Linux-Advocacy Digest #109, Volume #30 Tue, 7 Nov 00 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... ("Nathan Bell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... (Daniel Tryba)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Peter da Silva)
Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows. (Gary Hallock)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: On a win 2000 system. remove RH7 as follows (.)
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! [WARNING BINARY ATTACHMENT] (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion. (mlw)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (Andrew Suprun)
Re: solution to the Msoft problems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:09:07 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:01:49 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Where is the compettion for Lotus Notes on Linux? Client version that
> >> is not some Domino server.
> >
> >Notes itself: http://notes.net/linux
>
> You didn't read my message.
>
> Client.
The Notes client runs quite well using Wine on Linux. I have been using
Notes on Linux for many months now.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 00:12:58 GMT
If I have to run Wine, I might as well run Windows.
claire
On Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:09:07 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:01:49 GMT, "Les Mikesell"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Where is the compettion for Lotus Notes on Linux? Client version that
>> >> is not some Domino server.
>> >
>> >Notes itself: http://notes.net/linux
>>
>> You didn't read my message.
>>
>> Client.
>
>The Notes client runs quite well using Wine on Linux. I have been using
>Notes on Linux for many months now.
>
>Gary
>
------------------------------
From: "Nathan Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:32:57 -0500
: Well the great, robust system known as Linux has taken a dump on my
: friends laptop (a different one than the one I am battling with).
:
: So now he is getting a prompt that is as follows:
:
:
: (repair file system) #
:
: I have no idea what he did, but I didn't even tell him about the root
: account so he should have been protected.
:
: What now Doctor Science?
Did anyone ever say Linux was right for everyone? I really don't understand
people who blame their problems on the OS, like it is a conscious being. I
know of someone who killed their win9x system by deleting all the system
files. Does that mean that win9x is faulty? Not necessarily, it's just not
idiot proof.
If you have a problem with Linux it should be of a more fundamental nature
(ie. memory management, processor scheduling), not "well device/program x
doesn't work".
:The machine is essentially DOA.
:
:What magic command is he supposed to know, having waded through 100's
:of pages of How-To's, despite the fact the guy never opened a book on
:Windows and has been running it since 3.1 without a complete meltdown
:like this one.
If you really wanted a solution you would have posted to one of the many
other linux newsgroups.
:In all my years (20 +) I have never seen such a mess as this Linux
:operating system.
:
:The general public is going to run from this abortion, sorry but it's
:the truth.
Then why do you bother discussing it. If you don't like it don't use it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:20:57 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ua8ug$l87$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Paul Colquhoun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > No patch to ext2 is required. The ext2 code on Intel already supports
> > large files, as it is the same code that is running on Alpha and SPAC64
> > to support large files.
> >
> > Please pay attention.
>
> You need a patch for x86, right?
> x86 makes up for the majority of the computers of the world.
> Therefor, you are most likely to need a patch.
I was unclear and I apologize.
Paul, install the same version of linux on Alpha and on Intel.
On Alpha, you can create larger than 2GB files, on Intel, you can't.
Reason being, Intel being 32, Alpha being 64.
There is a variable whose length depend on the system it's running on,
unsigned long, whose highest value in bits on 32 Intel is, surprise, 2 GB.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: 8 Nov 2000 00:30:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So now he is getting a prompt that is as follows:
> (repair file system) #
> I have no idea what he did, but I didn't even tell him about the root
> account so he should have been protected.
There is no protection against the stupidities of a user. But it might
also have been a powersurge or a bad disk.
> What magic command is he supposed to know, having waded through 100's
> of pages of How-To's, despite the fact the guy never opened a book on
> Windows and has been running it since 3.1 without a complete meltdown
> like this one.
If he knows about basic commands like man it's easy to figure out:
man -k repair:
dosfsck (8) - check and repair MS-DOS file systems
fsck (8) - check and repair a Linux file system
Guess what command he should use next......
> The general public is going to run from this abortion, sorry but it's
> the truth.
All distros I know (iirc) will tell you that you need to run fsck. But
my guess is that when you scroll up a little you will see that fsck is
failing, it probably will tell you on which partition, this combined
with a little commonsense..... run fsck.
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: 8 Nov 2000 00:28:28 GMT
In article <8u7otv$ec3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
K M Tanner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> About your .sig: Is that Finnish part taken from "Peter and the Wolf"?
It's a sort of memorial to a helpful bloke by the name of Larry Lippman
who used to post a lot of really useful stuff, and had "Have you hugged
your cat today" in his sigfile.
I figured that wolves need the hugs more, in general, seeing as they don't
get cut much of a break, and they're more social than cats anyway.
Then he died, so I stuck with it.
Later, people started sending me translations in various languages.
It became a tradition. People complained when I took it out. There you
have it.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "Milloin halasit viimeksi suttasi?"
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME: specific issues
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:39:32 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 05 Nov 2000 18:47:30 GMT...
...and Jeff Jeffries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I need to choose either GNOME or KDE. I will be doing computationally
> intensive C++, with very heavy disk I/O. Results will be displayed in 3D
> preferrably with OpenGL.
>
> 1. Are GNOME and KDE C++ and/or object oriented? How will this affect
> developing with C++?
Both KDE and GNOME are object oriented. KDE's object orientation is
Qt's, i.e. the OO built into C++ with some additional keywords. You
need a kluge in form of a "meta object compiler" to preprocess any
files that define slots or signals.
GNOME's OO is implemented at runtime (GtkObject, soon to become
GObject), which allows for programming in plain C and easier binding
to scripting languages which use runtime-oriented OO. Of course, here
there's a kluge, too, i.e. you need to use special casting macros
quite a lot.
There is a C++ wrapper called Gtk--/Gnome-- which conveniently wraps
the GTK+/GNOME object model with all the macro klugery into doodads
such as overloading, namespaces etc. This wrapper is reputed to be
very neat indeed.
> 2. I know GNOME has gtkglarea; does KDE?
There is OpenGL support in Qt. I don't know whether it's as featureful
as GtkGLArea.
> 3. What else should a C++ developer know?
You should decide for yourself: Do a simple test program both in
KDE/Qt and in Gtk--/Gnome--, and choose what's easier to program for
you. The performance and feature set should be quite the same.
mawa
--
Wenn die Wochentage Länder wären...
...dann wäre der Freitag Kuba.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:53:42 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and Mac instead of Windows.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If I have to run Wine, I might as well run Windows.
>
> claire
Why? All I do is type
notes
or click on the desktop icon and notes comes up. It is that simple.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 00:57:08 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > \> > How could they know?
> > > > > Let me ask it again: How could Outlook know, for crying out loud?!
> > > >
> > > > Exactly the point. Outlook can't know. You can't know. Outlook
> > > > attachments are an inherent security flaw no matter what. In fact the
> > > > entire OS and MS Office package is an inherent security flaw.
> > >
> > > By your own words, *any* attachments are unsafe, to any OS.
> >
> > No, only MS operating systems. Only MS *.doc and *.xls and ... have the
> > ability to run hidden macros that can damage your system. Only MS
> > operating systems permit said macros full access to the entire system.
> > Also only Outlook has a preview function that will run those macros
> > whenever the message appears without even being opened.
>
> Do you understand that most MS systems are running of FAT partitions? FAT
> having no ability to do permissions.
Yes, I understand. MS operating systems are a security hole : no
permissions.
> Outlook has preview functions that run those macros? I don't think so.
>
We seem to have caught a virus like that. At least thats what the IT
group tells me. They are all certified microsoft software engineers.
> > > The fact is that Outlook lets you save them to the disk by default, NOT
> run
> > > them.
> > > That you override the default settings in order to force outlook to run
> them
> > > is not outlook's fault.
> > >
> >
> > The default seems to be to give a warning every time a message is opened
> > that it might contain a harmful macro. If every message might contain a
> > harmful macro, and no other information is given, the only safe option
> > is never to open any mail at all. Therefore, the OS is either insecure
> > or useless.
>
> No, it's not.
> The only option is never to run unviewed macros without reading them first.
> Which is easily possible by clicking No when you are asked if you want to
> run the macro.
The only option is to never run macros. I don't have time to try to read
every macro in every *.doc file or *.xls file or whatever. My only
options are to either ignore the warning and open the file or not run
the file at all. My job isn't to be an expert in microsoft macros. So I
don't have time or intrest to learn the scripting languages. Neither
does the average user who just wants to get a job done.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: On a win 2000 system. remove RH7 as follows
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:02:03 +1300
> > If your swap partition is a logical partition and not a primary, then
> > this is no help at all =)
> >
> > See? Easy! =)
>
> LOL
> It's a logical partitions, without logical drivers, so Fdisk refuse to
> delete it because it thinks it has logical drivers, but it hasn't, so it's a
> very un-nice circular logic here.
> I ended up putting a linux setup cd-rom and editing the partition table from
> there.
I think we're getting our terminology a bit confused... so I'm getting
confused =)
Primary partition - one of four, in the partition table (see lengthy
debug post ;)
Extended partition - one of four, can contain logical partitions
Logical partition - go 'inside' the extended partition, no data stored
about it in the MBR.
If your swap space is a logical partition, then it will definitely exist,
but FDISK wont show it. The problem is, FDISK also wont delete the
extended partition if any of these logical partitions exist. Since it
doesn't display them, you might think they aren't there, yet FDISK knows
they are and offers no solution. It's a failure of a tool really. It
even fails with NT, since it wont show NTFS logical partitions either.
And if you have an NTFS primary, it comes up as HPFS. What does this
teach us, boys and girls? Rather than choose a partition ID from any of
the other 150+ available IDs, they picked the one used for HPFS file
systems...
Kindly fill in your own conspiracy theory in the space provided: [ ]
But back on topic, if you have no other useful logical partitions in your
extended partition you could use my debug method to remove the extended
partition and FDISK will never be the wiser.
The ultimate solution, as you've discovered, is fdisk instead of FDISK =)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:04:04 GMT
On 8 Nov 2000 00:30:06 GMT, Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So now he is getting a prompt that is as follows:
>> (repair file system) #
>
>> I have no idea what he did, but I didn't even tell him about the root
>> account so he should have been protected.
>
>There is no protection against the stupidities of a user. But it might
>also have been a powersurge or a bad disk.
The disk is fine, and it is quite difficult to power surge a Thinkpad
hooked up to that massive power supply it comes with. I have had the
lights blink in my house where every PC goes down, but the ThinkPad
doesn't miss a beat because of the combination of batteries and the
power supply.
>> What magic command is he supposed to know, having waded through 100's
>> of pages of How-To's, despite the fact the guy never opened a book on
>> Windows and has been running it since 3.1 without a complete meltdown
>> like this one.
>
>If he knows about basic commands like man it's easy to figure out:
And if he doesn't?
>man -k repair:
>dosfsck (8) - check and repair MS-DOS file systems
>fsck (8) - check and repair a Linux file system
>
>Guess what command he should use next......
Guess how is supposed to know how to get there in the first place?
>> The general public is going to run from this abortion, sorry but it's
>> the truth.
>
>All distros I know (iirc) will tell you that you need to run fsck. But
>my guess is that when you scroll up a little you will see that fsck is
>failing, it probably will tell you on which partition, this combined
>with a little commonsense..... run fsck.
His common sense, as well as mine is telling him that Linux is just
too fragile.
Whatever bad habits he has, and I don't know, he hasn't aborted a
system in years, till this one.
Claire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:06:49 GMT
On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:32:57 -0500, "Nathan Bell"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Well the great, robust system known as Linux has taken a dump on my
>: friends laptop (a different one than the one I am battling with).
>:
>: So now he is getting a prompt that is as follows:
>:
>:
>: (repair file system) #
>:
>: I have no idea what he did, but I didn't even tell him about the root
>: account so he should have been protected.
>:
>: What now Doctor Science?
>
>Did anyone ever say Linux was right for everyone? I really don't understand
>people who blame their problems on the OS, like it is a conscious being. I
>know of someone who killed their win9x system by deleting all the system
>files. Does that mean that win9x is faulty? Not necessarily, it's just not
>idiot proof.
As far as this idiot is concerned, since Win 3.1, he has never
rendered a system useless. So Linux, at least in his eyes, is not
idiot proof, but Windows seems to be.
>If you have a problem with Linux it should be of a more fundamental nature
>(ie. memory management, processor scheduling), not "well device/program x
>doesn't work".
The machine is DOA as far as he is concerned. Nothing else applies.
>:The machine is essentially DOA.
>:
>:What magic command is he supposed to know, having waded through 100's
>:of pages of How-To's, despite the fact the guy never opened a book on
>:Windows and has been running it since 3.1 without a complete meltdown
>:like this one.
>
>If you really wanted a solution you would have posted to one of the many
>other linux newsgroups.
Doesn't matter, the guy has been soured on Linux and as a result, I
doubt it will be on his list of recommendations for the school
district.
>:In all my years (20 +) I have never seen such a mess as this Linux
>:operating system.
>:
>:The general public is going to run from this abortion, sorry but it's
>:the truth.
>Then why do you bother discussing it. If you don't like it don't use it.
I use it, but the more I use it the more apparent it becomes that it
is not ready for prime time. Not even close.
claire
>
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:12:53 GMT
John Jensen wrote:
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : It varies slightly between different versions of Windows. Try
> : shit-rightclicking and you should get an "Open With" option that lets you
> : choose whatever you want.
>
> What a crappy interface!
>
> John
On my versions I have to left click first to highlight the file, then
shift right click. Otherwise, the OPEN menu item comes up.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:14:34 GMT
Sam Morris wrote:
>
> > What a crappy interface!
>
> I believe the Open With submenu was added for Win2k/ME. Would you prefer
> that the interface remain the same FOREVER and never EVER get any better at
> all? :)
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Sam
>
> _o/
> >\
No its in NT4.0. left-click once to highlight the file, then
shift-right-click. Very intuitive.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus! [WARNING BINARY ATTACHMENT]
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:17:24 GMT
Sam Morris wrote:
>
> > >I would shut up now if I were you Aaron, you are just showing your
> > >ignorance. If you right click on a file there is a bold "OPEN" option
> which
> > >launches the default application, there is also a non-bold OPEN option
> that
> > >lets you select any executable on my machine as the application to use to
> > >open the file.
> >
> > That's funny. I just treid this, and you are WRONG. I either get a
> > bold "Open" or a bold "Open with..." depending on whether the file
> > type has a default application.
>
> You are probably using Win98 or NT4 (or earlier). IIRC this feature was
> added in Win2k/ME...
>
Its in NT4.0, but not like your screen shot. Clicking Open With gets you
a delay while a window opens that takes time loading up all possible
programs on your system. It takes about 45 seconds to get down to
Notepad on my system.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Sam
>
> _o/
> >\
>
> [Image]
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lets try serious advocacy/discussion.
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 21:27:18 -0500
Jake Taense wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Applications developers have to know some real hard facts:
> >
> >The Windows market is glutted with applications and products, almost
> >every application has a suite of competition. SWB (Shrink Wrapped Boxes)
> >are expensive to get into stores.
> >
> >Linux, on the other hand, offers a fresh environment with less
> >competition. Users are open to alternative distribution schemes.
>
> Yes - but tell me - who will buy the software? What good is a clear market
> when the consumers expect the products to be free?
Not all people don't expect things to be free, but in OSS world, the
standards for which you pay are higher.
>
> Ask Corel how well sales are going. Not well. Nor is it going well for any
> other linux software producer you'd care to name, other than the distributions
> themselves.
Corel sucks. I have yet to see a decent product crom from them in either
Windows or Linux. Applix, a closed source - non-free vendor, was doing
great until Sun started giving away SO 5.x, and Applix dropped the ball
with their new version.
>
> >It should be cheaper (and easier) to develop applications for Linux
> >because the tools are free, and you can look at the source.
>
> Oh, great - so the choice is: develop at low cost for a net loss, or develop
> at a higher cost for potential profits. Gee... let me see...
Cute, but not true.
>
> >Look at Netscape. Almost universally used on Linux, granted some small
> >percent of the people that use Linux use something like Lynx, but most
> >people use Netscape. Netscape has a near monopoly of Linux browser
> >market.
>
> And what has that gained them? The fact is that Netscape is mostly disliked
> by linux users thanks to its stability issues. They have a monopoly because
> they are pretty much the only full-featured, complete browser on the market.
> The product isn't good - but it's the only choice for users who want things
> like java, javascript, etc..
>
> >The same thing could happen for a $79.00 digital camera, or an
> >$89.00 parport scanner. While these products would have heavy
> >competition in the Windows market with shrinking margins, the OEM could
> >charge a few bucks more and support Linux. We Linux users would be very
> >receptive to something that supports linux "out of the box" and would
> >pay a few bucks more for that option, on top of that, since GIMP is
> >free, there is no need to license a graphic program.
>
> Hardware is a different issue, granted. But any manufacturer in their right
> mind will tie their development to Windows first, linux second - since the
> market is so much larger, even if it IS competitive.
This is a false expectation, margins are so low on Windows consumer
hardware, that products net very little money. That combined with the
fact that Linux users are genrally more computer literate than most
Windows users, means that support costs for Linux devices would be
lower, that added with the fact that there is little competition, means
that getting 10% of a Linux market, may be more profitable than 1% of
the Windows market.
Without actual numbers, it is difficult to say for sure, but I have been
involved with lots of clients that make a very nice living being a major
suppier in a smaller marketplace.
>
> >The OEM gets a good deal, higher margins, a new market, a more computer
> >literate userbase, etc.
> >The Linux user gets a good deal, stuff that works out of the box.
>
> Maybe if every bit of software included with their products is statically
> compiled. Otherwise they are in support hell.
OK, so what? That's what all major people do with large applications in
Linux. I wish it were different, but it is not a major issue.
>
> Driver and software development for an additional OS is not free. Somebody has
> to pay for it. So the choice for the OEM's is - pay for a Windows license, or
> pay higher prices for hardware that has linux software support.
Yes, a $79.00 scanner that works with Windows could sell for $89.00 with
Linux drivers, easily! (Especially if they put a penguin Logo on it!)
That is a huge difference in the net profitability of consumer product.
>
> Even assuming the OEM's were to get cheaper stuff thanks to not having to
> purchase licenses, the only way that translates to higher margins is if they
> sell the bundles at the same price they would have for a windows equivalent.
No, they could sell a Linux package for little bit more.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew Suprun)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:29:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Myers) wrote in
<cnLN5.7468$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I taught myself the rules of relational databases and normalization
>in Access.
Next, learn OOP/OOD/OOA using VB.
Andrew.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: solution to the Msoft problems
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:35:58 +0000
On Wed, 1 Nov 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
You're right, they rewrote a couple of words to make the decree work in
their favor. So *technically* they didn't 'ignore' it, they only pulled a
fast one on Justice- perhaps figuring that because whe was blind she might
not notice. That's why they were back in court again.
> Microsoft did not ignore the consent decree. If they had, they would have
> been found guilty of contempt of court. The judge ruled that MS was not in
> violation of the consent decree.
>
> That's why the DOJ brought the new trial, because they decided they wanted
> to change their mind about how MS should be allowed to operate after they
> signed the deal.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8tqmts$6gj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > A lot of the companies that could have benefitted from your suggested
> > solution have been driven to near insolvency by MSFT's anti-competitive
> > practices. Remember, this present DOJ action was not the first against
> > MSFT; there was a prior consent decree that MSFT agreed to and
> > subsequently ingnored. MSFT is more than just a ruthless competitor;
> > MSFT has repeatedly committed numerous criminal acts to ensure their
> > absolute monopolistic dominance of the desktop market. The corrective
> > actions proposed by Judge Jackson were, in fact, lenient considering the
> > degree to which MSFT went to eliminate competition. And you can bet your
> > bottom dollar that MSFT, like the proverbial leopard, won't change its
> > spots.
> >
> > In other words, you're a day late and a dollar short. And pretty much
> > without clue when it comes to MSFT business practices.
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
