Linux-Advocacy Digest #570, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Major shift (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful ("Bennetts family")
I Will Survive (without Windows) (kiwiunixman)
Re: Don't believe the hype ("Bennetts family")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (Spicerun)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Don't believe the hype (UnixGeek)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:44:05 +0000
In article <9042u4$5ga0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <903s9a$5u56$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vvd44$5u7qu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis
>wrote:
>> >> >> >mark wrote...
>> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis
>> >wrote:
>> >> >> >> >mark wrote...
>> >> >> >> >> >No, the user is an idiot.
>> >> >> >> >> >An installer is an "it", no a "he"
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Er, the user is an idiot because microsoft's CD was broken?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Wow I love windows people.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >You're doing the same crap with Ayende I see.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Que? I'm still waiting to see this list of apps
>> >> >> >> which run on all those different things which
>> >> >> >> you claimed.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Let's leave that to the other thread which is tiresome as it is
>> >already
>> >> >> >is. <mutter> This one is tiresome as well </mutter>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> If the user didn't know what to do when faced with a broken
>> >> >> >> Microsoft install CD (which apparently had _only one_ file
>> >> >> >> broken - something very rare indeed), then they need help
>> >> >> >> and support not calling an idiot by you or by Ayende.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >A solution was offered to him. Ayende told him what could be wrong
>and
>> >> >> >how to go about fixing it assuming it was just one file that was
>> >> >> >corrupted. A single file corruption is a reasonable assumption
>> >> >> >considering the OS installed and ran just fine otherwise. He
>refused
>> >to
>> >> >> >attempt this and tried installing again as if the problem would
>> >magically
>> >> >> >go away on the *third* attempt.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, a single file corruption on a CD is amazingly unlikely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Since this image came from Microsoft, there would be a batch of
>> >> >> these made, 10,000s or so, so there would be either a history,
>> >> >> or the whole batch would have been withdrawn (unless there's
>> >> >> no QA at all on this, but I don't think even Microsoft would
>> >> >> be that foolish).
>> >> >
>> >> >Burn 1000 cds.
>> >> >Now take one and scratch it.
>> >> >Please explain me how a scratch on one CD render all CDs that were
>burned
>> >> >unusable.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> One scratch will damage multiple files, not one file. You are bull-
>> >> sh*tting and don't know much about CDs either.
>> >
>> >There might've been more files curropted, I've only noticed this one and
>> >didn't bother to check for more.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> Ah, how the story changes. Before you were quite certain that it
>> was only one file.
>
>Only one file that *cared* about.
>
>
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now we've got to care about our binaries.
It really is true that it's better to remain silent and be
thought a fool.
Mark
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:15:57 GMT
In my case, it was on sale for $AUS1500, including monitor. A darn site
better than my mates Computer, that was the size of a filing cabnet. I
also later bought an Atari 2600 gamestation, it was basically games
machine that hooked up to the TV.
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> tony roth wrote:
>
>> no both atari and amiga sold much better in europe then it did here! the
>> sales the U.S. were about 1/3 the per capita rate as in europe!
>
>
> That's because europe had a lower per-capita ownership of computers
> when the Atari 520ST and the Amiga lines were introduced.
>
> Naturally, first-time buyers bought the superior products.
>
>
>> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:900nfl$lvl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> and I remember when atari st's and amiga's were the rage in europe ha ha
>>>
>> ha!
>>
>>> I remember when they were the rage in the united states. Whats youre
>>
>> point?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----.
>>>
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:37:59 +1100
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 1. Comparison: Windows is like a Concord, is has been riding high for a
> long time then it will crash and burn in a big heap as it's viability is
> reduced by better, more well designed aircrafts.
Windows being a Concorde implies that it goes incredibly fast and high for
~25 years, despite being horrendously expensive, before secumming to a piece
of metal that fell off another plane. That last bit seems accurate ;-)
> 2. Comparison: I see Microsoft like Boeing, it has been the major
> producer of large, commercial airliners, Linux is like the Airbus,
> although in the past, only a small number of airlines bought their
> aircrafts, however, they have gained some very lucrative contracts with
> airlines such as Qantus recently.
No doubt you've noticed that both M$ and Boeing are based in the general
vicinity of Seattle. Coincidence? I think not...
--Chris
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I Will Survive (without Windows)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:35:18 GMT
Dedicated to those who find the transition from Windows to Linux that
little bit harder:
First I was afraid, I was petrified
Kept thinking I could never live
without Windows by my side
But I spent so many nights
thinking how you did me wrong
I grew strong
I learned Linux and carried on
and so you're back
using Hard disk space
I just walked in to find you here
with that BSOD look upon your screen
I should have changed my stupid lock
I should have made you leave your key
If I had known for just one second
you'd be back to infect me
Go on now, delete off the disk
don't return around now
'cause you're not welcome anymore
weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye
you think I'd crumble
you think I'd lay down and die
Oh no, not I
I will survive
as long as I know how to code
I know I will stay alive
I've got all my life to live
I've got all my knowledge to give
and I'll survive
I will survive
It took all the strength I had
not to fall apart
kept trying hard to mend
the pieces of my partition
and I spent oh so many nights
just feeling sorry for myself
I used to cry
Now I hold my head up high
and you see me
somebody new
I'm not that chained up little person
still in addicted to you
and so you felt like dropping in
and just expect me to be free
now I'm saving all my disk space
for someone who's won't BSOD on me
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Don't believe the hype
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:44:16 +1100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have found even the latest version of Mandrake 7.2 to be abysmal
> compared to Windows 2000. It's not bad as far as Linux is concerned,
> but it looks like crap
snip
We know where our priorities lie, don't we? It looks like crap! Oh dear, the
biggest tradgedy in the world! Get a life!
--Chris
Who thinks that Windows isn't pretty either.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:45:42 GMT
I've heard some nasty stories about SuSE for Sparc, it probably best to
stick with Solaris, it is a pretty reliable operating system, with good
app. support.
kiwiunixman
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said kiwiunixman in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:49:02
>
>> I donot use Redhat Linux, I tried release 6.2, and from my experience, I
>> donot understand the big noise companies make about Redhat Linux. I
>> have found that SuSE has always sold reliable products (from my experience).
>
>
> I think its down to SuSE or Debian for me, maybe both (on two different
> machines). Any comments from those with some experience? How do the
> packages compare, and which would be better for my "bit head" brother
> who's always cobbling components into his five year old home-built
> system, or for a small workgroup server/workstation combination
> (including both Windows and Linux clients, and maybe some Sun boxes,
> too)?
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:48:58 GMT
The one thing I missed (about Solaris x86) was the cleaness of the CDE
GUI, no flashy icons and rubbish, it got the job done, with any hassles.
Now, if Windows GUI was like that then real progress would have been made.
kiwiunixman
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:26:42 -0500;
>
>>>>> Spicerun, calm down, I think Ayende is a little excited because Windows
>>>>> may actually reach the realiability of UNIX/Linux (which is very
>>>>> unlikely due to its very poor design/achitecture), however, I don't
>>>>> think it will happen. From the description, it seem like Whistler will
>>>>> be mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega-mega bloatware that will
>>>>> require a 1Ghz processor and 512MB RAM just so that it can run a decent
>>>>> level of responsiveness due to all the hairy-fairy addons a gizmo's
>>>>> Microsoft has added to the OS (which most people don't really need).
>>>>
>> Odd, I run whistler beta on the same machine I ran linux on for over a year.
>> A pentium pro 200 box with 128 mb's of ram. Hate to say it folks, but it's
>> true... Whistler smokes linux for gui responsiveness.
>
>
> I'll bet you mean "Explorer responsiveness", don't you? I've never seen
> anything but instantaneous GUI responsiveness on any Unix system. Their
> file managers, however, generally suck.
>
>> Not to mention, the
>> machine, while taking more ram than w2k or nt (debug code you realize) seems
>> like a very, very good beta. I've run it for weeks now, not one crash.
>> Read the linux groups concerning upgrading to Redhat 7, you wanna talk about
>> bugs??
>> If that's the linux revolution, you can have it. Whistler beta upgraded w2k,
>> migrated all apps and settings without flaw. And this is BETA code we're
>> talking about. Redhat releases every 6 months and STILL presses shite onto
>> CD's and calls it an upgrade. Where's the outrage over THAT Mr. Fung?
>
>
> <*chortle*>
>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:01:25 GMT
Can you pipe the output of one command to another application (and maybe
another) in one step, like the following:
gzip -d filename.tar.gz | tar vxf
In Windows it would be, download Winzip, install it, run it, open it,
yada yada yada, the above command did what I wanted in a couple of seconds.
Try editing a file in Windows, what a night mare, here is the unix example
vi filename
edit the file
press esc followed by :wq!
compare that to the click-a-thon windows demands.
As a final comment, don't obsesively cross post, it is the hight of
rudeness.
kiwiunixman
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> Wow, you are obviously a very educated intelligent command line crippled
> person. The GUI enhances my performance, I still completely own the CLI but
> don't have the limitations of it forced on me. I can do more quicker using
> my GUI than you could dream to do.
>
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3a22e1cf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Well you fuck off you GUI dependent mumma's boy. So, not only you can use
>
> a
>
>> GUI but a mouse ooooooooooo you must very bright, you fucking nittwitt.
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>> Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:3a2291ba$0$14376$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> So, kiwiunixman, did you classify yourself as a "unixman" because you
>>
>> don't
>>
>>> know how to use a mouse and are afraid of getting sticky fingers in GUI?
>>
>> Go
>>
>>> away you pathetic worm troll
>>>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:07:52 GMT
<snip>
>>>
>> Tell us, Conrad....how many operating systems have you ever written
>> programs for?
>
>
>
> #1) unimportant
It is actually quite important as I need to know what knowlegable
background you have.
>
> #2) four
please list, and don't say Window 95/NT/3.1 and DOS. Ever programmed
Fortran? C/C++ using Sun Developer Workshop? or are you a VB simpleton?
>
> #3) from reading your other posts I know your reply already and expect more
> lies.
who cares? I don't care if he lies, get over it
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:12:50 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| >Watch that statistic. Things are very different when looking at absolute
| >figures. A 47% growth in MS's userbase is basically impossible at this
| >juncture because of it's share size and how much of the total userbase
| >it occupies. In fact it should disturb you that they're growing at all.
| >1% growth for the juggernaut monopoly MS is pretty significant. probably
| >more than Linux. We're talking about 47% of 15 million as opposed to 1%
| >of 400 million.
|
| You seem to be under the delusion that it is impossible for one person
| to use more than one OS. 1% growth for the monopoly is very
| significant; it indicates that their product really sucks, or their
| prices are way too high. Your confusion over growth percentages versus
| installed base and user base indicate you haven't really thought very
| hard about these things at all.
Explain what you're saying. You're not making sense. How does the fact
that someone uses more than one OS change what I said? Are you unhappy
with my Linux userbase figure? If so, what is your knowledge on what it
is?
With MS having the share of desktop userbase it has, it will only
undergo single figure percentage growth at this stage. This is whether
or not there's a segment of users that use more than one OS.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:14:29 GMT
If you left me in a room and told me to programme, all you would hear
would be, "bullshit, there are no errors", "year, bloody right, what
ever ya piece of shit" for the next couple of hours, the computer will
always come out second best when I get so pissed off I must release my
anger on it!
kiwiunixman
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately I don't have the patience to programme, thats why I only
>> programme as a last resort.
>
>
> I'm the opposite.
>
> I don't have the patience to do the same things over and over by hand...
> that's why I almost always program.
>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>> mitch wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:53:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>> In terms of databases, I dispise Access, I prefer
>>>> using Filemaker, much easier, and producers the same/better results that
>>>> Access.
>>>>
>>> I can`t stand windowed database apps - I am only comfortable with
>>> pl/sql.
>>>
>>>
------------------------------
From: Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:41:49 +0000
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> I don't believe you
And you have zero credibility, so I don't care if you do believe me. Continue
on in your Windows sheltered life.
> - that is unless you boss is less interested in
> productivity and interoperability and profit then he is using the latest
> trendy anti-ms warez.
Trendy? HaHaHa. Since when is Linux 'Trendy'? Since when is Microsoft not
'Trendy?
And you're just a 2 bit whiner now trying to second guess my boss.
Fortunately, He doesn't listen to idiots like you. Our department made 18%
more money profit for the company last quarter on Linux and our productivity
and interoperability have gone up since pitching out Windows.
> Winning what? Linux and making money are words that never appear in the same
> sentence unless it's something like "Linux and making money are words that
> never appear in the same sentence"
Repeat:: Our department made 18% more money profit for the company last
quarter on Linux and our productivity and interoperability have gone up since
pitching out Windows. <NOTE: Linux and money appeared in the same sentence
along with the word profit! You're wrong again.>
Your attempt at an intimidating tone in a newsgroup post really intimidates
nobody......but it does make you look like a hothead idiot.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:08:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jack Troughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Lyday wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
> > >
> > > "." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not to mention the OS's that don't report uptimes at all,
> > > > > such as OS/2, OS/390, SunOS4, NetWare...
Uptimes are available on OS/390 (when open edition is used, but it only
referrs to the life of that particular LPAR. OS/390 has an average
uptime equivalent of over 1 YEAR. About the only time you completely
reboot OS/390 is if you make a firmware change. The LPARs have a
shorter life-cycle, but even this is on the order of nearly a year.
> There are many ways to get uptimes out of OS/2, even over the web. I
> can place a simple counter on a web page that will tell me when the
> system started.
OS/2 depends on version and application mix. If you have OS/2 2.0 with
lots of applications, the MTBF is about 5-7 days. If you have Warp 4.0
working as a single-application server, the uptime can be over a month.
> > None of this is particularly relevant here.
> > Most rational folks who have had dealings with
> > Netware, OS/2, SunOS, OS/390, etc. realize that
> > all of these are phenomenally more stable and
> > reliable than NT.
Many of these systems also have good MTBF numbers.
While this is only average times, it's pretty easy to
see a spread along a bell curve.
> > In addition, most users of OS/2 realize that it
> > is not as stable as Unix and accept that.
Again, OS/2 4.0 can be pretty stable. But when you compare function
points against MTBF it's very hard to beat UNIX.
> > There is no argument whatsoever that Netware is a
> > highly stable OS.
This is partly due to the fact that Netware limits the number of
function points available. Netware doesn't try to be an "all in one"
solution, and focuses on doing a few things very well.
> > SunOS is Unix and any Unix is about as stable as
> > any other one.
UNIX stability can be impacted by a number of factors. Many people
prefer to get a 4-5 E-450 machines rather than one E-10K machine. Some
kernels, like Solaris, have very strict control and tuning of memory
allocation, disk parameters, and processor allocation. Others, like
Linux tend to support a more dynamic "self-tuning" model. Each has it's
strengths and limitations.
> > No one is arguing that any *nix is unstable or
> > unreliable.
What makes*nix particularly notorious is that it can be very flexible,
running hundreds of diverse applications, while still retaining
rediculously high levels of reliability.
> > It is a well-known fact that OS/390 is known for the five
> > 9's in uptime. That is, it is up about 99.999% of the time. OS/390
> > is down for about 5 minutes out of a year, while Unix is usually
> > down for about 25 hours.
This can be a bit misleading. OS/390 breaks the machine into logical
machines called LPARS. Each LPAR may require tuning and tweaking, and
when clustering is needed, the LPARs can be clustered as if they were
independent machines. Also, 25 hours seems a bit high. That would be
99.7%, which would be more like Windows NT.
Most UNIX systems are down for an average of about 30 minutes per year.
This is more like 99.994% which is typical for Linux. HA UNIX servers
which use a message passing scheme such as MPI or PVM (also used in
Beowulf clusters) get down to 15 minutes/year or about 99.997%
And by the way, 5 minutes/year is five nines (mtbf-mttr/mtbf). This is
also measured as down time of 10 part/million. 1 year MTBF would be
365*24*60=525600. 5 minutes downtime/year would give uptime of 99.999
which would be 10 parts per million. Downtime is easier to calculate
1000000*MTTR/MTBF. In this case 9.51 parts per million for HA/UNIX.
The Linux and UNIX systems drop to 57 parts per million.
NT drops to 2954 parts per million. And Windows 2000, which is touted
as ten times more reliable than NT is 295 parts per million. Real
numbers seem to put Windows 2000 at more like 700 parts/million.
Most UNIX vendors support clustering, which means that they can take a
group of loosly coupled (LAN) processors and distribute the load across
all of the available servers.
> > That would make OS/390 approximately 300 times
> > (!) more stable/reliable than *nix.
> > The argument, instead, is that NT is
> > a stable and reliable OS, with
> > vehement opinion on both sides.
Microsoft itself has acknowledged that NT isn't really
reliable enough to be competitive with other versions of
UNIX. This is why the went to all the effort to add MTS,
MSMQ, and major enhancements to the Kernel to make Windows 2000
more reliable.
Current market level reliablity numbers are lower than Microsoft's
primarily because Microsoft uses only it's own MTS/MSMQ enabled
products in the product mix. Most 3rd party products don't use
these new features.
Most of the 3rd party vendors have pushed back, indicating that if
Windows 2000 doesn't support their product, that Windows 2000 shouldn't
be used for their servers. Meanwhile, they are sticking to UNIX
compatibile source code (JAVA/EJB, CORBA, MQSeries...) since they
knew that their products can scale to bigger UNIX systems if they go
this route. There isn't enough market to justify Windows 2000
specific ports.
> > I was addressing this argument when I
> > posted the URL. It seems the NT supporter
> > above is saying other OS's
> > are not very stable or reliable either.
It's quite likely that the NT supporter has never become a proficient
administrator of both NT an *nix systems. A proficient UNIX
administrator almost never reboots the system. Even neophyte NT turned
UNIX administrators can usually reach the point where they only boot
once a quarter in about 2-3 months.
> > "You're one too!" is hardly a
> > ringing endorsement for NT!
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org *
> * http://jakesplace.dhs.org ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org *
> * Montréal PQ Canada news://jakesplace.dhs.org *
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:21:31 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| >That is not good if you make a general purpose software.
|
| You seem to forget that the purpose of a free market is to ensure
| efficient production and distribution of commodities (products and
| services). Why do you assume that it is profitable to make general
| purpose software, seeing as how much of it is already available?
Have you asked yourself why there is so much available.
Duh, because it's profitable for many. If the market gets saturated then
that's another issue.
| >Especially if it's widely spread.
| >Take linux, frex, I didn't pay anything for my dist, and I've several, I
| >didn't pay for support, but I get it nonetheless, from newsgroup, email
| >lists, IRC, friends, and so on.
|
| And so I must presume that you didn't actually cost the producer any
| money. So why precisely should they have a claim to make money on the
| transaction? And why do you assume that they would need to?
I have lived a life of earning what one receives. A lot of effort was
put into making Linux what it is. Everyone using it should contribute to
the effort. Either cash or kind. If, in a system, there's opportunity
for people to just be parasites and go along for the ride, that's a
system that will not thrive as well as one in which everyone gives their
due contribution.
| Consider that your argument, that software won't be produced if you
| can't directly sell licenses to it at a profit, is counter to the fact
| that for years, you could get "free" television programming, at least in
| the US.
Television programming is not free. It's a business. It's a massive
advertisement. Advertising is what pays for television broadcasting and
the broadcasters WANT you to watch. That's how their advertising becomes
valuable and they can then charge for it. I don't see the connection
with this and OSS.
| Nowadays, people find it more convenient to pay for
| distribution, and even production, directly. But that's entertainment,
| without much functional value. Software is quite the alternate case.
How so?
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: UnixGeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Don't believe the hype
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:17:59 GMT
In article <9062os$bri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have now used Linux for 6 months (Redhat 6.0)
>
> According to the press its a stable operating system - YOU MUST BE
> JOKING.
>
> yp / ldap (take your pick - you will end up trying both!) just don't
> work.
>
Of course. Never have, never will. Just a piece of useless code taking
up HD space. I have never heard of anybody using it
> Gnome leaks and locks up frequently, machines reboot and run out of
> memory.
>
Must be the poor memory management of Linux.
> In short most of the software may be free but it certainly isn't
> finished.
>
of course not. All linux software is sent out half-done, not airtight
and completed like MS products.
> If you value your time then Linux is not free.
>
of course, who wants to spend a bunch of time "learning", jeez.
much better to use the standard MS stuff.
> Oh yes and I haven't even touched on gdb (use Visual Studio then try
> gdb ; its like the dark ages - again IT DOES NOT WORK).
>
> I would have loved to have found linux was stable and usable however
> the truth is it lacks quality.
>
Yes, Definitely go back to the quality MS platform. Airtight, perfect
programs, machines that never lock up, reasonably priced, heck ya, its
the way to go. Besides, Microsoft really looks out for your best
interests. To betray them now would be wrong.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
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
******************************
