Linux-Advocacy Digest #512, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler review. ("Bennetts family")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:09:56 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:57:20
[...]
>You didn't even grasp what the problem was.
Says you.
>The application is trying to do things it has no reason to do.
Says you. I refuse to second guess programmers in the performance of
their duties. Apparently, they had reason to do things; whether you or
Microsoft agreed with their reasons, or wish to dispute their technical
validity, is between the user and the programmer, who will most properly
fail to care.
>How would you feel about a webserver who saved its log as /home/root/.bashrc?
I would think it is just as broken as an operating system that required
it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:10:13 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:58:53
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> > Monoply is a wise business decision because it increase revenue.
>> > That is what I was talking about.
[...]
>> But I was taught that crime doesn't pay.
>
>Tell that to OJ Simpson.
<*smirk*> Oh, that's a good point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:08:51 +1100
"Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:900tsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available for
> ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
> implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now, haven't
> checked up on it in a while).
You're the dense one. Wine's implementation is a shot at the Win32 API
without any insight of the real thing. They are writing it to how it should
behave. Aaron is wanting M$ to release their pitiful, unstable, attempt.
--Chris
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:10:40 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:01:58
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >Monoply is a wise business decision because it increase revenue.
>>
>> Robbing banks increases revenues, too, as does grand theft auto, fraud,
>> and blackmail.
>
>That doesn't fall under bussiness, at least not under the normal defination.
>:)
Neither does monopolization, that's the point.
>> >That is what I was talking about.
>> >On pure logical level, wise business decision is one that increase revenue,
>> >monoply increase revenue.
>>
>> It makes logical sense to try to use the fact that you have a large
>> market share to control costs and to exclude competition (provided
>> you're not thinking very hard.) However, it is illegal, so it cannot be
>> considered a "wise business decision", any more than "cooking the books"
>> would be a wise business decision. The reason it is illegal, btw, is
>> not any "party pooper" attitude that a Mr. Sherman had a hundred years
>> ago. It is because it prevents free market competition from
>> functioning. Read Adam Smith for the details.
>
>Ignore moral & law, for a moment.
Why on earth would I do that?
>What is the purpose of bussiness, to create revenue. The more revnue the
>better.
Ignore your brain for a moment. What is the purpose of people, to
create people. Therefore, killing every other male is a good idea.
>Monopoly create revenue.
>Monopoly is good.
>On a *purely* profit-wise level.
But you don't seem to understand, "profit" in that context is the same
as the "profit" one makes from extortion or fraud. It isn't the kind of
*profit* which drives capitalism, because such *profit* only comes from
competing in a free market, not from monopolizing.
>BTW, I don't think that MS has right to do it.
>It's illegal, as you pointed out.
>And, on the long term, it's a stupid decision.
Indeed. Perhaps you're ready to realize just how stupid a decision it
is, and how short that long term can be. Making *any* business decision
based on your market share, even the intent to increase it, is
anti-competitive, and potentially illegal. REAL business decisions are
based on increasing *sales*, not "market share".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:11:18 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:44:34 -0500;
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>| > There are plenty of *possible* alternatives, *technical* alternatives.
>| > There are no commercially feasible alternatives, however, since MS
>| > doesn't produce a competitive product, but merely locks in a monopoly
>| > product. Which means they have the (illegal) power to prevent these
>| > potential alternatives from finding a large enough market to break the
>| > Win32 application barrier.
>|
>| No, there is no such barrier.
>| Please provide me with any evidence that you can't duplicate what a certian
>| appilication does on one platform on another platform
>
>The barrier there isn't a technical one but an economic one and
>unfortunately the Linux community is largely to blame as much as the MS
>monopoly. The linux community is growing and provides a potential for
>commercial application breakthroughs. However, Linux is OSS and the
>community rides on the OSS mantra which is that people shouldn't have to
>pay for software.
The "Linux community" is an attribution normally applied to the *users*,
really, including those for whom "use" includes programming, but not
selling. The *market* for Linux, however, is not to blame for the fact
that 90% of the market for PCs is locked in to Windows. Nor are the
producers of Linux. The OSS mantra is that people shouldn't have to pay
for anything they don't want to pay for and worth money, including
software code which is already readily available. Why on earth should
the industry tie up almost all its investment resources repaying for
rewriting of code that sucks to begin with? The only reason Linux isn't
the de facto operating system is illegal behavior, plain and simple. It
isn't economics, and it isn't technology.
>Unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort and time to make software and
>there are only two motivators there. Either direct economic benefit in a
>commercial, closed source setting, or the developer is using the
>software to his economic benefit and knows that others will help to
>enhance the software to his and their benefit.
Who'd a thunk, a monopoly prevents competition, and suddenly there
wouldn't be enough economic benefit to competing. Go figure.
[...]
>An economic one exists. When you develop the software, people need to
>buy it so that it can be worth your while to develop it. This is the
>reason behind the collapse of the OS/2 software market. Not enough OS/2
>users exist to maintain the market. Developers invest a lot into
>creating apps, employing other developers in the process and then no-one
>buys the application. This is a serious barrier.
But the "application barrier" as built and maintained by Microsoft is
much greater than just the barrier to entry, which any OS would
confront. Microsoft's version includes de-comoditization of public
standards, churn, and subterfuge such as main-streaming and tying.
>This is why MS markets Win2k only for the PC platform. It's not
>economically viable for them to do otherwise because there's not enough
>demand for it.
Pardon me, but how is this at all related to the application barrier?
If NT/2K actually ran on other hardware, shouldn't Windows applications
still work?
>Before you develop an application, you need to have a target population
>to market it to.
I'm afraid you seem a little soft on the concept of the application
barrier, Curtis. Before you *sell* an *operating system*, your target
market has to have *applications* for it: that's the application
barrier, in a nutshell. Not to be confused with each and every
potential *barrier to entry* in the market, some of which are natural,
but most of which are illegally erected by Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:12:12 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:04:35
>Curtis wrote:
[...]
>>The barrier there isn't a technical one but an economic one and
>>unfortunately the Linux community is largely to blame as much as the MS
>>monopoly. The linux community is growing and provides a potential for
>>commercial application breakthroughs. However, Linux is OSS and the
>>community rides on the OSS mantra which is that people shouldn't have to
>>pay for software.
>
>No your wrong. That's just a side benefit.
>The OVERALL drive is to make the source code FREE of encumbrances
>so that people are free to see how the software is written, to
>inspect the product and further to add to the collection if they
>wish. The free cost aspect is just a side benefit.
VERY well said.
>I really don't know why people get so damn hung up on free
>software cost anyway. When I worked for HBOC we would GIVE
>away software if they would sign the maintenance agreement
>with us. We'd even give them hardware to boot! It's all
>in the marketing. And that was copyrighted software also.
When it comes to production in a capitalist system, software is odds-on
the most inexpensive commodity *possible* to produce.
>The GPL just takes that step and makes the software open
>source and FREE for use. But the market really hasn't
>changed from the day's when copyrighted material was
>the norm.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:13:19 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:32:16 -0500;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) posted:
>
>| >The barrier there isn't a technical one but an economic one and
>| >unfortunately the Linux community is largely to blame as much as the MS
>| >monopoly. The linux community is growing and provides a potential for
>| >commercial application breakthroughs. However, Linux is OSS and the
>| >community rides on the OSS mantra which is that people shouldn't have to
>| >pay for software.
>| >
>|
>| No your wrong. That's just a side benefit.
>| The OVERALL drive is to make the source code FREE of encumbrances
>| so that people are free to see how the software is written, to
>| inspect the product and further to add to the collection if they
>| wish. The free cost aspect is just a side benefit.
>
>The people benefit, not the software developer who's sole reason for
>developing the software is to make some money so that he can put food on
>the table and buy his home.
Well, see, the people you speak of are not ostensibly capable of writing
software. So what does that say about the programmer's chances of
future employment, given:
a) he can produce proprietary code, which will suffer from "bit rot" at
Internet speeds
b) he can establish himself clearly as writing good software, based on
the easily examined evidence of his previous code?
I think you're confusing people who make money writing software with
people who make money "producing" software, which in today's market
means "owning a piece of copyright code wrapped in a trade secret which
can be used as the basis for monopolization."
[...]
>How much general purpose software out there carries a maintenance
>requirement that users would be willing to pay significantly for.
ALL of it, if they had the cash. It helps that the distribution is
free, don't you think?
>They'd
>rather ask there neighbours or go to the nearest newsgroup rather than
>pay for tech support.
I don't think anyone wishing to provide professional maintenance would
ask for a better market opportunity. The cost of support isn't great,
but you'd be surprised how much more you'll be willing to pay once you
finally realize the distinction between an amateur and a professional.
>| The GPL just takes that step and makes the software open
>| source and FREE for use. But the market really hasn't
>| changed from the day's when copyrighted material was
>| the norm.
>
>However:
>
>The users benefit, not the software developer who's sole reason for
>developing the software is to make some money so that he can put food on
>the table and buy his home.
However: rather than live in an economy magically dominated by the
mysterious all-powerful priesthood called "software developers", we
happen to enjoy the benefit of a capitalist economy, in which any
producers sole ability to make money is to provide what benefits the
user most.
[...]
>The software developer, who's sole purpose for developing software is to
>make a profit doesn't really care that much about the benefits of the
>entire community.
>
>Have you ever heard of the triangle of needs. We attend to our needs in
>a triangular fashion starting from the wide base up to the tiny apex.
Its called a "hierarchy of needs", it was developed by a man named
Maslow, or something, and above making money (subsistence) comes real
life, known as self-actualization.
>The desire to help others is at the apex. You cannot help others or
>think of others until you first help yourself.
Perhaps there was a misprint in your copy.
>The software developer
>looking for a means of income to help himself through developing
>software doesn't care about the noble cause of OSS. This is why
>commercial software will !!!!!!DWARF!!!!! OSS software in terms of scope
>and variety.
Why, simply because you use the term "software developer" alternately
for software producer and software programmer, in each sentence on the
topic?
[...]
>| NO. The money made today is in the maintenance of software products
>| and NOT the sale of software products. Microsoft is actually
>| the last bastion of software SALES stupidity. The money is
>| in the market for maintenance.
>
>Oh. Tell me now. Are any of these distributors for Linux distros and
>technical services making a profit? Nooooo.
Do they need to? Nooooo. We still have free software.
It appears, Curtis, that in your cursory understanding of the modern
software market, you seem to think that some person might have some
*right* to make money. If the thing you're trying to sell doesn't cost
you much at all to produce, then it just might be enough worth enough to
sell.
>| We would sell a hospital a software package for $110,000.
>| But we would get an annual maintenance fee after the first
>| year of $90,000 a year for every year the product was licensed
>| to be maintained by us. 80% of our companies revenues is
>| in the maintenance contracts. Very little is in the sales
>| of software. They have actually been GIVING the software
>| away for FREE if they sign 5 year contracts.
>
>A number of things here.
>
>a) This is highly specialised software for which technical support is
>not readily available.
Indicating their market is severely limited, yet they still make money
giving software away. Go figure.
>Contrast this to Linux or any popular general purpose apps where the
>help may be used or the user may take to a newsgroup, the internet or
>discussion lists to get technical support. This is the problem with
>support returns. The bulk of users are parasites. They don't help with
>development and they don't help by contributing through purchasing tech
>support.
You seem to be under the impression that it costs the software author
some money to have this person run their code. I don't get it. What
difference does it make if the bulk of users are parasites, if a large
enough minority purchases tech support? Sure, they don't help with
development, but, then again, there's every likelihood they might not
benefit from development, too, so again, there's no net loss.
>b) When they give away the software, is the source also given away.
No, he pointed out that it was 'copyrighted', which I imagine to him
means "closed source" in this context.
>Can
>the hospital to which the source be given, give it to another developer
>to be enhanced or further developed? This is another deterrent to OSS.
*Boggle*. Deterrent?
>After 5 years of hard work and investing, I create my breakthrough
>software that greatly improves my companies efficiency. If anyone else
>is going to get their hands on this software, they'd have to pay dearly
>for it.
Here's a hint: don't GPL it. But don't be too sure anyone is going to
"pay dearly" for your "breakthrough software", if it should ever make it
outside of your imagination.
[...]
>| Well, again. Your talking about the days of when people will
>| be selling OS's and those day's are comming to a close.
>
>My arguments are not by any means confined to just OS's.
Indeed, neither are the benefits of open source.
>Even then, there's the very disturbing fact that in the midst of the
>linux boom, none of the distributors can admit to be working with a
>positive profit margin but in fact at a loss.
Yea, well, Pets.com and major parts of Priceline just bombed, as well.
I generally don't give a flying fuck if producers are making a profit,
seeing as I am a consumer, not an investor. I realize that everyone
wants to discombobulate the difference, these days, but I think that's
part of what tanked pets.com and Priceline, as well.
[....]
>As I said, my arguments do not apply only to OSS's as the OSS movements
>mantra does not only apply to OS's.
To be perfectly honest, your arguments don't apply to anything but your
imagination.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
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
******************************
