Linux-Advocacy Digest #497, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant (Charlie Ebert)
Re: More Linux woes ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:12:12 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>> You haven't a clue of the subject as a whole. Then again, neither does
>> Roberto; he trumpets KDE because he's a big fan who stands to profit
>> from the deal.
>
>Excuse me, but are you saying I don't have a clue about the subject of
>linux desktops?
No, I'm saying you don't have a clue about why KDE is a worthless piece
of shit unless there are other [interoperable and compatible]
replacements for it.
>That would be such a funny thing to say!
Ha ha.
>And are we going to go back to that old argument about who pays me to
>do what? Give it up, noone pays me any money because of KDE, except in
>an indirect way (my KDE work is in my curriculum vitae, after all!)
That's what I said; you stand to profit on the deal (the widespread
adoption of KDE.) And I know you'd be the first to point out that
nobody can possibly be unbiased and objective, so you won't even try.
Therefore, your opinion on KDE versus anything else is pretty much
worthless.
Nothing personal.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:15:33 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
16:42:13 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001
>> 18:11:30 GMT;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 Jan 2001 21:10:41
>> >> GMT;
>> >> >On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 03:35:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>KDE, KDE, KDE. Its all I hear about any more. Why do I hear so much
>> >> >>about KDE?
>> >> >
>> >> >Because it's at the core of several Linux GUI applications (the only
>> >> >thing that comes close is GNOME which you probably hear even more about)
>> >>
>> >> That's my point; I don't. All I hear about is KDE and Konquerer and
>> >> kthis and kthat. I haven't heard a single thing about GNOME for months.
>> >
>> >That rock you live under must gather moss at a quick pace.
>>
>> No, you're mistaken again, Roberto. I've been looking around, and there
>> are many more mentions of kde and k-apps. Perhaps its merely that they
>> are so identifiable, branded, if you will, while GNOME users might well
>> stick with more 'classic GNU' stuff.
>
>Well, our corporate image branding program is paying off, then!
Be careful. The rules and awareness of just what is illegally
anti-competitive and what is not in the software world is about to
shift, pretty heavily.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:16:13 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Karel Jansens in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said Joseph T. Adams in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 Jan 2001 00:31:19
>> >> >Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >: The real truth is that Excel for the PC is so tied to the PC that MS
>> >> >: couldn't port it. So they wrote another product that had a UI similar to
>> >> >: Excel and called it Excel even though it isn't.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, Excel for the Mac predated Excel for Windows, and for that
>> >> >matter Windows itself.
>> >>
>> >> Well, not 'Windows itself'. Windows 1.0 (a side-kick like
>> >> task-switching GUI desktop) predated Excel, I think. Excel for Windows,
>> >> however, predates Windows 3.1, the first Windows that anyone really
>> >> bothered with.
>> >
>> >1. Is it really fair to compare Windows 1 to such a fine product as
>> >Borland's Sidekick?
>>
>> I merely meant to indicate its target market, not that the products were
>> comparable.
>>
>> >2. True. Just the other day I happened to be leafing through some 1991
>> >PC rags and in one of them was a review of Excel for Windows 3.0 (I
>> >think it was in PC Laptop - Is that still around BTW?). The reviewer's
>> >biggest complaint was that the program took a whopping 5 MB of disk
>> >space and required at least 2 megs of RAM to run comfortably.(*)
>>
>> Yeah; that's because it still had scads of bumble code(*) from Win386,
>> which was the development platform for Excel for Windows. Five meg of
>> disk and 2 meg of RAM in 1991, on a laptop, was unfeasibly outrageous.
>>
>Oh, I don't know. I had a 386sx with a whopping 6 megs and a craayzy 40
>meg - Yes, folks, that 40 as in four-oh! - hard disk. It could have run
>Excel.
>
>It didn't. I preferred Quattro Pro for DOS. Call me stubborn. Back then
>it was 123 or Quattro anyway; if you mentioned Excel to serious number
>crunchers, they'd say: "What?" and susequently refuse to buy you beer
>anymore.
>
>Ahhh, those were the days...
>
123 is still faster.
>> Near as I can recollect (none of this is historically documented, but I
>> did live through it all), Excel for Mac predated Windows entirely. When
>> MS started trying to make Windows (a GUI, with no preconceptions about
>> what that would mean), it was a task-switching shell, with a built-in
>> notepad and calculator and such (Mac's 'Desktop Accessories', more or
>> less). It was a nightmare, practically unusable on the hardware of the
>> time. Version 2 wasn't much different, but Win286 was then released,
>> and Win386. In these products, Microsoft took advantage of the enhanced
>> capabilities of these chips to make task-switching practical. Excel was
>> the flagship application for this platform, and Win386 was included in
>> the Excel package. It had to be, because you needed it to run Excel,
>> and it was extremely unlikely you would already have it, as very few
>> people would have considered it worth any money at all to purchase
>> separately. I say Excel was the 'flagship' app, because it was the main
>> (only) Microsoft app. PageMaker, however, was even more popular, and it
>> was PageMaker, more than anything else, which got the ball rolling with
>> Windows. Windows 3.0 was pretty much Win386, but not as crappy. Word
>> for Windows 1.0 was the flagship for that; I've heard it reported that
>> they were developed in parallel.
>>
>Many Windows programs shipped with a special version of Windows in the
>early days. I recall my first Windows WP, Samna's Ami Pro, coming with a
>boxload of disks, containing "Windows SA", a limited edition of Windows
>(whether it was 386 or 3.0 based, I cannot say, as I never actually
>installed it, having been infected with the real thing already). But
>friends told me it was basically just a graphical shell to run your
>Windows proggie in. Kinda destroys the whole point of Windows, insofar
>as it ever had one...
>
>As a sidenote, I believe both Excel and Word (1) entered the Windows
>scene at about the same time: the same magazine had a review of Word as
>well.
>
Word was ahead of Excel by a year or more.
>> With Windows 3.1 and Word 2.0, the forced bundling started.
>>
>Um.
>
>I bought my copy of Win 3.1 retail, without any bundling going on. It
>was bloody cheap too. And I got a T-shirt. Pity it had "Microsoft"
>written on it.
>
I remembered that. The 80's was the time to be a Microsoft fan.
>I still have that copy. It was the one that refused to work with a
>retail version of DR-DOS. It is also the one Erik Funkenbusch insists
>doesn't exist.
>
Well what do you expect from a man who claims Linux doesn't scale
well. How many god damn super computer clusters do they have
to build with Linux before EF comes to his senses?
>> >BBTW, I recommend anyone to re-read some of those prehistoric
>> >publications; it really does put things into perspective.
>>
>> I keep a mid-80s era glossy advertisement for a Zenith XT-compatible on
>> my bulletin board, just to keep me in perspective. It had dual floppies
>> and a CGA board, and went for about $5000.
>>
>
>Heh.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>Karel Jansens
The romance is dead.
Windows is ancient history as far as I'm concerned.
Anybody still running it is a goof.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:18:03 GMT
In article <bbx86.154$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>You apparently don't understand how phone companies work. They build
>central offices with switch equipment. You need a switch in order to route
>your calls. Fiber heads aren't switches, they're multiplexers. The Digital
>data needs to be converted back to analog in order to be used at the switch.
>Fiber is used in remote areas as copper extenders, not as remote switches.
>
>
Oh well shit. Now he's become a phone company expert.
Excuse me for pretending you had a brain.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:19:58 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:DQC86.3397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
> > > > >
> > > > > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of
people
> > > > > looking at the source code.
> > > >
> > > > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the Firebird
> > project.
> > > > Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge shows
that
> > no one
> > > > has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> > > >
> > > > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source security
is.
> > >
> > > But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux. From
> > developers,
> > > to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the obvious
bugs
> > would
> > > be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux release
from
> > > all major distributors still comes riddled with security exploits not
to
> > > mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and all this
> > > peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are these
> > glaring
> > > bugs slipping through so frequently?
> >
> > Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a large software
project.
> > Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It takes time for
the
> > more subtle ones to present themselves. With open source, the option
exists
> > to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing a bug report
with a
> > vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and provide a patch in
a
> > timely manner (or in some cases at all).
>
> So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no advantage for large
> projects? This is basically what I've been saying all along.
No, I'm pointing out something that should be obvious - There's no perfect
system. I, indeed pointed out an advantage to open source, though. You
neglected to quote the whole response.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:20:26 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:00:50
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>> >
>> > Of course, I should point out that Microsoft's EULA agreement is totally
>> > outside the bounds of the rights provided them by USC Title 18...
>> >
>> > Therefore, making the EULA unenforceable notwithstanding it's own
>> > provisions.
>> >
>> > Hence, Microsoft has no control over what you do with their software, so
>> > long as your actions are within the confines of the companies exclusive
>> > rights toward the intellectual property that IS Microsoft Office.
>>
>> And yet, Microsoft's lawyers WROTE this stuff into the EULA.
>>
>> Why would a lawyer write illegal provisions into a contract unless
>> it's for the purpose of intimidating those who have not read Title 18,
>USC?
>
>Say it with me.
>
>"RETAINER"
>
>That, and intimidation in itself is not illegal.
>
>But mostly RETAINER.
But there is a very strong legal precedent supporting literally
*revoking* copyright protection on property (specifically software)
which has 'over-reaching' licensing restrictions. So you're effectively
accusing these lawyers of incompetence, and, yes, illegal activity,
probably fraud, if the intent in including this clause was simply to
provide a pretense for fees.
So, again, we're left with the "intimidation" alone, which is illegal.
I should think there'd be other grounds, in other circumstances, but
given the intent and the result, anti-competitive actions are best dealt
with through Sherman Act prosecution.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:31:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>>
>> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Jan Johanson wrote:
>> > [snipped]
>> >
>> > You know, this whole benchmark silliness is too much to take. And yes I
>> > said this before, during and after the stupid Mindcraft bit.
>> <snip yawner>
>>
>> > The side that makes Linux or FreeBSD the clear winner is ssh and UNIX
>> > remote capability. One can do anything remotely to a UNIX box that they
>> > can do sitting in front of it. This is not true with NT/2K without
>> > buying extra software on top of the already too expensive buggy OS.
>>
>> Obviously you are not up on NT software. I have been able to remotely
>> administer NT 4 since day 1, sure with add on software at first and later
>> using simple remote admin http and RPC tools. Simplicity. With Windows 2000
>> I can use all of those, any 3rd party tool or I can use the built in
>> terminal services administrator mode and have a full remote session,
>> identical to the desktop in every single way.
>
>Oh, please. I am talking the big "administer" not selected text mode
>programs or services. A Linux or FreeBSD box can have EVERY
>administration task performed remotely, all but one. The only exception
>is when the machine don't boot, and that is a drive in event no matter
>what.
>
>Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
>
>>
>> your bias blinds you...
>
>No, it is my experience that allows me to see.
>
Good god. I shudder to think I'd have a job administering 300
NT worstations or 300 W2k boxes when compared to the
POWER of Unix adminstation tools.
Unix administration tools are 30 years advanced.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:34:39 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > J Sloan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Not at all - X is way overkill for 95% of the users, who
> > > > really don't need a network-transparent, client/server
> > > > windowing system. A simple local GUI, similar to what's
> > > > on a windows pc, would likely suffice.
> > >
> > > I agree. How many desktop users even need to run X11 apps on a
remote
> > > server? Most Linux desktop users just run everything on the "local"
> > > display, i.e., on the console. It also would simplify things for a
> > > desktop environment. Because you (possibly) would have the widgets
> > > built-in, it would make programming the API much simpler, and would
> > > eliminate all the toolkit-clashing you normally see on unix boxes
> > > running X11.
> > >
> > > No offense, but the only way to get a consistent look and feel on X11
is
> > > to have all your apps linked to the same X toolkit. Secondly, you'd
> > > have to convince people that this "one true" toolkit is the best to
use.
> > >
> > > My position on X toolkits is that they all pretty much suck in one
area
> > > or another. FOr example,. Qt is very easy to use, but it requires
use
> > > of the dreaded "moc" compiler in certain situations. In my
experience,
> > > Motif has been the easiest to program, but Motif apps have too damn
many
> > > lines of code. Also, Gtk produces nice apps, but, no offense again,
the
> > > API looks kinda like a hack.
> > >
> > > Write one nice non-X11-based GUI system for unix, and give it a super
> > > API everyone could agree on. Then, if people like it, it could
always
> > > be ported to X11 as an API layer.
> > >
> > > No doubt I'll be blasted into the ionosphere with all the flames I'll
> > > get.
> > > 8-)
> >
> > Flames? Its' the first intelligent Linux GUI comment I've heard in a
while.
> > X is overkill unless you need the remote display capabilities. A
smaller,
> > local GUI system would be a wonderful thing. It isn't going to make
major
> > inroads into the desktop market without one, IMO.
>
> how much smaller would it be to make a "local only" GUI?
> 5%?
>
> probably not even that.
I'm looking at performance and stability issues for the most part. Most
folks don't need the capabilities offered by X. Many just want a simple,
single desktop ala WinDoze. With Linux's performance edge, a simpler
windowing system sitting over a simple audio/video HAL would run circles
around MS's GUIs. It would scream. As much as some folks would hate it,
utilizing a multi-purpose clipboard ala Windoze with the exact same
functionality would be a big improvement too.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:36:01 GMT
In article <ugL86.78170$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>God forbid business should stop on one of my workstations for *GASP* 3 SOLID
>MINUTES.
>
>Or I could forgo the rebooting, and replace the OS with something that no
>only doesn't need to be rebooted, but will make it unusable for as long as
>the computer is powered.
>
>
Time obviously isn't money in the Windows World.
3 minutes of downtime for a Website collecting orders for your
company can be disasterous.
Or how about 3 minutes downtime in the insurance industry with
1,200 employee's attempting to hit your server for SQL data
on insured.
But that's the pity of Windows. It's not just 3 minutes downtime.
It can often be DAYS before your company see's service again.
This is mainly due to Windows total LACK OF TOOLS to monitor
your internal networks to determine quickly what the problems
are.
A simple tools like NTOP in Linux is a totally unheard of tool
in the windows world. I find NTOP undespensible in emergency
situations.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:34:48 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:15 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Like IBM, for instance?
>
> IBM runs NT and OS/2 in their hardware support centers. They run VM
> legacy applications along with Windows at the call center where you
> place your service calls. They Run VM legacy applications to dispatch
> their CE's via a Motorola RIM device. They Run Lotus Notes under Windows
> as their official corporate mobile platform.
>
Try Lotus Notes on Linux.
> The CE's run an application called CORE which runs under Windows 95
> (yep 95) on a Thinkpad 765L the standard issue. Real good for
> customers to see IBM reps using a POS like that.
>
They really don't need much power in their Thinkpad, Me, I have a T20
now. I let some CE have my old 765.
> Even their Timecards are filled out using a system called TOTALS which
> is a legacy VM application.
>
Timecards? TOTALS? Gee, I haven't used TOTALS in many years. This
just shows how out of date your info is.
> Hell, I don't see IBM even USING Linsux, except in some laboratory
> tucked away in Poughkeepsie somewhere and in a wet dream by Lou Gerstner
> whoi is thinking of nothing more than how much hardware he can sell
> giving away Linsux as an OS.
>
Pok was actually late getting into Linux. Your info is totally screwed
up. Watson was using Linux long before Pok and so was Fishkill. Of course,
Linux for S/390 came out of Germany.
> They don't even practice what they preach.
>
Wrong.
> Want more?
Not particularly. But don't worry. I'll tell Lou of your concerns next
time I talk with him. It's just too bad you just a little over a week
late. I would have told him how you feel when he dropped by my office a
week ago.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:37:03 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:16:11
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> That would depend on what concept of "good" you're demanding. A
>> platform is "good" for different reasons to different people. Your
>> recognition of what the courts call "the application barrier" is quite
>> valid, of course. But simply using market share as a metric of 'good',
>> without any analysis, or technical consideration is, well, pathetically
>> stupid.
>
>Today's popular software is POPULAR because it is GOOD. Put it togather.
No. I refuse to. I won't just "put it together" unless you can provide
some reasonable evidence that they go together. So far as I know (and I
know) that is simply an assumption on your part. Its an unfalsifiable
(unrefutable by reason because it is not based on reason) conjecture.
A valid assumption, generally, in most cases; double-checking the
behavior of a free market does allow for this to be presumed, so long as
it is tested by evidence of diversity. (Diversity shows this by
ensuring that the various and inherently distinct conceptions of 'good'
are all being putatively met.) But in this particular case, you're
talking about a market characterized by ignorance and dominated by a
predatory monopoly. Your 'common sense' is steering you wrong about
what makes something popular, in such a case. There's a reason they
outlawed monopolization, remember. "Put it together."
>Make it for Linux. Call me. (PS Corel's whiny and cheesy port collection
>doesn't count).
Yes, once the illegal behavior is prevented and remedied, there will be
plenty of people "making it for Linux."
>> >Linux has no quality software.
>>
>> Sure it does. It doesn't have *popular* software. Pity you're not
>> smart enough to tell the difference.
>
>Popular software IS good software. It's POPULAR for a reason.
Depends on the software, depends on the market, depends on the producer.
But the only reason its *supposed* to depend on is the consumer. And
let me tell you; as a consumer, I think the popular software is utter
crap. But there's nothing better available, and so most people think
its just peachy-darling cool.
>> No, the "opposing parties" are as well aware of the application barrier
>> as you are, Kyle, probably more so. But they don't end their
>> consideration of a product with that, since they're not brain-dead, as
>> you seem to be. Indeed, support and development by OEMs and distro
>> producers is necessary to develop the Linux market. But it will take
>> the US Government to remove the application barrier which currently
>> protects the Windows monopoly. Once Microsoft's illegal behavior is
>> corrected, flathead and Erik and Chad and the rest of the sock-puppets
>> will remain unconvinced, of course, for to change their minds is to
>> question their self-esteem, but fellows like you and Ayende, I fully
>> expect to 'wake up and smell the coffee', recognizing in retrospect what
>> you can't see before you today, for lack of contrast.
>
>Illegal? Really? Did you know Linus does a similar thing with Linux? No?
No. I'm not sure what you mean "similar thing". Linux is open source
software, not proprietary monopoly crapware. What are you talking
about?
>Anyone who wishes to have their software for Linux has to release the source
>code, period. Sorta kills the point of intelectual property, doesn't it.
No. That source code is still protected, you see, by copyright. Sorta
kills the point of profiteering on wrapping copyrighted software in a
trade secret, I'll give you that. But it doesn't at all prevent me from
wanting to pay someone for some good software. Kinda opens that market
right up, in fact.
>No wonder no respectable software company makes Linux software.
Just about all large software companies make *some* Linux software, now.
'Cept Microsoft, of course. If they aren't split in two and their
monopoly revoked (~May, 2001), they would most probably try to use .NET
to commoditize the OS entirely. It wouldn't kill Linux, of course;
everyone will probably use Linux, either way. But it will enable them
to maintain (and extend) their monopoly, having successfully migrated it
from the OS to the middleware.
>> You simply do not comprehend the extent of the problem caused by illegal
>> monopolization of the OS on the PC.
>
>See above.
I've seen it. Now how do you think it addressed my point?
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:39:20 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:57:05
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
>> Illegal? Really? Did you know Linus does a similar thing with Linux? No?
>> Anyone who wishes to have their software for Linux has to release the source
>> code, period. Sorta kills the point of intelectual property, doesn't it.
>
>This is totally false. Releasing source code is definitely not
>required.
That's true; a point I overlooked in my response. Still, you know what
he means. (Note to Kyle; brush up on the GPL and how it works and what
it covers.)
>> No wonder no respectable software company makes Linux software.
>
>IBM? Just as an example, mentioned, ironically by flatfish, DB2
>is popular quality software which runs on Linux and is closed
>source.
Yea, I know, Gary. Its real "Guffaw" stuff, isn't it? But I'd swear
Kyle hear might be reformable. Try to give him the benefit of the
doubt. Not like clair/flatline-on-the-encephelograph. That, you can
toast. ;-)
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:40:01 GMT
In <3a63b7ab$12$fuzhry$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>In <c1.2b5.2YyXH8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 01/15/2001
> at 09:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>>You won before you started - earlier this month Mr Metz claimed that
>>IBM running Linux on a mainframe was a hoax. So much for credibility
>>...
>
>Another liar heard from. I claimed no such thing.
>
from deja --------------------------------------
In <c1.2b5.2YZhcC$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 12/14/2000
at 02:49 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>You ain't just whistlin' Dixie ... and the guys who can make Linux
>run on OS/390 in VM's
There are no such guys; Linux does not run on OS/390.
Hey Flounder! You trusted a press release!
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Reply to domain acm dot org user shmuel to contact me.
"He was born with a gift of laughter,
and a sense that the world was mad."
=============================================
I suppose someone forged your signature ? btw,
"Linux OS/390" at google - 23,700 hits in .08 seconds.
Must be a lotta us flounders out here swimmin' about.
--
härad ængravvåd
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
