Linux-Advocacy Digest #140, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 02:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:45:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
> 19:15:22 -0600;
> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:963v5o$bv8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Furthermore, Windows ME and Windows 2000 both have "Linux Stompers"
> >> built into their initial boot sequence. Even if the image is mastered,
> >> Windows will still attempt to disable Linux.
> >
> >This is completely false. Please, be my guest.
> >Explain how this works.
>
> I was wondering what the 'image is mastered' part meant.
When PCs are shipped by the manufacturer, you take a disk that has been
properly configured and essentially "disk-copy" every byte to other disks.
Since the contract for Windows requires that the "first boot".
Try installing Linux, and put Lilo on the master boot record, leaving a
partition for Windows 2000, then install Widows 2000. Of course Windows 2000
will stomp the MBR. Don't apply any service packs. Now, before rebooting.
Now, try to reboot. When you reboot, you will now have to boot Windows.
Lilo will be gone.
You could install Windows first then Linux, and then use grub to
give you the option of booting either Linux or Windows, but you would
violate the terms of the Microsoft agreement.
If you knew Linux was already there, you could start it from Windows or run a
script to alter the windows 2000 boot manager. Any such change would have to
take place AFTER the initial boot.
Now let's be really creative and try to install LILO loading Linux
and installing it on the MBR. Then, use Lilo to boot Windows 2000.
At this point Windows 2000 will get very upset and offer to stomp the MBR for
you. If you tell it NOT to stomp lilo, it will still write configuration
information on the MBR. Once you get booted, reboot and try to use LILO to
get to Linux. You will have a problem.
Yes there are work-arounds, these were developed after Windows 2000
was released. This should have been completely unneccessary.
Of course, with Windows 2000 upgrade, you are corrupting an existing
system that has been configured to boot both Linux and Windows NT or 9x.
Even more of a problem, you may have broken VMWare. Since Microsoft did not
warn you that these were potential risks, they have "hacked" your computer
using a "Trojan Horse". This is just as illegal for Windows 2000 as it is
for "I Love You" or "Joan's Resume".
> >> > > and to delay the ability of Linux to support
> >> > > USB scanners, Cameras, and "WinPrinters".
> >> >
> >> > MS is not delaying any of these things. The market is.
> >>
> >> Correction. Microsoft has demanded that all vendors who support
> >> USB sign nondisclosure agreements which prevent BOTH the release
> >> of information to the Open Source community AND the deployment
> >> of Modules that can be shipped in binary form.
> >
> >Excuse me? Microsoft doesn't own the USB spec.
Correct. However, the compex interactions and dialogues used by Webcams and
scanners isn't part of the specification. These dialogues require very
compex handshaking and confirmations. The current method of cracking these
codes is to put sniffers onto the USB using a "T-Wire". They then watch the
traffic going back and forth. The packet envelopes are understood.
Keep in mind that the IHVs (Independent Hardware Vendors) who make USB
devices have something to gain by offering Linux modules for USB. In fact,
they could even deliver an executable file that connects to the USB driver.
Even if that's only 2 million new units, that's 2 million units that would be
sold by a competitor if they are first to support Linux. IBM will probably
sell several USB cameras when Linux 2.4 comes out. Unfortunately, they
didn't put out a USB driver for Linux 2.2,14.
> Purportedly.
>
> >> Microsoft attempted to do the same
> >> with PCI PnP, requiring that vendors
> >> provide only that information which
> >> would enable Microsoft to decide which
> >> drivers and configuration options to use.
> >> It wasn't until Adaptec broke
> >> ranks (after Microsoft broke it's
> >> promise to replace IDE drivers with SCSI
> >> and instead simply put the IDE driver into
> >> the SCSI configuration box).
> >> Adaptec decided that since Microsoft
> >> breached the spirit and intent of the
> >> agreement,, that they would break the
> >> spirit and intent of their NDA by
> >> providing Red Hat with the information
> >> required to decode Plug-N-Play.
> >
> >No, hardware vendors don't want their
> > competition to gain any trade secrets
> >from their driver source. That's why
> > they don't release their source code.
What is most interesting is that 3Com and Netware were the first
to release Linux drivers for their PnP devices. This created a big
market for their patents, chipsets, and firmware.
Today, Linksys, Netgear, and several others provide PnP configuration
information to map to the appropriate modules. There is so much market for
these devices that there was even a market for kernel driver source code.
When Linux users know that a product supports Linux, this frequently gives an
added market. This is especially true with aftermarket products. When a
vendor begins to dominate the aftermarket, they become attractive sources for
the OEM market.
In reality, vendors cannot afford to ignore Linux. With most of the
OEMs now seeking "Linux Compatibility Certification" they are more
careful to make sure that their lines use Linux supported components.
Microsoft has pretty much lost control of the Video cards, the
Ethernet cards, and the parallel ports. They have even lost control
of the trivial USB devices (serial ports, mice, and keyboards).
> That's bullshit, Erik; a fabrication
> imagined to excuse the maneuvering
> by Microsoft to prevent anything but
> Windows drivers from being made
> available,
Keep in mind that this was one of the issues raised during
the DOJ cases. It was one of the acts cited by Judge Jackson as well.
> and the ability to use this to artificially prevent
> competition amongst peripheral manufacturers.
Ironically, this has created a bigger market for new standards
such as FireWire, BlueTooth, JINI, and Linux.
> That you can reverse
> engineer hardware by reading, as opposed
> to reverse engineering, source
> code is a bogeyman that denies the
> whole reality of producing hardware
> at a profit.
The very nature of a competitive market is to get a large a market
as possible with as little investment/cost as possible.
Given that the cost of porting drivers from Windows to Linux is really quite
trivial in the scheme of things (less than $1/2 million) to get an additional
market of 2-3 million users willing to pay $40-$100 for new cards, the
additional revenue can exceed $200 million by simply sticking a penguin on
the box.
> >> Phillips has broken the "code of silence" with their USB camera,
> >> providing binary modules that can be used with their Web Cameras.
> >
> >Even if such contracts exist, they'd be illegal.
> > Since a contract is a legally binding entity,
> > if it's illegal, you're not bound by it's rules. So
> >why would anyone follow one? MS couldn't sue you.
Obviously Microsoft feels that they have the market power to exclude any
manufacturer who refuses to agree to such terms. For a very small company
such as Logitech who has only one line of products which is heavily focused
on Windows, it's very hard to say no. Yes it's illegal. If a threat such as
those threats documented in the DOJ antitrust trial were made, this would be
extortion. If they could tie such threats to a specific executive of
Microsoft, such as Bill Gates or Jim Allchin, these men could be convicted of
federal felony extortion. If Microsoft were to deliberately render a
vendor's software disfunctional (Real Networks) because that vendor supported
Linux, that would be a combination of extortion, violation of the Electronic
Privacy act, and sapatoge. Given that there is a penalty for each system
corrupted, the class-action suit could be spectacular, and the felony charges
could be equally spectacular.
The problem is that these court cases are very expensive, require very good
investigation, careful management by the legal team, and a willingness to
admit that you agreed to an illegal contract under illegal terms (in
companies were the CEO only owns 2% of the company stock, this makes the CEO
very vulnerable).
Getting such a contract signed in the first place requires that you silence
anyone who asks the wrong questions. You have to bury their report before
they publish it. Even then, you can get into the "O-Ring" scenario where the
unfavorable report is buried by the employee under threat of immediate
dismissal.
I have actually sat in on meetings with Microsoft's marketing people
where I questioned them directly about fraudulent statements, claims
of exclusive information exchange between the OS division and the
Database division, and numerous other illegal activities. Eventually,
it came down to "Where's the wire?". The were absolutely convinced
that I had been asking them questions under electronic servellance.
I pulled out my cell-phone just to prove that it wasn't on.
I've been in meetings with executives who literally threatened to
fire me unless I agreed to write a glowing reccomendation for
Windows 95 as a server (I resigned). I was once threatened with
termination unless I partisipated in a scheme to pay Microsoft
nearly $250 million (roughly 2% of revenue). I reccomended that
alternatives such as Linux, UNIX (Solaris and AIX), or OS-390 be
used instead of these Cal-hungry servers. Ironically, the
the CIO chose a comprimise and the CEO decided to take the excess
expense out of the IT budget (resulting in layoffs and reassignments).
Compaq submitted a letter in which Microsoft executives informed them that
unless they removed the Netscape icon from the desktop and stopped removing
the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop, Microsoft would revoke their
license for that product line.
Unfortunately, following up on any of these would implicate top level
executives at both Microsoft AND the other company. This can have unpleasant
effects on stock prices.
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
> Seriously, though, I think it would have made
> a LOT of sense to include
> an "I am not a lawyer" denial of liability
> for such a claim, Erik. To
> suggest that all of Microsoft's "lock in"
> contracts are simply illegal
> and to be ignored is rather naive, if nothing else.
Again, the contract can be voided. The problem is that there are usually
penalties for revoking the contract, and the NDAs covered conversations with
law enforcement agents. Until the DOJ threatened to add obstruction of
justice and contempt of court, Microsoft insisted that any interrogations be
attended by a Microsoft lawyer. Under normal law, the defendent has a right
to know who will be questioned, and even a general line of questioning. The
prosecution has the right to interrogate those witnesses privately before
trial.
In addition, Microsoft was accused of destroying evidence. The evidence had
been recorded in another trial and Microsoft very quickly "found" backup
tapes which were used to provide the required evidence.
When the original antitrust charges were filed, most of the evidence was
still not fully explored. The Discovery phase revealed enough to file
criminal charges but Bill Clinton wanted to stay on Gate's good side. With
20 states participating in the prosecution and numerous companies quite
willing to speak freely once the gag-order was lifted, the biggest issue
managing the scope of the trial during the prosecution phase. It was during
the defense phase that Microsoft experienced the full pain of obediance to
the law. Of course, since the prosecution had already rested, they could not
add new charges. The key concern was to get Microsoft to admit to some of
these criminal activities during the defense phase to assure that the
appellate court didn't overturn the entire verdict.
> >> > Because many clients WANT that.
> >> > There is also the option to buy systems without it.
> >>
> >> The key is that Microsoft has gone to most of the Fortune 1000,
> >> and roped them into Exclusive agreements that required Windows NT
> >> or Windows 2000 on all desktops, laptops, and servers. Only
> >> consultants have the right to use Linux on their own machines.
> >
> >Not true at all. I've worked with more than 20 different Fortune 1000
> >companies over the last few years, and all of them have had non-MS OS's
> >running somewhere, sometimes even on desktops.
>
> You presume those desktops weren't originally purchased with a Windows
> license, and that by "right to use", Rex meant the inability to use
> Linux. I've seen Linux, and of course much Solaris, on desktops at many
> of the dozen Fortune 100 companies I've dealt with in the last few
> years, but certainly not as a mainstream implementation. At least half
> had a Windows machine available, though, even of the small minority of
> experts which didn't use it as their desktop.
>
> >Hell, if this were true, IBM would be out of business, as according to them,
> >OS/2 related business brings in something like 7 billion dollars in revenue
> >every year. IBM's primary clients are the Fortune 1000.
>
> Actually, a lot of that is server licenses, though OS/2, as a truly
> progressive and innovative OS design, does still have a large following
> on the desktop.
>
> Large in comparison to what is necessary to sustain an OS, of course,
> not large in comparison to monopolization.
>
> [...]
> >> Were you there when Mosiac 2.0 came out? I was.
> >
> >Depending on what you mean by "Were you there", yes. I've been on the
> >internet since 1991.
>
> Actually, I would expect he meant something a bit more than 'on the
> Internet'. If it were anyone else, like myself for instance, I'd
> consider that 'being there'. But this is Rex Ballard, after all;
> wouldn't surprise me if "there" to him meant sitting at a table with
> Marc Andreesen during some announcement or critical decision. He seems
> to have credentials that make your sock-puppet expertise into a cartoon.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:45:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
> 19:15:22 -0600;
> >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:963v5o$bv8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Furthermore, Windows ME and Windows 2000 both have "Linux Stompers"
> >> built into their initial boot sequence. Even if the image is mastered,
> >> Windows will still attempt to disable Linux.
> >
> >This is completely false. Please, be my guest.
> >Explain how this works.
>
> I was wondering what the 'image is mastered' part meant.
When PCs are shipped by the manufacturer, you take a disk that has been
properly configured and essentially "disk-copy" every byte to other disks.
Since the contract for Windows requires that the "first boot".
Try installing Linux, and put Lilo on the master boot record, leaving a
partition for Windows 2000, then install Widows 2000. Of course Windows 2000
will stomp the MBR. Don't apply any service packs. Now, before rebooting.
Now, try to reboot. When you reboot, you will now have to boot Windows.
Lilo will be gone.
You could install Windows first then Linux, and then use grub to
give you the option of booting either Linux or Windows, but you would
violate the terms of the Microsoft agreement.
If you knew Linux was already there, you could start it from Windows or run a
script to alter the windows 2000 boot manager. Any such change would have to
take place AFTER the initial boot.
Now let's be really creative and try to install LILO loading Linux
and installing it on the MBR. Then, use Lilo to boot Windows 2000.
At this point Windows 2000 will get very upset and offer to stomp the MBR for
you. If you tell it NOT to stomp lilo, it will still write configuration
information on the MBR. Once you get booted, reboot and try to use LILO to
get to Linux. You will have a problem.
Yes there are work-arounds, these were developed after Windows 2000
was released. This should have been completely unneccessary.
Of course, with Windows 2000 upgrade, you are corrupting an existing
system that has been configured to boot both Linux and Windows NT or 9x.
Even more of a problem, you may have broken VMWare. Since Microsoft did not
warn you that these were potential risks, they have "hacked" your computer
using a "Trojan Horse". This is just as illegal for Windows 2000 as it is
for "I Love You" or "Joan's Resume".
> >> > > and to delay the ability of Linux to support
> >> > > USB scanners, Cameras, and "WinPrinters".
> >> >
> >> > MS is not delaying any of these things. The market is.
> >>
> >> Correction. Microsoft has demanded that all vendors who support
> >> USB sign nondisclosure agreements which prevent BOTH the release
> >> of information to the Open Source community AND the deployment
> >> of Modules that can be shipped in binary form.
> >
> >Excuse me? Microsoft doesn't own the USB spec.
Correct. However, the compex interactions and dialogues used by Webcams and
scanners isn't part of the specification. These dialogues require very
compex handshaking and confirmations. The current method of cracking these
codes is to put sniffers onto the USB using a "T-Wire". They then watch the
traffic going back and forth. The packet envelopes are understood.
Keep in mind that the IHVs (Independent Hardware Vendors) who make USB
devices have something to gain by offering Linux modules for USB. In fact,
they could even deliver an executable file that connects to the USB driver.
Even if that's only 2 million new units, that's 2 million units that would be
sold by a competitor if they are first to support Linux. IBM will probably
sell several USB cameras when Linux 2.4 comes out. Unfortunately, they
didn't put out a USB driver for Linux 2.2,14.
> Purportedly.
>
> >> Microsoft attempted to do the same
> >> with PCI PnP, requiring that vendors
> >> provide only that information which
> >> would enable Microsoft to decide which
> >> drivers and configuration options to use.
> >> It wasn't until Adaptec broke
> >> ranks (after Microsoft broke it's
> >> promise to replace IDE drivers with SCSI
> >> and instead simply put the IDE driver into
> >> the SCSI configuration box).
> >> Adaptec decided that since Microsoft
> >> breached the spirit and intent of the
> >> agreement,, that they would break the
> >> spirit and intent of their NDA by
> >> providing Red Hat with the information
> >> required to decode Plug-N-Play.
> >
> >No, hardware vendors don't want their
> > competition to gain any trade secrets
> >from their driver source. That's why
> > they don't release their source code.
What is most interesting is that 3Com and Netware were the first
to release Linux drivers for their PnP devices. This created a big
market for their patents, chipsets, and firmware.
Today, Linksys, Netgear, and several others provide PnP configuration
information to map to the appropriate modules. There is so much market for
these devices that there was even a market for kernel driver source code.
When Linux users know that a product supports Linux, this frequently gives an
added market. This is especially true with aftermarket products. When a
vendor begins to dominate the aftermarket, they become attractive sources for
the OEM market.
In reality, vendors cannot afford to ignore Linux. With most of the
OEMs now seeking "Linux Compatibility Certification" they are more
careful to make sure that their lines use Linux supported components.
Microsoft has pretty much lost control of the Video cards, the
Ethernet cards, and the parallel ports. They have even lost control
of the trivial USB devices (serial ports, mice, and keyboards).
> That's bullshit, Erik; a fabrication
> imagined to excuse the maneuvering
> by Microsoft to prevent anything but
> Windows drivers from being made
> available,
Keep in mind that this was one of the issues raised during
the DOJ cases. It was one of the acts cited by Judge Jackson as well.
> and the ability to use this to artificially prevent
> competition amongst peripheral manufacturers.
Ironically, this has created a bigger market for new standards
such as FireWire, BlueTooth, JINI, and Linux.
> That you can reverse
> engineer hardware by reading, as opposed
> to reverse engineering, source
> code is a bogeyman that denies the
> whole reality of producing hardware
> at a profit.
The very nature of a competitive market is to get a large a market
as possible with as little investment/cost as possible.
Given that the cost of porting drivers from Windows to Linux is really quite
trivial in the scheme of things (less than $1/2 million) to get an additional
market of 2-3 million users willing to pay $40-$100 for new cards, the
additional revenue can exceed $200 million by simply sticking a penguin on
the box.
> >> Phillips has broken the "code of silence" with their USB camera,
> >> providing binary modules that can be used with their Web Cameras.
> >
> >Even if such contracts exist, they'd be illegal.
> > Since a contract is a legally binding entity,
> > if it's illegal, you're not bound by it's rules. So
> >why would anyone follow one? MS couldn't sue you.
Obviously Microsoft feels that they have the market power to exclude any
manufacturer who refuses to agree to such terms. For a very small company
such as Logitech who has only one line of products which is heavily focused
on Windows, it's very hard to say no. Yes it's illegal. If a threat such as
those threats documented in the DOJ antitrust trial were made, this would be
extortion. If they could tie such threats to a specific executive of
Microsoft, such as Bill Gates or Jim Allchin, these men could be convicted of
federal felony extortion. If Microsoft were to deliberately render a
vendor's software disfunctional (Real Networks) because that vendor supported
Linux, that would be a combination of extortion, violation of the Electronic
Privacy act, and sapatoge. Given that there is a penalty for each system
corrupted, the class-action suit could be spectacular, and the felony charges
could be equally spectacular.
The problem is that these court cases are very expensive, require very good
investigation, careful management by the legal team, and a willingness to
admit that you agreed to an illegal contract under illegal terms (in
companies were the CEO only owns 2% of the company stock, this makes the CEO
very vulnerable).
Getting such a contract signed in the first place requires that you silence
anyone who asks the wrong questions. You have to bury their report before
they publish it. Even then, you can get into the "O-Ring" scenario where the
unfavorable report is buried by the employee under threat of immediate
dismissal.
I have actually sat in on meetings with Microsoft's marketing people
where I questioned them directly about fraudulent statements, claims
of exclusive information exchange between the OS division and the
Database division, and numerous other illegal activities. Eventually,
it came down to "Where's the wire?". The were absolutely convinced
that I had been asking them questions under electronic servellance.
I pulled out my cell-phone just to prove that it wasn't on.
I've been in meetings with executives who literally threatened to
fire me unless I agreed to write a glowing reccomendation for
Windows 95 as a server (I resigned). I was once threatened with
termination unless I partisipated in a scheme to pay Microsoft
nearly $250 million (roughly 2% of revenue). I reccomended that
alternatives such as Linux, UNIX (Solaris and AIX), or OS-390 be
used instead of these Cal-hungry servers. Ironically, the
the CIO chose a comprimise and the CEO decided to take the excess
expense out of the IT budget (resulting in layoffs and reassignments).
Compaq submitted a letter in which Microsoft executives informed them that
unless they removed the Netscape icon from the desktop and stopped removing
the Internet Explorer icon from the desktop, Microsoft would revoke their
license for that product line.
Unfortunately, following up on any of these would implicate top level
executives at both Microsoft AND the other company. This can have unpleasant
effects on stock prices.
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
> Seriously, though, I think it would have made
> a LOT of sense to include
> an "I am not a lawyer" denial of liability
> for such a claim, Erik. To
> suggest that all of Microsoft's "lock in"
> contracts are simply illegal
> and to be ignored is rather naive, if nothing else.
Again, the contract can be voided. The problem is that there are usually
penalties for revoking the contract, and the NDAs covered conversations with
law enforcement agents. Until the DOJ threatened to add obstruction of
justice and contempt of court, Microsoft insisted that any interrogations be
attended by a Microsoft lawyer. Under normal law, the defendent has a right
to know who will be questioned, and even a general line of questioning. The
prosecution has the right to interrogate those witnesses privately before
trial.
In addition, Microsoft was accused of destroying evidence. The evidence had
been recorded in another trial and Microsoft very quickly "found" backup
tapes which were used to provide the required evidence.
When the original antitrust charges were filed, most of the evidence was
still not fully explored. The Discovery phase revealed enough to file
criminal charges but Bill Clinton wanted to stay on Gate's good side. With
20 states participating in the prosecution and numerous companies quite
willing to speak freely once the gag-order was lifted, the biggest issue
managing the scope of the trial during the prosecution phase. It was during
the defense phase that Microsoft experienced the full pain of obediance to
the law. Of course, since the prosecution had already rested, they could not
add new charges. The key concern was to get Microsoft to admit to some of
these criminal activities during the defense phase to assure that the
appellate court didn't overturn the entire verdict.
> >> > Because many clients WANT that.
> >> > There is also the option to buy systems without it.
> >>
> >> The key is that Microsoft has gone to most of the Fortune 1000,
> >> and roped them into Exclusive agreements that required Windows NT
> >> or Windows 2000 on all desktops, laptops, and servers. Only
> >> consultants have the right to use Linux on their own machines.
> >
> >Not true at all. I've worked with more than 20 different Fortune 1000
> >companies over the last few years, and all of them have had non-MS OS's
> >running somewhere, sometimes even on desktops.
>
> You presume those desktops weren't originally purchased with a Windows
> license, and that by "right to use", Rex meant the inability to use
> Linux. I've seen Linux, and of course much Solaris, on desktops at many
> of the dozen Fortune 100 companies I've dealt with in the last few
> years, but certainly not as a mainstream implementation. At least half
> had a Windows machine available, though, even of the small minority of
> experts which didn't use it as their desktop.
>
> >Hell, if this were true, IBM would be out of business, as according to them,
> >OS/2 related business brings in something like 7 billion dollars in revenue
> >every year. IBM's primary clients are the Fortune 1000.
>
> Actually, a lot of that is server licenses, though OS/2, as a truly
> progressive and innovative OS design, does still have a large following
> on the desktop.
>
> Large in comparison to what is necessary to sustain an OS, of course,
> not large in comparison to monopolization.
>
> [...]
> >> Were you there when Mosiac 2.0 came out? I was.
> >
> >Depending on what you mean by "Were you there", yes. I've been on the
> >internet since 1991.
>
> Actually, I would expect he meant something a bit more than 'on the
> Internet'. If it were anyone else, like myself for instance, I'd
> consider that 'being there'. But this is Rex Ballard, after all;
> wouldn't surprise me if "there" to him meant sitting at a table with
> Marc Andreesen during some announcement or critical decision. He seems
> to have credentials that make your sock-puppet expertise into a cartoon.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
