more stable. Also you will hear about the "most stable
|release" usually two or three back with some patches.
This applies to Kernel versions (and 1 or 2 other programs, I think GIMP
uses this scheme) but it does *NOT* apply to distribution version numbers.
RedHat 7.0 uses kernel 2.2.16 which is a stable version.
Of course, many people treat x.0 versions of all software with a little
waryness.
|One big difference is that you can get whichever you want. You have
|enough history to make an informed decision. Unlike MS where everything
|is hidden.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 00:40:57 GMT
"Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s6j6l$q5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> CgjF5.119$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Let me get that straight to see if I understood you correctly.
> > I have absolutly no idea if MS did any of that or not... but your logic
> > is faulty:
> Hey, it's not my logic, it's Weevil's. I just tried to clarify what he
said,
> and it amounts to that, IMO.
You clarrified it incorrectly though. You missed a step.
> > No... MS apps still work because they knew in advance to stop using the
> > function, or that the behaviour had changed, or whatever.
> Do you *really* believe that ?
Do I beleive that an MS app may have used an undocumented
API call at one point and then removed that call later? Yes.
Do I beleive that such an API has been removed from Windows?
Probably it has.
> What if simply they didn't use undocumented API functions, would be
simpler
> than the superior and prescient coding skill people would like to
attribute
> MS.
Uhhh... faulty logic. What would the reason of having
an undocumented API be if nothing called it?
It has been shown in the past that there are undocumetned APIs
and that MS apps have used such APIs. The issue has always
been wether or not those APIs gave MS a cler advantage over
competitors... of that I don't know.
> > Now of course that would mean that older MS software couldn't run
> > on newer versions of the OS (assuming it used those changed/removed
> > undocumented functions). I have no idea id that is true.
> It's false, that's why I don't believe on this changing / removing stuff
> ridiculous, really.
Depends - need to find an undocumented API in a previous version
of WIndows and see if that API no longer exsits. A harder one would
be to see if an undocumented API that exists in two versions of Windows
works the same way. Finding a now non-existent undocumented API
should be easy enough for those who actualy care.
..darcy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Linux Out perfoms Windows
Date: 13 Oct 2000 17:41:15 -0700
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:54:37 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Really? That's the best test?
>
>How about instead, I give you a budget of $10,000,000.00, including your
>time and the time of any other people involved in the project. Now, build a
>web site that will generate $1 billion dollars in revenue.
How many web sites generate $1 billion in revenue?
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
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: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:58:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> No.
>> >
>> >Then shut up until you can provide proof.
>>
>> No.
>
>Then you maintain no credibility as usual.
Maybe in your opinion.
>> I'll remind you that any reasonable person would recognize that you more
>> vigorously assaulted laws to punish stalking and harassment by means of
>> computer when you posted private information, and pointed out you'd
>> identified where I live, then I did when I said "I want to kill
>> 'JS/PL'."
>
>I'll remind you that you continue to demonstrate "0" ability to interpret
>law, [...]
I've demonstrated far more ability to interpret law than you have, you
numbskull. You haven't even been able to correctly interpret *text*, so
far; your capability of correctly understanding how law works or what
statutes say is practically in the negative, as far as I can tell. Go
away; you're a cretin who is just trying to annoy me because you can't
seem to make any headway in any valid arguments.
--
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: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:35:51 +1000
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:hJtE5.50506$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:%coE5.27950$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Rumors and FUD of "undocumented" or "secret" Win32 APIs that only
> > > Microsoft uses or creates are merely that... rumors and FUD.
> > >
> >
> > You seem fairly knowledgeable about this stuff, so I can only conclude that
> > you're lying. I might have thought you were honestly mistaken if you hadn't
> > demonstrated some knowledge in past messages. And anyone who knows anything
> > about Windows programming, knows that there's a TON of undocumented stuff in
> > there.
>
> Undocumented kernel "stuff", but I've yet to see ANYONE provide a shred
> of evidence, other than idle/ignorant conjectures like previous in this
> thread, of "undocumented" or "secret" ***WIN 32 API*** functions.
>
Have you read "Undocumented DOS", "Undocumented Windows" or
"Undocumented Windows NT"? I haven't done much Windows programming
recently, but I was regularly programming DOS and Windows apps
from 1988 to 1995. The "Undocumented" series were a real godsend
to me at the time because they documented how to use the faster
and simpler function calls which weren't for public consumption.
The undocumented calls were a double-edged sword, though. Microsoft
was liable to change them at any time, and there was no recourse because
you weren't using the officially sanctioned calls. The Office apps
(actually the apps which went on to form Office) were reputed to
use the undocumented functions quite heavily.
I haven't written to the Win32 API all that much, so the situation
may have changed.
> Much of the kernel is undocumented because it is... well, proprietary.
>
> Do a spy trace of Office. You will see no "undocumented" or "secret"
> kernel calls.
>
> > If you've spent any time at all developing for Windows, you've run into it
> > yourself. Therefore, you must be lying. What I don't understand is....why?
>
> Well, I've been developing for the past couple years, full time for the past
> year or so and I've been nothing but impressed by the thoroughness of
> Microsoft's API declarations.
>
I thought Windows was good when I only had 2 years development
experience, too. The API was always a pain, though. The skeleton
builders, C++ class sets and the newer IDEs have certainly improved
matters in that respect. From what I've seen I prefer Java, though.
[ snip ]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:12:21 -0400
Linux wrote:
The note about Dell "laughed saying that 99 percent of the Linux
pre-loads they shipped come back with the customers asking for the
Windows pre-load instead." leads me to beleive that this is a blatent
troll.
However, there is an interesting question to answer.
Why should you buy Linux?
People who don't care about the stability of their OS should buy
Windows. If all you want to di is fire up your computer, buy some shoes
at L.L. Bean, and/or look something up on Encarta, then Windows [what
ever] is for you.
However, if you want a computer, on which you can depend, use Linux.
>
> I really do want to run Linux but I can't find any viable reason to
> switch from Windows ME to Linux?
>
> My Dell comes with Windows ME installed as well as internet access and
> all of the programs, including Quicken, encyclopedias and children's
> scholastic program's all pre installed.
>
> Why should I switch to Linux?
>
> I asked Dell about Linux when I placed my order, about 2 weeks ago,
> and they laughed saying that 99 percent of the Linux pre-loads they
> shipped come back with the customers asking for the Windows pre-load
> instead.
>
> According to them, it is just a matter of them exchanging the hard
> disk?
>
> I have not committed to my order yet, but I am having second thoughts?
>
> What viable reasons are there for going with Linux?
>
> Izzy
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:46:54 +1000
D'Arcy Smith wrote:
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:mLrF5.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > D'Arcy Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:CgjF5.119$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8s44kg$ahk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > > Let me get that straight to see if I understood you correctly.
>
> > > I have absolutly no idea if MS did any of that or not... but your logic
> > > is faulty:
>
> > > > - MS uses undocumented functions to trump competitors.
> > > > - Smart competitors don't use those undocumented functions.
> > > > - Not So Smart ones do.
>
> > > - MS changes their code to not use the undocumented functions
> > > or to cope with the changes to undocumented functions.
>
> > > > - MS gets rid of said undocumented functions.
> > > > - Not So Smart developers apps break.
> > > > - MS apps magically _still_ work.
>
> > > No... MS apps still work because they knew in advance to stop using the
> > > function, or that the behaviour had changed, or whatever.
>
> > > Now of course that would mean that older MS software couldn't run
> > > on newer versions of the OS (assuming it used those changed/removed
> > > undocumented functions). I have no idea id that is true.
>
> > Not exactly. It means that MS apps would have to test what version (and
> > sometimes what build) they're running on. Then they would have to test
> for
> > the existence (and/or the specific behavior) of the function in question.
> > If nothing has changed, proceed as before. If the function is gone (or
> > different), work around it. Pretty simple stuff, of course.
>
> Well that would imply that MS had thought out using undocumented apis
> with the mind towards changing them to screw people later... I don't
> know what I think of that idea...
>
> ..darcy
Breaking the opposition's code is just a bonus :-)
I think the use of undocumented internal functions just started
because the Chinese walls within Microsoft are rather weak, and
the documented fnctions were slow and/or of limited use.
You'd need to go back to around 1993 - 5 to see most of this stuff.
There was quite a bit in DDJ and Computer Language at the time.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:20:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Piercarlo Grandi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>> On Sun, 8 Oct 2000 21:49:41 +0000 (UTC),
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel) said:
>
>[ ... lots ... ]
>
>mbkennel> IBM eventually lost much of its monopoly power because in
>mbkennel> hardware manufacturing, there are significant unit costs for
>mbkennel> production and even IBM couldn't sustain losses trying to push
>mbkennel> its more expensive to produce line of proprietary hardware
>mbkennel> over less expensive CMOS.
>
>Uhm, as I remember it it is a bit different in mechanism, but not so
>different: IBM had a powerful drive, which mostly succeeded, to become
>the lowest cost manufacturer, which they could become because of
>economies of scale and being able to afford many really good engineers,
>etc.
>
>As to significant units costs in production, at that time (and I think
>they still are) big computers used to be priced around six times unit
>cost (i.e. manufacturing cost was around 15% of price, the gross margin
>of 85% goint to marketing, sales, and profit). Not too different from
>software. Software like gross margins are not terribly uncommon; there
>are quite a few industries where the unit cost of stuff is nearly
>irrelevant compared to price (e.g. perfumes, soft drinks), and
>mainframes was one of those.
>
>I suspect that IBM have never lost their dominance of mainframes or
>accounting machines (even if now accounting machines like [A]S/xxx
>series are in effect nearly as sophisticated as mainframes too).
>
>What happened by and large is that first the mainframe market sort of
>shrunk, for various reasons, including a slowing in the economy and the
>rise of UNIX based minis first and PCs later, because computer use and
>purchasing power devolved to ever smaller organisational units.
>
> At some high point in IBM history, 50% of yearly investments in
> capital goods by US companies was in IBM mainframes, with the result
> that IBM sales had become extremely sensitive to the economic cycle. A
> similar or equally larger share now goes into PCs. If there is a
> recession sooner or later, Microsoft/Intel sales could collapse, as it
> is fairly easy for a company to just decide to postpone for some years
> their regular OS/Office/processor upgrades.
I think its almost so bizarre that its scary that, just as the reign of
the IBM monopoly was ended by the use of the PC as an open standard
coinciding with the government enforcement of anti-trust rules, so will
the reign of the Microsoft monopoly one day will be considered to have
been ended by the rise of open source code (and maybe Java, since we're
cross-posting) simultaneously with the government enforcement of
anti-trust laws.
[...]
>Now, this thread appears among other in 'comp.arch', and the tie in is
>that in some rather important ways modern software architectures are a
>bit like the canalways and irrigation ditches that gave rise to idraulic
>empires...
>
>Open architectures are hopefully the cure. For the same reasons as
>proprietary architectures they tend to be pretty static (see IPv4
>vs. IPV6), but at least they allow and encourage innovation and
>competition of implementation, which is better than nothing.
It is not just better than nothing; it is the whole idea. This is the
reality that is mocked by the people who say that Microsoft has done a
great service by 'unifying' by monopolizing. My sister, a CTO in a
dot.com after leaving her job at the bank, after getting her PhD and
starting a business with me (the descendant of which is being tanked by
Microsoft's anti-competitive depression of innovation by preventing
competition of implementation), is among those so deluded, and I guess
she's supposed to be a pretty bright person. The reality is that the
*only* thing that is necessary to call forth the power of *network
effect* in its true meaning in *interoperability*. Compatibility is
strictly secondary. The proof is in the pudding; her example of the
benefits of Microsoft's 'business model' is that she can send a document
to anyone and they will be able to read the format, because everybody
uses Office. I asked her which version of Office she was referring to,
and demonstrated the obvious flaw in her logic; it only works as long as
everyone continues to pay for the newest version, regardless of how
often or how much more expensive or disfunctional the newest version is.
Compatibility is absolutely secondary to interoperability. That's why
even the advance of IPv6, as slow as it may seem to be, is preceding
apace. The fact is, the major impetuses behind development of v6 were
the class-based routing system overloading the routing tables in the
core, and the lack of enough smaller addressing spaces, satisfied with
use of proxy servers and address translation behind the firewall, all of
which made perfect sense as superior developments in Internet technology
(though I'm not a big fan of using proxies of firewalls, particularly
when it is done as unacceptably badly as it is by Microsoft, and those
who are trying to anti-compete with them.) If there had been an
industry mogul trying to 'drive' v6 to force the entire Internet to pay
them licensing fees or use it to profiteer in some other way, we would
certainly be living through a hell as they got major ISPs and carriers
to screw things up to turn a buck, and might not even then have the
benefits of CIDR, or standardized corporate Internet access gate-keepers
(not that I like those, as they are very poorly implemented,
universally, when they're not just a bad idea to begin with.)
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: claire_lynn = "S"?
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 01:07:26 GMT
Just a thought. I was wondering what happened to that old bugger.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:56:26 +1000
Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
>
[ snip ]
> >
> > No... MS apps still work because they knew in advance to stop using the
> > function, or that the behaviour had changed, or whatever.
>
> Do you *really* believe that ?
>
> What if simply they didn't use undocumented API functions, would be simpler
> than the superior and prescient coding skill people would like to attribute
> MS.
>
Word and Excel circa 1993 certainly did use undocumented functions.
So did quite a few of the other "big" apps at the time.
The "official" functions were either too slow or too clumsy, so
the undocumented underlying functions were called into service.
I suspect Norton Utilities, etc still uses undocumented functions.
Using the undocumented functions was always a risk, because they
were liable to change with every new Windows release. Microsoft's
application division would have had advance warning of the changes.
I doubted at the time that Microsoft deliberately changed the
undocumented interface to break competitors' products, but that
was long before the Caldera/RD-DOS case.
[ snip ]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need expert for info on troubleshooting Linux
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:24:00 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Linux in and of itself is an experiment in progress fostered on the
> public. It is a semi-ready for prime time pile of junk masquerading as
> an alternative to Windows and nothing could be farther from the truth.
What is the saying? "An opinion is like an arm-pit?"
Obviously you are clueless, and certainly with an axe to grind. Your
opinion means nothing,
>
> If you're a geek running a server farm go and try it. If you are
> looking for a desktop alternative to Windows, look elsewhere (Mac
> would be a good choice).
I have been running Linux as my "desktop" for 5 years now. It is great.
>
> claire
>
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 23:14:59 GMT, lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> I thought it came optimized perfectly right out of the box and ready
> >> to boot after which you should not have to reboot it for at least 28
> >> months or so baring act's of God and such?
> >>
> >> Could I be wrong here?
> >>
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:39:46 -0700, "Seth S."
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >I'm in desperate need of an expert or two to help me develop an article on
> >> >troubleshooting (or optimizing) RedHat Linux 7. If anyone thinks they can
> >> >help, or knows of someone who can, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >Thanks,
> >Just to save someone a bit of trouble. By tradition any Linux release
> >ending with an even number is "experimental". That is they have lots of
> >new features that might not all work well out of the box. Odd numbers
> >are traditionally more stable. Also you will hear about the "most stable
> >release" usually two or three back with some patches.
> >
> >One big difference is that you can get whichever you want. You have
> >enough history to make an informed decision. Unlike MS where everything
> >is hidden.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:34:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ketil Z Malde in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> But Wine is trying to accomplish more than that: binary
>>> compatibility. I don't know if Microsoft's ABI is fully documented
>>> anywhere. At least I haven't seen it.
>
>> I don't believe there is any such thing as an 'ABI'. Did you just
>> make that up?
>
>Application Binary Interface, no, he didn't make it up.
Yes, I realized that from the other replies; now I get it. You learn
something new every day. Thanks. It hadn't even really occurred to me
that WINE is, in fact, attempting to make a clone of the ABI. I think
they should clone the API, by decompiling all things Microsoft, and have
done with it. But, that's just me.
>> You must take into account that vendors don't "own" their API.
>
>Perhaps in an ideal world.
That would be the one where laws exist, I think. Which is to say, the
legal world, and the business world, both of which are considered in the
idealistic sense in matters of this nature, known as "intellectual
property", which is to say that the API is not such property.
>In practice, anything Microsoft does to
>Win32 becomes the standard.
Only until somebody else supports it; then it becomes a competitive
market, and it is the market as a whole which sets standards, and breaks
them as desired, in order to provide the most efficiency.
>And legally, they can probably protect it
>with copyright laws as well as trade-secret laws - not to mention
>patents (if they can patent a file format, I don't see why not an
>API)
Legally, they can do neither, quite pointedly. That's what I meant by
vendors don't own their API. They literally don't. In the real world,
or at least the United States. They own the source code, they even have
a copyright on the documentation of the API, maybe, but they have no
power whatsoever (save, potentially, market power, which would be
illegal to use in this way, as it would demonstrate itself to be
monopoly power if the attempt were successful, and is technically a
crime even if it fails) to prevent anyone else from making money selling
software that supports the API, as defined by anyone who wants to define
it for whoever wants to accept such a definition.
The 'popular wisdom' which fuels much thinking on these matters is that
a claim of infringement on the software can be made by whoever wrote the
original code (and API), and then it becomes a battle of lawyers. This
is super-charged by the assumption, based on historical precedent, that
a claim of infringement of such a nature is enough to require a judicial
review on the likelihood of infringement, and would support a
preliminary injunction which would succeed in starving the cloner while
leaving a clear market (and a threatening position which will entirely
prevent any additional 'attacks') to the original developer.
But this is all based on fallacy. There have been a whole string of
decision at the very highest levels, Circuit Court Appeals as well as
the Supreme Court themselves, which indicates that decompiling code is
not infringement, and there is no support for the presumption that
cloning an API, declared or not, documented or not, defined or not,
indicates an infringement. I'm looking forward to seeing some more court
cases making this even more plain than Sega v. Accolade, Vault v. Quaid,
Lasercomb America v. Reynolds, and the recent Sony v. Connectix suits.
It is well established that copyright protection on source code does
*not* allow for anti-competitive monopolization on APIs.
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
