Linux-Advocacy Digest #738, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("JS/PL")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Astroturfing ("JS/PL")
Re: Why Linux is great. ("Scaramanga")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("Matt O'Toole")
Re: Why I do use Windows (Perry Pip)
Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing (Perry Pip)
Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing (Perry Pip)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:04:59 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >> When I said use your brain, I meant use it, not repeat the same
stuff
> > in
> > > >> detail. There is probably something very badly wrong with your
> > > >> installation. C corrupted filesystem or a bad harddisk or
something.
> > > >> There are kernel options to allow Linux to see more memory.
> > > >> Try mem=256M or something like it.
> > > >
> > > >That's the point, my objective isn't to hack the kernel, it is to
insert
> > a
> > > >disk, hover over the return key for a few minutes and have the thing
work
> > in
> > >
> > > You don't need to hack the kernel, there's a point in the Mandrake 7.1
> > install
> > > where you get to enter how much memory you have. All you do is amend
the
> > > 64MB value in the text box and change it to 256MB. Not rocket science.
> >
> > I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when
the
> > install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
> > mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
> > amount available.
>
>
> It's a command line argument for the kernal
>
> boot: linux mem=256M
>
> There's your fucking answer, now quit whining.
>
> read the man page on lilo.conf, and insert it there as well.
>
> and remember...STOP WHINING!
Well I guess there's really not a nice way to put it - I DONT WANT TO EDIT
SHIT!!
Don't tell me how to fix the shortcomings of Linux. Tell me when they have a
package out that will see all available memory by itself, with no input from
me and no searching through one and a half million man pages!
Once again, and I'll type this slow because I know your not too swift - I do
not want to edit SHIT! I will continue to use the OS that handles basic
hardware automatically. It was enough of a pain in the ass getting it to see
the modem and work the video card, which Windows manages to do all by it's
self. Jesus christ! They want to call it an operating system, but the
fucking thing can't manage to operate my system even as well as windows 1.0
Free or not, no OS is worth the money if I've got to do half it's job for
it.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:08:43 GMT
Ketil Z Malde wrote:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Revenues down 20% from hundreds of billions vs revenues up 270%
> > from nothing doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.
>
> It could mean that the cash value of the software market is
> shrinking. If free software becomes a (more and more) viable
> alternative, it means that pure software companies will struggle to
> keep their niches, and they'll eventually die off.
And the niches will not be supported because the free software developers
will have no reason to support those niches that they find "less than
cool". The thing with free software is that it is not market driven and
thus is not resposive to the business user who votes with dollars to get
what he wants. If the source is GPL'd then no one will be able to get VC to
start a software company to make profits because every other geek on the
planet can just take that software and make the same thing and undercut the
first until the they are both free. So look at it this way -- voting by
buying is the American way.
> OTOH companies
> that are consumers of software are likely to benefit, and in
> particular I'd expect an increased demand for consultants and
> programmers.
Sure. Reinvent the wheel every time. Depend on often undependable code
when the OCC is watching (from my experience at a bank). Close all of your
accountability doors when you are accused of an error. I don't think so.
> Invest in consultancy companies with high technical competence, system
> integrators that aren't too dependent on particular software, and
> hardware manufacturers instead.
And get contracts that make them support all Open Source code they use and
take full accountability for it. Watch them all get sued out of existance.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 05:15:35 GMT
Weevil wrote:
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > [...]
> > >This scenario was repeated over and over with the large OEMs of the time.
> > >It's all there in publically available court documents. A lot of it is
> > >online.
> >
> > But finding the details is a less trivial task than you make it seem,
> > Weevil, I have to admit. Could you provide some urls?
> >
> > [...]
>
> Here's a pretty good starting point:
>
> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
Note, folks. That this completely Caldera's opinion. None of it was proven in
court. Every quote could be faked or taken out of context. All in all I see
normal American competition.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:13:29 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
lyttlec wrote:
> > You can't hold yourself out to the public as an Engineer
> > unless you have completed 4 years of college, had 4 years experience and
> > passed the EIT and PE tests.
What about the guys that drive the trains, do they get screwed or what?
------------------------------
From: "Scaramanga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:21:39 +0000
TBH, i wish more people had your attitude, and were not so quick to insult.
An operating system is a tool, and people are gonna pick the best tool for the
job they intend to use it for. I personally dont use windows, but i wouldnt
have my choice foisted on to another.
However i can wax lyrical all day about why I use linux as a tool to do *my*
job, in the hope of helping others like me, make a choice, where they were
previously uninformed.
To put it simply, arguing and shoving things down peoples throats will get you
nowhere, discussing opinions and ideas sensibly in an open forum, however, is
a great way to communicate meaningfully with others.
--
// Scaramanga
www.geek-ware.co.uk - v0rsprung gEEk tEknEEQ
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Matt O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Matt O'Toole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:07:40 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:51:52 +0000, Harry Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I agree with what you say, but my point is that, these days, using a
> >computer for word processing is all about content management. A good
> >word processor will provide you with better facilities for this than a
> >program that evolved from a typesetting tool.
> Actually, that sounds backwards. Better content management should
> be achieved by tools that segregate content from formatting. Tools
> like Latex do this more cleanly and produce more easily parsable
> output.
I agree. That's the idea, to separate the formatting from the content, and
to be able to edit either separately from the other. That's why Word,
Wordperfect, etc., drive me up a tree. Framemaker is better, but
ultimately, I think a TeX/LaTeX based program like Framemaker would be the
best. One thing;s for sure: the output from LaTeX makes Word look like
Turd. In fact, that's the biggest thing I hate about Microsoft products.
Their aesthetics suck.
Matt O.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why I do use Windows
Date: 19 Oct 2000 06:00:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 21:50:01 GMT,
Keith Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Your POS newsreader for Windows can't even wrap lines properly. If you
>>think that's better, that's your perogative.
>
><snip very long and well-thought-out post>
>
>Way to go, buddy.
>
>1) You quoted an extremely lengthy post in it's entirety merely to add two
>lines to it.
I included his post to be sure he could understand how badly wrapped
his lines were. That's pertinent.
>2) You reduced a very balanced piece
Balanced?? His post was full of subjective opinion and misinformation,
Off the top of my head:
1) Needing an emulator to play games under Linux - misinformation.
2) IE better than Netscape, Outlook a better newsreader, etc. -
subjective opinion.
I've seen and heard all this before and I'm not going to waste my time
addressing it.
>to one anti-Windows sentiment that
>addressed exactly NONE of the points mentioned therein.
NONE of the points?? I demonstrated that his newsreader, Outlook, is
not telling him what it is really posting. This is typical of so many
Windows apps: they do things to your data, often botching it up,
without even telling you.
>Aren't you proud?
Aren't you stuck up today.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing
Date: 19 Oct 2000 06:00:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Oct 2000 02:46:56 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 17 Oct 2000 08:12:41 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On 16 Oct 2000 16:35:11 -0500,
>>>> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:8sd7b3$1vd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>> In article <39e7dbae$0$42822$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>>>> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > Conversely, I've never met a 3rd year computer engineering
>> student
>>>>>> who had
>>>>>> > > a hope in the world of making more money than a 17 year old
>> sysadmin
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> > boston.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > amazingly, I concur with abracadabra on this one.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your wet dreams, Dristan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>wow - truth hurts? Dristan - that was almost funny...
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> Like we've never seen this before. A drop out attempting to diminish
>>>> the value of a good education because he couldn't make the grade
>>>> himself. No different from the fact he attempts to diminish Unix
>>>> because he can't handle actually learning it.
>>>
>>>> Why don't you provide some data to back up your claim, Alex. Show me
>>>> some stats to show the average MCSE with no college education at all
>>>> makes more than the average Purdue Engineering graduate. For that
>>>> matter, simply show the average MSCE makes more than the average EE.
>>>
>>>I said "sysadmin", moron, not "MCSE". Sysadmins routinely make between
>>>65 and 95k, and often make over 100. And they need *never* have been
>>>to college.
>
>> Instead of blowing hot air why don't you provide some real data.
>> According to the SANS 1999 survey which you can get from
>> http://www.sans.org/sal99.htm
>
>> Average sysadmin: $54,660.
>> 54% w/ college degrees. 20% w/ some college.
>> Those with degrees averaging $5000 more than those without.
>
>I didnt say "average", polesmoker.
Well then just what does "routinely" mean. By a similar deceptive use of
the term, sysadmins routinely make between 20K and 40K. Also, Engineers
routinely win the lottery.
>> And from EETimes: http://www.eetimes.com/salarysurvey/1999/money.html
>
>> Average EE: $75,500
>
>Again, I didnt say "average". I said "routine", because I wasnt planning
>on offering "average" figures.
See above. Your "routine" is way off the reality for most.
>
>> That's a 20K difference.
>
>Real life contains substantially greater exceptions.
Sure, it does for many people, not just sysadmins. But you're not one of
them so what's the point??
>> Moreover, you sysadmin types need to get your head out of the clouds
>> and realize your job is nothing but a secondary role. Whether it is
>> desktop PC's or supercomputers your job is merely to keep the machines
>> running securely. It's the people who actually use the machines to
>> produce a product are playing the primary role in a business. When the
>> machines don't run, the shit hits the fan and the sysadmins hear
>> it. When the machines do run the cutomers forget who the sysadmins
>> are. How is that any different from being an HVAC mechanic? The only
>> way to really do well as a sysadmin is to be a consultant. Othewise,
>> it's a thankless job.
>
>Oh, I dont know about that. The nice thing about being a sysadmin is
>being generally non-disposable.
In an aerospace company the scientists and engineers doing R&D, as
well as the test pilots, are at least as non-disposable as the
sysadmins. At a University, the professors are. At a hospital, the
doctors are. Shall I go on?? If you really think you are more
non-disposable than the people you work for you may have another thing
coming.
>You say youd like to recieve *all* of your email? Be nice to the
>sysadmin.
I'm sure your boss would love to hear you say that:) Anyways, at home,
I'm my own sysadmin. At work, the sysadmins have a bit more class than
that and wouldn't stoop down to your level. Even if one did, the folks
who audit our security for us could easily gather more than enough
evidence to prosecute a mischievous sysadmin. And they would.
>> This thread was about MCSE's, btw. You switched it to sysadmin.
>
>Read the thread again. I wasnt the one who switched it.
You switched it to sysadmin in this post:
http://x68.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=681094944
>>>And I didnt say "engineering graduate", you idiot, I said "3rd year
>>>computer engineering student".
>
>> You also said 17 year old sysadmin, which makes your whole statement
>> meaningless.
>
>You must be an MCSE, because elementary logic has escaped you completely.
Your "logic" is nothing but an attempt to make a rule of an
exception. And in doing so you're diminishing the value of something
others have and you don't.
>>>> The only reason MSCE's have any decent salary data at all is because
>>>> many of them actually do have college degrees.
>>>
>>>I see you dont work in the field.
>
>> Most MCSE's have degrees, and they tend to be higher paid than the
>> ones who don't. From MPC magazines MCSE survey (1999):
>> http://www.mcpmag.com/members/99jul/charts.asp?cid=37
>
>Neat. Maybe I should go get one.
Yeah sure...maybe you can hold the world record for most tatoos on a MCSE:)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: sysadmin == secondary role (Was: Astroturfing
Date: 19 Oct 2000 06:01:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:01:27 GMT,
Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> Moreover, you sysadmin types need to get your head out of the clouds
>> and realize your job is nothing but a secondary role. Whether it is
>> desktop PC's or supercomputers your job is merely to keep the machines
>> running securely. It's the people who actually use the machines to
>> produce a product are playing the primary role in a business. When the
>> machines don't run, the shit hits the fan and the sysadmins hear
>> it. When the machines do run the cutomers forget who the sysadmins
>> are. How is that any different from being an HVAC mechanic? The only
>> way to really do well as a sysadmin is to be a consultant. Othewise,
>> it's a thankless job.
>
>Man, you must work for some shitty people.
Not at all. Understand I was responding to someone who seems to think
being a sysadmin makes him a god. Would you delete the emails of a
customer you didn't like as he suggested a sysadmin would??
>I used to work in our company's
>core services sysadmin group and thought like that for awhile.. then I moved
>to a position where I'm directly supporting engineers (they can call, or walk
>right up to us and ask for help). It's amazing how much more rewarding the
>job is when the users will thank you for your help whenever they see you in
>the hallways, and when we get thanked everytime a project is done.
50%+ of the poeple where I work are degreed scientists and
engineers. It's people of a technical nature that tend to be more able
to see deeply enough into what a sysadmin has to do and can appreciate
it.
>Our users
>know that without us, they wouldn't be able to get their work done.
Without auto mechanics, they wouldn't be able to get to work:)
>> As far as whether I "work in the field", I wouldn't want to. I'm an
>> aerospace engineer working in an avionics lab on a research
>> prototype. We have an onsite contractor who does our sysadmin work for
>> our offices and many of the machines in our labs. A few specialized
>> machines we do oursevles. I appreciate the work the sysadmins do. I
>> appreciate the mechanic who fixes my car as well. But both are generally
>> thankless jobs.
>
>Unfortunately, they're usually thankless because most people aren't like you..
>they don't care how much work it takes someone to keep the computers, cars,
>etc running.
Most simply don't know, and are too wrapped up in their own problems to
ever find out. They just take it for granted that things should work.
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 01:33:38 -0500
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:D%pH5.85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wait a minute, here. You worked at Microsoft and you believe that Windows
> 95 was a genuine operating system that only needed DOS to load?
He didn't say that, he said that once loaded, Windows 95 was it's own OS,
which it is. Whether or not that OS relies on some functionality of a
client program is irrelevant to that. Make no mistake, When Win95 is
running, DOS (even the DOS that Win95 depends on) runs as a client of
Windows.
> Windows 95 was a modest upgrade from Windows for Workgroups. The main
> difference was that you booted directly into the GUI. DOS was still
there,
> and Windows still relied on it. This thing about the "DOS bootloader" is
> silly. If Win95 was an actual operating system independent of DOS, it
could
> have used the same ROM bootstrap routine that every other operating system
> (including DOS) uses.
It couldn't have done that if it wanted to stay compatible with DOS device
drivers.
> I've never heard of a "DOS bootloader" before. Has Microsoft resurrected
> their phony claims about DOS not being present in Windows 95 or something?
Linux has (but does not require) a DOS bootloader, called LoadLin. Netware
uses DOS as a bootloader as well. It's a common practice.
> The real purpose of the error message was Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
with
> regard to DR DOS. There was never any error. The message didn't pop up
> because something bad had happened and the system was just notifying the
> user about it. The message popped up when Microsoft secret, encrypted,
> self-modifying, debugger disabling, ofuscated code detected DR DOS.
Untrue. The message actually came up on any non-completely conforming DOS.
It's just that DR-DOS was the one that was known by most people at the time.
There were a few others at the time as well, such as what eventually became
FreeDOS and russian made DOS that I can't remember the name of.
See:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
"Similarly, the AARD code fails under the Windows NT beta, where the DPB
pointer in SysVars is null. Finally, the code fails in an OS/2 DOS box,
where the DOS version number is 10.0 or greater (for example, OS/2 2.1
masquerades as DOS 20.10).
Additionally, there WAS legitimate bugs in DR-DOS that Novell acknowledged
which caused problems with windows. (from the same article)
"So whenever I've heard accusations that Microsoft practices so-called
"cruel coding" to keep Windows from running on DR DOS, I look at the facts:
Windows 3.1 Enhanced mode does run on DR DOS. Standard mode does not run,
but that's because of a DR DOS bug acknowledged by Novell (see Undocumented
DOS, Second Edition)."
Also note this statement:
"(It wouldn't be the first time company N's bug has been misinterpreted as
company M's "deliberate incompatibility.")"
> If you see nothing wrong with that, you shouldn't even be in this
> discussion.
Microsoft checked only for legitimate MS-DOS or PC-DOS, it did not check
specifically for DR-DOS. I think that's far more interesting.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:46:33 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HjvH5.9936$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8sl9ui$jab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
> > > Do you have the courage of your convictions?
> >
> > Yes. I have the courage enough to state that to my knowledge, Microsoft
> does
> > not write its products so as to deliberately cripple competing
companies'
> > products. Its applications have no innate advantage over other
> applications
> > on the same OS.
>
> Is your lack of knowledge supposed to inspire the rest of us in some way?
Well, gee, I guess I should have answered Weevil in private email then.
Les... if your knowledge is so bountiful... why not list some of these apps
that were deliberately crippled then.
Come on. You can do it. Your amazing oracular knowledge and brain the size
of a Mercury Lynx should be able to provide at least *ONE*.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:47:03 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HjvH5.9935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> There must be someone who can remember the number of times it happened.
> Once might have been accidental. Of course MSDOS 4.0 broke just about
> everything ever used before, so Lotus probably wasn't singled out that
> time.
> And it is amusing that it happened again with NT's service pack 6.
And that problem was fixed that same week.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 02:59:23 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Weevil wrote:
>
> > T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > [...]
> > > >This scenario was repeated over and over with the large OEMs of the
time.
> > > >It's all there in publically available court documents. A lot of it
is
> > > >online.
> > >
> > > But finding the details is a less trivial task than you make it seem,
> > > Weevil, I have to admit. Could you provide some urls?
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > Here's a pretty good starting point:
> >
> > http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
>
> Note, folks. That this completely Caldera's opinion. None of it was
proven in
> court. Every quote could be faked or taken out of context. All in all I
see
> normal American competition.
Not to mention - DRI was also pushing the per processor license agreements
<paste>
DRI similarly attempted to combat piracy by entering into exclusive OEM
licenses that required the OEM (unlike in Microsoft's per processor license)
to install and pay a royalty for DR DOS on each and every computer shipped
by the OEM. (See Vasco Dep. (Exh. 14) at 125; DiCorti 7/30/98 Dep. (Exh. 15)
at 165-71.) DRI executives have testified that these licenses were
equivalent to per processor licenses. (DiCorti 7/30/98 Dep. (Exh. 15) at
357; Gunn Dep. (Exh. 16) at 165.) Numerous examples of these DRI per
processor-type licenses are attached as exhibits to this memorandum. (See
License Agreement with ABC Computer Co. Ltd. (Exh. 26) at C0309430;
[REDACTED] ; License Agreement with Olidata SpA (Exh. 28) at A0228806;
License Agreement with Athena Informatica (Exh. 29) at A0654065.) In
addition to combating piracy, DRI had another business reason for offering
its version of the per processor license: giving the OEM customer what it
wanted. (Gunn Dep. (Exh. 16) at 166.) DRI pricing policies authorized price
discounts for OEMs that elected to bundle DR DOS with every hardware unit
shipped. (See DRI's Price List, Pricing Memoranda, and Pricing Policies
(Exh. 30) at PC9653-54.)
</paste>
hmm.....I guess it's only evil when "Microsoft" delivers what the customer
requests.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
