Linux-Advocacy Digest #768, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 16:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Anonymous)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Anonymous)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Anonymous)
Re: What does KDE do after all (Anonymous)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Anonymous)
Re: keeping a cynical gaze and a jaundiced eye on Big Brother's Little (Karen Rosin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: i/o in linux ("MH")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Anonymous)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Uptimes strike back (Pan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:00:48 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Nigel Feltham in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:20:46
>>Not to quibble, but if you know the problem is multipage tables, why
>>bother sending anything anywhere? Let the friggen' developers do their
>>own troubleshooting. You already paid for the software.
>
>The software being discussed is openoffice - an opensource office suite so
Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of sending the file to the MS Office
developers. If you know my position, it won't surprise you that I
figured it was their problem.
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:01:34 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:11:14
[...]
>OK... let us conclude this argument in one fell swoop -- answer this
>question, Max:
Now you've got the idea. I love questions.
>Suppose you have a company which produces software for profit. What factors
>decide what features are included in anything they produce?
Well, if they are wrapping copyright in a trade secret license to
monopolize, the primary and overwhelming factor is which cost least to
develop without giving any current customers sufficient reason to use an
alternative, so that you can use these locked-in customers as 'proof'
your software works and capture even more of the market. If they're
competitive, and using GPL, it would be which features will work the
best and most reliably in providing value to the customer. The
definition of "best" and ultimately the selection of features would be
dependant on how they're profiting from the development of the code.
Ultimately, I don't think I could guess at what such factors would
result in, since software isn't developed commercially on GPL in a
competitive environment yet. But it gives me comfort to realize that in
your scenario, the marketeers determine what features make it in to the
thing they produce (distribute), while the GPL developer will generally
leave that up to the consumer to choose what features they want.
Indeed, distributors may make money simply providing convenient
selection and implementation of various features or feature sets on a
core GPL codebase shared by everyone within a particular market segment.
The distributors will then (or first, as it were) pay developers.
>To get you started, don't forget:
>
>(a) marketing deadlines
>(b) emergent technologies
>(c) running costs vs. profit over time (that is, how long you're losing
>money vs. making money on any one product).
"Running" costs? You seem to have a "code factory" mentality, Simon,
which I already knew, but though worth pointing out. Don't you
understand that "producing" software is packaging, not development?
Entertainment software, games, are different, of course, but everyone
wants to pretend otherwise for some unfathomable reason. "Production"
in such a market is generally equivalent to 'production' of any other
entertainment. But for non-game software, the development is one of
engineering design, not 'production'.
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:01:52 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:08:56
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:42:44
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >This would be true even if
>> >> >that company did nothing wrong yet. In 1903, the Wright Brothers
>> >> >were monopolists becuase they built 100% of the working flying
>> >> >machines in the world, at least according to your definition.
>> >>
>> >> "The Wright Brothers" wasn't a profit-seeking company, precisely. Try
>> >> to stick to the real world, please.
>> >
>> >Try Netscape then. They gave their browser away for free, and then
>started
>> >charging for it after they'd already built up their monopoly.
>>
>> Not. They used a shareware model, quite successfully, until MS bundled
>> IE. Then they opened their source code.
>
>Not according to statements made by Marc Andreesen (both at the time, and
>more recently), and according to the original Netscape business plan.
I was commenting on their market behavior, not their business plan.
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:02:19 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Dec 2000 22:40:26 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(Why the anonymous address, T-Max?, especially when you have your full
>signature at the bottom anyway - just curious?)
Its a glitch on the news server. Honest. Don't ask me how, but it has
to do with the server timing out before acknowledging receipt of the
message.
>: According to the Supreme Court, having substantial market share, even as
>: low as 37%, is evidence in support of monopolization charges.
>
>"Evidence in support" is not the same as "proof" - it's just one piece
>of a case.
I have never indicated otherwise. As you point out, though, no one
piece of evidence is the same as proof, and this isn't any less valid if
there's only one piece of evidence.
> By itself it isn't enough. You are taking this "evidence in
>support" to mean "total proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt", and that's
>not what it means. Since this is the premise behind everything else you
>said, I don't feel the need to respond to the rest of the post.
Can get you convicted. Is that "proof" enough? Yes, having an
overwhelming market share, without sufficient defense providing a
reasonable doubt, you can be convicted of monopolizing, according to the
Supreme Court. Sorry if you weren't aware of that. Note that "can"
isn't "will", so nobody is claiming that having a large market share is
illegal per se. It is, however, sufficient evidence as to require the
defense to provide reasonable doubt that monopolization has occurred.
Is that clear enough?
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:04:47 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said SwifT - in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 9 Dec 2000 00:00:54
>On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Anonymous wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if I want to jump into another discussion about sockets,
>> seeing how silly the last one made me look, but I have to point out that
>> your logic is inverted. Socket's can't be *better* than pipes, if IPC
>> sockets reduce to pipes. Sockets certainly can be worse. The weak link
>> in the chain, and all, and there's no reason to believe that pipes would
>> be that weak link.
>
>Everyone can change there opinion (I had to read some webpages and manuals
>before i posted any futher) but mine didn't.
I'll give it another go, then, if you don't mind.
>I mean that, if sockets relie
>on pipes, they are certainly equal.
This doesn't make any sense to me, sorry. A computer relies on a file
system; does that make them equal?
>And if sockets can do 1 thing more,
>than they are better (since they supply a new service unknown to pipes).
Its the "unknown to pipes" part that is problematic. I would say that
sockets are a higher abstraction than pipes. How sockets work can be
reduced to how pipes work. You seem to be saying that how sockets work
cannot be *entirely* reduced to how pipes work ("1 thing more"), but
that's why there's an issue.
If sockets actually *rely* on pipes, then whether they supply any new
services which are not pipes can only make them inferior to pipes,
because of the "weak link" argument I mentioned. Just as a series of
pipes cannot possibly be considered superior to a single pipe, if it can
do the same job, sockets cannot be considered "superior" to pipes if
they are dependent on pipes. Save, of course, by the fact that they are
a higher level of abstraction, and therefore easier to work with.
>And they certainly do support more things (otherwise there would be no
>logic in creating sockets).
AFAIK, pipes and sockets are actually entirely unrelated, except
conceptually. A pipe is a rudimentary form of IPC, and a socket is a
mechanism of network communications. Programmers see these kinds of
abstractions differently than I do, but I don't consider them at all
equivalent, or even similar, unless you consider everything in computers
"simply" a generalization of Turing's math.
>I'm not sure, but doesn't sockets also handle datagrams (while pipes only
>use streams)?
Now you're getting to the point where I think you're dealing with
metaphor and analogy, more than anything else. Sockets are *used* in a
message-oriented manner, because although they are uni-directional, like
pipes, they are used for bi-directional communications. Even when
stream oriented stuff uses IP, it still goes in datagrams. And there's
not really much difference between a short stream and a long datagram.
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:05:52 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said JM in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 09 Dec 2000 00:17:16 +0200;
>On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:07:13 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>Said Stephen Cornell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 21 Nov 2000 12:46:38
>>>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>>> This annoys me. One of my most common paste operations is to copy some
>>>> text, highlight some other text and paste, deleting the text in the second
>>>> document and replacing it with the pasted text. Can't do that.
>
>>>Rather a contorted way of doing things, don't you think? Surely the
>>>intuitive way of doing things is to delete the text you don't want, go
>>>find the text you do, and then paste it in? Or, paste in the text you
>>>do want, then select and delete the text you don't? This idea of
>>>exchanging bits of text requires a rather higher level of abstraction,
>>>and appears somewhat prone to errors.
>
>>But it is, nevertheless, quite consistent in terms of selection
>>handling, as "input replaces selection" is behavior that cannot be
>>implemented the way Erik is used to using here. Personally, I have
>>mixed feelings on this; I also find the fact that you cannot paste to a
>>selection, replacing the text, to be a bit disconcerting, since I use
>>the same technique Erik describes quite routinely, and it is indeed more
>>efficient.
>
>But would it work if I, say, wanted a piece of text on the clipboard,
>and to be able to use it again and again, whilst in between
>highlighting and deleting bits of text?
Yes, but only because you stated that the piece of text was on the
clipboard. Unix systems have multiple clipboards, and applications
don't integrate them well at all, so your point is valid; you can't
necessarily do this in all applications.
>When I'm typing my news, I (used to) have my sig in the clipboard,
>then just use Ctrl+V to paste it in. Any highlighting in between would
>not affect the sig.
Get a news reader that supports sigs.
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 22:45:03 +0200
From: Karen Rosin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.2600,alt.privacy
Subject: Re: keeping a cynical gaze and a jaundiced eye on Big Brother's Little
I heard about a company, which has this free service, which reminds a bit the
Up2date service, but the service is great so they say...
It is also a free service and it updates packages and hardware drivers.
Maybe you'll find a shorter way:)
It is: www.aduva.com
Cheerio,
Karen
Jonathan Bazemore wrote:
> No offense the Red Hat guys are ok, but I was just wondering thanks
>
> Jonathan Bazemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90pv2u$566$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Linux7.0
> >
> > There's a service called up2date, package 2.0-4, which does the following:
> >
> > Description:This is a daemon which handles the task of connecting
> > periodically to the Red Hat Network Services servers to check for updates,
> > notifications, and PERFORM SYSTEM MONITORING TASKS according to the
> service
> > level that this server is subscribed for.
> >
> > It was set to start up and run automatically, and I didn't subscribe to
> > anything.
> >
> > Excuse me, isn't that just a long way to say back door?
> >
> >
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:16:07 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:00:42
>On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:43:27 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> >Nobody else is using the term that way.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Regardless, it is the most accurate, consistent, and
>>> practical way to use the term.
>>>
>>> >In fact, according to everyone else
>>> >but you, you can disable TCP/IP in Linux simply by removing the IP from
>>all
>>> >cards (including loopback).
>>>
>>> That's because they don't understand what "disable TCP/IP" means in the
>>> context of both your and their use of the term. Nor do you.
>>
>>Oh, that's right. You're omnipotent. NOBODY else knows what they're
>>talking about, not even other Linux advocates with years of experience.
>>
>>> No, the subject is that you have to reboot to remove or add the TCP/IP
>>> protocol (later you redacted that to disabled the bindings, using the
>>> fact that nobody was being very careful of the difference early in the
>>> thread), when you shouldn't have to, since unlike Linux, TCP/IP isn't
>>> built into the kernel. It steams you pretty bad that this shows Windows
>>> in such a bad light, since there's no conceivable reason but bad design
>>> that something that isn't built into the kernel requires rebooting to
>>> function correctly, not on a modern competitive OS, anyway.
>>
>>No. I stated you had to reboot to remove TCP/IP either in Windows or Linux.
>>Others in this thread started saying "Why remove it when you can merely
>>disable it" and when I said you could disable it the same way under Windows,
>>you made the claim that you couldn't.
>>
>
>No that isn't what you said Fukenbush. You said you could remove
>TCP/IP from Windows without rebooting. And I said you were full
>of shit then.
Actually, he's right, Erik. You started out showing how you can remove
and then add the protocol, and it will still work, if you ignore the
direction to reboot. I corrected that by pointing out that if you do
reboot after removing, you have to reboot to add. That's when you
switched to talking about binding the protocol, rather than removing it.
>And I'm saying your full of shit now as you can't
>remove the TCP/IP stack from the Windows kernel {KNOT-----HEAD}
Because it isn't a part of the Windows kernel. You can remove the
protocol from the system, however, which is the equivalent in Linux of
removing it from the kernel.
>To DISABLE TCP/IP you HAVE to re-boot Windows to do it.
You cannot disable TCP/IP. You can disable the binding to a card, and
you don't have to reboot to do that. You can even remove the protocol,
and you don't have to reboot to do that. (Windows may say that you need
to do it in either case, and the system will be in an indeterminate
state, but it won't necessarily require a reboot to continue to
function.)
>To DISABLE TCP/IP in Linux you DON'T That's DO NOT have to reboot.
You don't have to reboot to remove the IP address from a card, and that
is the closest I can get to what you mean. You cannot "disable" TCP/IP
in Linux, unless you remove it from the kernel, which requires a reboot.
>And you can stuff it with that OTHERS SAID bullcrap as any fool
>can go back in the thread and read exactly what you said.
Yes, but understanding it is a bit trickier.
>And you are still a silly ass weasel liar.
That's possibly true, but beside the 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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: i/o in linux
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:01:38 -0500
Yep. Linux may indeed catch up, but then it will be behind...again.
Very good low cost server. Pretty good dev platform. Third rate desktop
paradigm.
And, more importantly, the hype of the past 2 years has begun to wane.
Redhat's stock is dropping, game vendors such as ID are dropping support,
Caldera said the hell with it, we can't make any money. More and more
businesses are finding they can't resolve a profitable methodology using
Linux. Like I said years ago, unless you standardize and realize a viable
business model Linux will fade back into the realm of
netserver\hacker\outcast\hobbyist\CSstudent status\malcontent status.
Where it most likely SHOULD stay.
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Zl%X5.1038$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Didn't we all say this two years ago?
Close. They say it EVERY YEAR. I like linux, make no mistake about it. But
the rhetoric has been exposed for what it is, HYPE.
> > Give it 2 years, and lets see.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:23:53 -0500
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Said Kelsey Bjarnason in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 09 Dec 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Kelsey Bjarnason in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 07 Dec 2000
>
>> >You're missing a few points on credibility. Sort of like me saying I
>have a
>> >contract here that says you owe me a million dollars, in U.S. funds, so
>pay
>> >up - unless I can provide something more substantial than sheer assertion
>> >that it "is too!" I can hardly expect to collect - just as your failure
>to
>> >provide details hardly gives you reason to expect to be taken seriously.
>>
>> I'm afraid your understanding of 'credibility' is a bit skewed, Kelsey.
>
>Is it? Let's see; he claims (without offering support) 63,000 bugs - not
>issues, bugs, which is a *hell* of a lot higher than the figures I've seen.
Indeed, this might be an incredible statement. Nevertheless, it isn't
really anywhere near the order of demanding a million dollars on a whim.
>Perhaps he has a vaild source, but his simply saying that there are this
>many doesn't make it so.
Nor does it make it not so, which is the argument from ignorance. The
question isn't whether you have reason to believe that there are a huge
number of bugs in a piece of software, but whether you have knowledge
that you owe someone a huge sum of money.
>When asked for support for this claim, his
>comeback was someone with my name, supposedly a programmer at Microsoft.
>Possible, but very remotely so.
I don't think anyone remotely believed that Aaron was identifying a
programmer at Microsoft with your name as the source of the information.
He was indicating, with a subtlety which appears to escape you, at
least, that he suspects that you are a programmer at Microsoft. Even
still, this wasn't taken seriously, I would expect, by anyone but
yourself; he probably simply meant to impugn your integrity or ability
directly, since most people think Microsoft's programming sucks.
>Which is to say, he's failed to actually support his claim in any
>substantial manner, so there is no reason to accept his claim.
Other than whether or not it seems reasonable. It certainly seems
reasonable to suspect, as you do, that there aren't really 63,000
separate distinct known bugs in Windows. But to argue the point is to
illustrate a lack of understanding of the term "bug" as used in such a
context.
>Further, his
>refusal to support it detracts from any credence we can put in his further
>claims, since he's established a record of failing to substantiate his
>claims when asked. That isn't a case of damaged credibility?
Aaron's credibility always seems so pitifully small, until someone like
you starts to argue with him. Then he just seems like a somewhat
obnoxious Unix bigot, trying to keep his humor up in the face of morons
trying to defend monopoly crapware.
--
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 Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:05:45 GMT
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:11:14
> [...]
> >OK... let us conclude this argument in one fell swoop -- answer this
> >question, Max:
>
> Now you've got the idea. I love questions.
Yet again, however, you prove unable to answer them in an intelligent
fashion.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 21:07:13 GMT
"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:08:56
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Dec 2000 03:42:44
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >This would be true even if
> >> >> >that company did nothing wrong yet. In 1903, the Wright Brothers
> >> >> >were monopolists becuase they built 100% of the working flying
> >> >> >machines in the world, at least according to your definition.
> >> >>
> >> >> "The Wright Brothers" wasn't a profit-seeking company, precisely.
Try
> >> >> to stick to the real world, please.
> >> >
> >> >Try Netscape then. They gave their browser away for free, and then
> >started
> >> >charging for it after they'd already built up their monopoly.
> >>
> >> Not. They used a shareware model, quite successfully, until MS bundled
> >> IE. Then they opened their source code.
> >
> >Not according to statements made by Marc Andreesen (both at the time, and
> >more recently), and according to the original Netscape business plan.
>
> I was commenting on their market behavior, not their business plan.
Then try not answering a statement with "Not" -- because it makes it awfully
hard to see what you're disagreeing with. I backed mine up.
Simon
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes strike back
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 13:12:11 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JM wrote:
>
> Sometimes you can escape from a BSOD on 98SE. It does it about 50% of
> the time when I disconnect from the Internet.
I've never had a BSOD on Win98se. However, I do lose all I/O from the
modem, keyboard, mouse, etc. forcing a hard reboot 3-4 times per week (
usually when I open up too many windows in netscape ). Curiously, a job
called 'alarm' fires off right before I lose all I/O. if I kill that
process, it usually prevents the system from crashing. Go figure.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
