Linux-Advocacy Digest #835, Volume #29 Mon, 23 Oct 00 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Suggestions for Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (Steve Mading)
Re: Claire Lynn (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Relax")
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (Steve Mading)
Linux Beats NT! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Obscurity != security (Was: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linus position in "Power List" (Steve Mading)
Re: Why Linux is great. (Steve Mading)
Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux) (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft Speaks German! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A Question about the Free Software Foundation ("Colin R. Day")
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: 23 Oct 2000 23:14:50 GMT
ke@news-fo wrote:
: In article <39e8f268$0$171$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Philo" says...
:>
:>if you know what you know what you are doing...linux could be made very easy
:>by merely just doing away with the *gui* altogether...
:>i have had barely over a year's experience with computers and often get
:>frustrated with the gui & the seemingly endless series of questions and
:>dialog boxes...when
:>all you have to do is open an editor and just modify the configuration
:>file...save and exit...
:>all in a matter of a few seconds.
: of course, this is a very primitive way of thinking about things.
: A GUI can present you with all the options available, and what
: options come with what options, and with an on-line help for
: each. Also the GUI relieve the user from having to remember
: the format of the configuration file, and where each entry goes.
: a well done GUI, for configuring a complex system, can make
: things much simpler, and less error prone.
Okay, it *CAN*, but in practice it *doesn't* - and there's a really
good reason: It takes orders of magnitude more work on the
programmer's part to add one simple option to a gui config dialog
than to just add it to a text config file. 100's of variables to
config is easy in text, and lots of work in a dialog box. Thus,
in practice, gui dialogs *tend* to have less options, and therefore
less flexibility.
An interesting fix to this problem might be a standardized set of
"config dialog" tools to help make gui dialogs just as easy to
implement for the programmer as text configs are. (For example,
a standard dialog definition tool that does for gui dialogs what
lex/yacc does for text configs.)
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 23 Oct 2000 18:25:18 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Relax wrote:
> >
> > > Graphics drivers reduce the stability of the system. Graphics are not
> > > needed for servers.
> >
> > As mlw rightfully points out, graphics are needed for printing. Probably
> > also for Terminal Services since apps runs on the server.
>
> Sorry, that's true in a sense, but only for a print server. Graphics are
> not needed for (say) a fiel server. If you have a file and print server,
> you'd want the printing (and therefore graphics) to be done in user
> space, so a dodgy print driver won't bring down the fileserving.
As I pointed out in another post, with references to the NT DDK
documentation, most printer drivers are not in kernel space. Its a design
choice that must be made by the driver writer.
> On another note, I thought in windows that print rendering was done
> locally: the NT machines here seem to need a print driver in order to
> print to a network printer.
If both the client and the server are running NT/2000, the client doesn't
need the printer driver locally. Only the computer connected to the printer
needs the driver. Unfortunately, this mode is not available if the client is
running Windows 9x or another OS.
> If rendering was done remotely, then
> wouldn't they only need to send the drawing commands?
Just some sort of proxy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: 23 Oct 2000 23:27:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Why do my posts generate so much hate and semi-intelligent insults
: from the Linux world?
: Because you fear me that's why.
I suppose the other possiblities never occured to you, then:
We hate twits who lie in public about our favorite toy, hobby,
pasttime, job, or whatever it is each of us use Linux for.
People who lie, lie, lie, lie about something you like tend to
rise to the top of your shitlist pretty fast, especially when they
do it in public.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:32:18 GMT
ostracus wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ostracus wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Assuming I was the CEO of a company. Why would the above be seen as a
> >> minus?
> >>
> >
> > That this would make you a master of OS judgement?
>
> I'm not certain what you're shooting for, but from the standpoint of a
> businessperson, the comment I'm responding to would indicate a strong work
> ethic. Note that this doesn't indicate that I'm endorsing employee
> exploitation. In fact "I" would say go to the picnic, you need to relax.
>
> > Somebody turn on a fan and open a window. It smells.
>
> That would be the new cologne.
>
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
Look. You have to be in the trenches to be a proper judge of an OS.
I think to many CEO's pick OS based on recommendation rather
than practical experience. Similar to their golfing habbits!
Will that be a 9 iron or should I pull the 8 on this one Greg!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 23 Oct 2000 18:34:17 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No its not: it allows graphicsless computers to use graphics. i remember
> running some CFD software with a GUI on a cray without a graphics card.
> That is a good thing.
You still need the X Client subsystem - some sort of (remote) graphical
device interface - for your app to run. So, actually, there IS a graphic
subsystem on the server in your example. The only problem is that it is
pixel based and completely device dependant, GDI is not.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 23:37:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Terry Porter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 22 Oct 2000 07:13:09 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 20:06:42 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I think Linux is better than Win95/98 because it is stable. Stability is
>>crucial for a production environment. Win95/98 crashes so much
>>spontaneously, that I turned away in disgust and switched to Linux
>>desktop. But I always very sober to the fact that in terms of core
>>functionality
>Really, multiuser and remote GUI are primitive compared to your
>single user, non remote GUI os ?
Pedant point: pcAnywhere. :-)
However, as I understand it, the GDI design of Windows makes
such a task a little more difficult than X. I'm not sure if
pcAnywhere can run over a 56k modem line usefully; X, by
contrast, is slow, but usable -- although it depends on the app.
>
>> and scope of software support, the Linux desktop is by far
>>the primitive and immature.
>Totally wrong.
What's a "primitive" desktop anyway? If anything, Apollo DOMAIN
Aegis desktops (with Display Manager) were *more* advanced than
Linux and NT today; for starters, one could specify precisely the
positionings of the windows and have 5 defaults.
Of course, advanced is in the eye of the beholder. It's not too
hard to see how X can advance the desktop by allowing window defaults
and/or manual specification, although I don't know if anyone's bothered
to do it.
(Note that fvwm will place a window in unoccupied desktop space,
if it fits. Kdewm does, too.)
>
>> Its only and decisive strength is *IT NEVER
>>CRASH*! Win95/98 are very useful, but too flakey.
>>
>>But then came Win2000. All the good things of win95/98, and yet rock solid
>>as Linux.
>Yeah, proven to be in the few months youve been using it ?
Considering that Windows 98 crashes every 49.7 hours, a few months
wouldn't be too bad.... :-)
OTOH, Win2k is an NT derivative, so there are some issues there.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: 23 Oct 2000 23:30:20 GMT
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> I intend to be Linux's worst enemy.
:>
:> and judging by the responses here I am succeeding quite well.
: You don't seem to realize when you're being ridiculed.
: You would actually be more successful if you posted less often. BS doesn't
: become more believable in large volumes.
Actually it does, that's the problem with the strategy of leaving
trolls alone.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux Beats NT!
Date: 23 Oct 2000 18:48:11 -0500
It's true, for some time now Linux was unable to best the numbers of NT
(even when those NT numbers included Windows 2000), but, the news is in -
Linux pulls ahead to the lead over all other OSes and NT falls behind.
Here is Linux surging ahead by over 400% during a 29 day moving average:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#Linux
while NT suffers a 50% drop over the same period:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#NT
Here you can see that NT is declining steadily (mostly due to shifts from
NT4 to W2K) while Linux increases dramatically:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#OSTOT1
=== Of course, we're talking about website defacements ===
Of course, Attrition.org very intentionally combines NT with W2K so as to
make it look like nothing has changed - when in fact if they were charting
W2K seperately it would have THE lowest number of defacements of ALL OSes
they track. But, they wouldn't do that, no... <sarcasm>that would make it
look like <gasp> W2K is secure!</sarcasm>
Yep, finally documented proof of a category where Linux is taking over the
MS share...
Oh, Apache vs IIS?
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/webserver-graphs.html#ALLGRAPHS
Looks like Apache wins that race too...
And as more people convert to W2K/IIS5 we'll continue to see this shift...
Right? According to attrition.org, so far during October there have been 7
W2K and 107 Linux defacements...
(at least they are honest and break w2k apart from NT4 in their detail
lines - I hope they'll carry this to their graphs and stats pages soon)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Obscurity != security (Was: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: 23 Oct 2000 18:52:09 -0500
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> No, you're wrong. CERT is not a statistic. They merely provide
> information. It's up to admins to use that information. With
> Linux/Unix, more information is availabe because it's open, which
> ultimately results in more secure software.
>
> Here is a statistic:
>
> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
>
> NT gets cracked more than anything. And with most of those NT machines
> NOBODY KNOWS HOW THEY WERE CRACKED!!!. THAT'S REALLY SCARY!!!!
Actually, everyone knows how they were cracked. You meant that YOU don't
know how. That's not suprising.
However, I think you should revisit attrition.org and pay closer attention:
It would appear that NT defacements is on a serious decline while Linux
defacements have soared to overtake the lead. I'll leave you to find your
own links and suffer the shame in private... nah... read'em and weep:
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#OSTOT2
http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#SPECIAL
p.s., as of today, there have been 7 defacements of W2K sites in October,
but 107 for Linux - go open sores(tm)!
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 23 Oct 2000 18:58:20 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://counter.li.org/
>
> GEEZE look at this thing.
> Look at the growthrates!
>
> They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up that
> 21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
I did and no where did it mention 21% anything.
I did and no where does it mention "several commercial firms" backing up
anything.
I did and even if it did I would suspect it flawed because every single
other measurement I've ever encountered anywhere has shown Windows as the
most popular web browsing OS and IE as the most popular browser. Period. By
HUGE margins.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 23 Oct 2000 19:00:12 -0500
speaks volumes doesn't it...
Sounds like just the kind of post Ebert would use to support his lies.
"neJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:46:42 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
>
> The above story has been *unposted*??? What's the deal??
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus position in "Power List"
Date: 23 Oct 2000 23:57:12 GMT
2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: mopi wrote:
:>
:> Just caught the repeat of "The Power List" on UKs Channel 4 - Linus
:> got a position in the top 100 for work on Linux.
:>
:> Zero mention of RMS or FSF but ibms promotion of Linux got a big plug.
: RMS and the FSF are more behind the scnes, despite providing the bulk of
: the coed needed for an operating system.
"The bulk of the coed"? You know, I think there are entire websites
devoted to that sort of thing...
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: 23 Oct 2000 23:53:56 GMT
Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Fri, 20 Oct 2000 22:28:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>oops...
:>
:>sorry..
:>claire
: "claire" is a he, in case anybody is wondering.
Technically, we don't know that. All we know is that claire is the
same person as several other alias names that were male. We don't
know which names were "in drag", and which were the "correct" gender.
It could very well be that the person is really called Claire, and
the previous names were all aliases.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux)
Date: 24 Oct 2000 00:01:42 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: You can play "Yes, but...." until you're grey haired and bed-ridden.
: Exactly WHEN are you going to stop wasting your life?
Let's drop this issue and discuss Linux instead. If you want to flame shy
people, go to alt.support.shyness and have a blast trolling.
If I had a nickel for every worthless platitude passed off as advice about the
problem, I'd be able to afford the surgery out of pocket. And have money to
make a good dent in the plastic debt.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: 23 Oct 2000 19:02:12 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > http://counter.li.org/
> > >
> > > GEEZE look at this thing.
> > > Look at the growthrates!
> > >
> > > They are saying now, with several commercial firms backing it up that
> > > 21% of all web browsers in the world now are powered by Linux!
> > >
> > > WOW! 21%. WHAT WHAT WHAT 21% WOW!!!!
> > >
> > > That the growth rate in several countries are consistently over
> > > 100% with about 50 being in the 4 digit % bracket.
> > > Over 2000% growth!!
> > >
> > > Linux is just taking off like wildfire across all of Europe, South
> > > America
> > > and Asia.
> > >
> > > The balance of power is changing a lot more rapidly than I
anticipated.
> > >
> > > I think I can say with confidence that by 2003 Microsoft will not
> > > be used outside of US boarders to the degree it is today.
> > > Microsoft will be a single digit player by 2003 overseas.
> > >
> > > The United States and Canada are still chugging along at
> > > 16% to 40% depending on which graph you read.
> > >
> > > The other graphs vary but they seem to be consistantly over 500%
growth
> > > for Europe, South America and Asia no matter how you slice it.
> > >
> > > That just astounds me! WOW!
> > >
> > > Clearly this would simply be dismissed had it not been for all the
rest
> > > of the private-commercial statistics groups who backed up most of
> > > the numbers!!!!
> > >
> > > SO, we went from 3-5% to 21% of the worlds computer users!
> > >
> > > And we did this all in the span from May, 1999 to now.
> > >
> > > So this explains why Microsoft is running that AD in europe!
> > > YES! They must already know then that Microsoft is bleeding
> > > to death overseas.
> > >
> > > http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-10-21-017-06-NW-CY-MS
> > >
> > > http://www.koehntopp.de/kris/msad.jpg
> > >
> > > Jeez! They are just taking an ass wiping!
> > >
> > > Charlie
> >
> > That's quite odd because the combined statistics of all web sites
(566,000
> > of them) using thecounter.com's counter shows Linux OS users to be about
> > "0%" out of 458,991,203 combined visitors last month. Hmm...
> >
> > September 2000
> > 1. Win 98 303539944 (66%)
> > 2. Win 95 76819732 (16%)
> > 3. Win NT 34527360 (7%)
> > 4. Win 2000 15454715 (3%)
> > 5. Unknown 12760235 (2%)
> > 6. Mac 9667128 (2%)
> > 7. WebTV 3114516 (0%)
> > 8. Linux 1373239 (0%)
> > 9. Unix 888184 (0%)
> > 10. Win 3.x 755419 (0%)
> > 11. OS/2 64124 (0%)
> > 12. Amiga 26607 (0%)
> >
> > And note that numbers of Linux users are actually DOWN 11% from July
2000
> > even though total visitors are up by 9.5% (43 million).
> >
> > Now lets look at July 2000 502,483,035
> >
> > 1. Win 98 318538810 (63%)
> > 2. Win 95 101594073 (20%)
> > 3. Win NT 41047771 (8%)
> > 4. Win 2000 11423496 (2%)
> > 5. Unknown 11038874 (2%)
> > 6. Mac 10700310 (2%)
> > 7. WebTV 4098814 (0%)
> > 8. Linux 1543963 (0%)
> > 9. Unix 1214391 (0%)
> > 10. Win 3.x 1168735 (0%)
> > 11. OS/2 79389 (0%)
> > 12. Amiga 34409 (0%)
> >
> > http://www.thecounter.com/stats/
>
> Hey. That's an excellent point.
> Linux stat's are showing a massive Microsoft beating
> and YET they have had a smaller percentage of Linux
> users come in and stat for them.
>
> This means the figures for Linux's growth are even
> greater than posted. How much greater is anybody's
> speculation but certainly greater than that posted.
>
There are more WebTV users than Linux ones and you still wanna go on about
this? hahahahahaha
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft Speaks German!
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:02:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I found it interesting that they actually spent money
> >on this one. Who was their Ad man?
>
> It was a stupid move. It only serves to show that Linux is
> legit and M$ is worried about it.
>
Well, let's put it this way!
It was a totally childish move by Microsoft to
run a negative campaign ad in Europe.
>
> >Why is a guy like Bill Gates who practically owns the world
> >even worried about Linux? I mean, Windows is at least
> >10 times the size of the Linux user base. At least.
>
> M$ doesn't just want most of the market, they want all of it. The existence
> of alternatives erodes their power to dictate how things are done and to M$
> that power is more important than the money.
>
> --
> http://www.spinics.net/linux
Yes.
Microsoft is simply driving them away with their
childish ad. But that's all they have.
They certaintly can't run a campaign advertising
the MERITS of using Windows over Linux.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:04:46 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Where is your evidence that this study was paid for by Microsoft?
>
> Or is your thinking that anything pro-MS must have been paid for by them?
If you notice I said it's a paid study.
It says so up front.
I doubt Microsoft put any money into it.
But it only goes to confirm that the
cost of Windows per unit will be prohibitive
to use in just a couple of years time.
Most companies can't afford this and
it will prompt a migration to Linux
in the US in the near future.
>
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Here's a paid study which claims the cost of
> > a Windows OS would be over $1,000 per
> > copy post the breakup of Microsoft.
> >
> >
> > http://www.actonline.org/pubs/remedies3.pdf
> >
> >
> > Seems like I've said this before!
> >
> > http://24.94.254.33/Linux/intro.html
> >
> > Humm.
> >
> > I must be nostradomus!
> >
> > Charlie
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Question about the Free Software Foundation
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 20:07:06 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A Humble Coder) writes:
>
> > But lets say that I spend one year developing a really cool office
> > productivity application. How to I recoup my cost. I offer both the
> > source code and binaries to the community. Am I allowed to charge a
> > "reasonable" fee (let's say $5) for folks to "get a copy" of my application
> > and source code?
>
> Since you sign your post "A Humble Coder" and not "Bill Gates", I can
> tell you definitively that you will never, ever make a dime off of your
> office productivity application by charging license fees, regardless of
> how cool it is. Nobody beats MSFT by mere technical superiority,
But can they beat them by mere OS compatibility?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 00:08:23 GMT
mmnnoo wrote:
> It would be interesting to learn more about the background of this study.
> What's your guess on its origin? Have you read it? It's almost insane.
>
Well why?
Microsoft OS's almost double in price with every version they
put out. W3k is $350 a throw in most places.
Even without a court ordered breakup, why is it so rediculous
to invision a $1000 copy of Windows by 2005?
Why is this so difficult to understand!
>
> It's kind of weird to think that Microsoft might actually see it this way,
> as the irreplaceable, sovereign savior of the computing world.
OH, well that's true. The cost of throwing out Microsoft everywhere
will amount to something but nothing like the figures being spurted out
here. And besides, they were saying the same crap during the
AT&T breakups years ago. And this didn't happen.
It costs something to migrate off Windows to Linux.
Does it cost as much as the report claims? Well, who knows.
One thing is certain. A judge will NEVER take this into
consideration concerning the Microsoft trail. It's not
material evidence.
>
>
> I'm crossposting this to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy because it
> might be more on-topic there.
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:hAvI5.2862$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Where is your evidence that this study was paid for by Microsoft?
> >
> > Or is your thinking that anything pro-MS must have been paid for by them?
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Here's a paid study which claims the cost of
> > > a Windows OS would be over $1,000 per
> > > copy post the breakup of Microsoft.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.actonline.org/pubs/remedies3.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > Seems like I've said this before!
> > >
> > > http://24.94.254.33/Linux/intro.html
> > >
> > > Humm.
> > >
> > > I must be nostradomus!
> > >
> > > Charlie
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
