Linux-Advocacy Digest #220, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Interesting article (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: KDE Whiners (Matthias Warkus)
Re: KDE Whiners (Mig)
Re: Interesting article (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ("Adam Warner")
Re: Interesting article ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Re: Interesting article (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: WindowsXP - Pay us to solve our bugs (Nigel)
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: KDE Whiners (Tim Hanson)
Re: The Windows guy. (mlw)
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) (Nigel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:32:50 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:49:31
> > [...]
> > >But Linux has come from being a
> > >system that looked about as friendly as DOS to a system comparable to
> > >W2K
> > >for the desktop user, in the space of around 4 years max. Windows took
> 20
> > >years to make the same changes.
> >
> > Let's be reasonable; Windows took closer to 10 years. But, of course,
> > it had the 'benefit' of a monopoly from the get-go, so it hasn't really
> > "developed" AT ALL. Though it has *changed* quite a bit.
>
> And Unix is still no where near this, 40 years afterward.
>
>
What 40 years are you speaking about?
You do know that unix was modeled after MULTICS, which came
at the end of the 60ies, right?
So how could it be there 10 years before that?
--
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:03:55 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:03:11 +0100...
...and Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What irritates me is that Gnomers allways have given the impression that
> commercialism was bad and when suddenly one of their conmmercial entityes
> goes on attack on free project they welcome it. So i dont have much to say
> anymore about Ximian - thats cleared to everybodys satisfactiuon- but
> solely about the biggotery and attitude of the light brigade of Gnome loud
> voicers like Tim Hanson and a few others
That's just general ignorance and loudmouthed fandom. Usually those
people contribute exactly zilch to their pet project.
> > The KDE people act as if it was some sort of sneaky trick.. Sheesh. You
> > know, Cisco should stop advertising in Network World, since there might
> > be people who get the magazine looking for info on Juniper or Nortel.
> > Seeing a Cisco ad might make them upset. Sheesh. Grow up.
>
> BS . this is absolutely not the same... compare it to let cigarret
> comapnys advertise when searching for lung cancer.
That qualifies for Worst Analogy of the Year, I think. GNOME and KDE
are closely related projects belonging to the same area of interest.
Comparing the GNOME/KDE relationship to the relationship between lung
cancer treatment and cigarettes is just needless escalation.
mawa
--
MicroSoft product, BTW. Real dirty programming.
-- Henrik Clausen
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:54:55 +0100
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> That's just general ignorance and loudmouthed fandom. Usually those
> people contribute exactly zilch to their pet project.
Hmmm... even though i am a KDE user and fan i am actually developing a
Gnome application since something like libglade is needed. So it also goes
the other way around.
> > > The KDE people act as if it was some sort of sneaky trick.. Sheesh.
> > > You know, Cisco should stop advertising in Network World, since there
> > > might be people who get the magazine looking for info on Juniper or
> > > Nortel.
> > > Seeing a Cisco ad might make them upset. Sheesh. Grow up.
> >
> > BS . this is absolutely not the same... compare it to let cigarret
> > comapnys advertise when searching for lung cancer.
>
> That qualifies for Worst Analogy of the Year, I think. GNOME and KDE
> are closely related projects belonging to the same area of interest.
> Comparing the GNOME/KDE relationship to the relationship between lung
> cancer treatment and cigarettes is just needless escalation.
Agree.. bad analogy choice from me. I dont seem to understand the
relationship between Gnome and Ximian - i tend to look at it like the
relationship between theKompany and KDE. That means they are not the same
same. Where do i go wrong ?
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:01:25 -0800
David Brown wrote:
>
> IBM has a solid record of turning out brilliant technology and hopeless
> marketing.
Actually, IBM does not do very much marketing of their products at
all. OS/2 was an exception.
OS/2 Warp was effectively destroyed by the combined effort of MS
> marketting genius and IBM's total failure to deal with competing interests
> (on the one hand, it wanted to sell OS/2, and on the other hand, it wanted
> to keep its low price on Win311 from MS - MS told them to kill OS/2 or pay
> the full shelf price for Win311, and stupidly IBM fell for it).
No, wrong. At the time, OS/2 and Windows were available on all IBM
PC's, or you could have both on the same PC. At around the time you
are referring to (late 94-early 95) OS/2 was starting to go beyond its
intended market as a business OS and filtering into the home user
market. IBM was just starting to market to the home user. The user
base was actually exploding. I think there were something like 18
million users (many of them home users) around this time. During the
same period that you call "failure", OS/2 was actually the top selling
OS in the US (April 1995)! At this time the awful whores at ZDNet
conveniently decided to leave their sales chart out of PC Magazine.
And a large media war against OS/2 was unleashed. Although there were
some pro-OS/2 pieces, most of the computer press and even the
mainstream media was behind MS and strongly anti-IBM and -OS/2. Also,
the "IBM is killing OS/2" articles really started exploding again.
These pieces often take off when something positive happens with
OS/2. In fact, in summer 1995, the New York Times quoted unnamed IBM
officials as saying that OS/2 would be killed soon.
I have read a number of these articles on the Net. It is really a
strange period. All these pieces by computer gurus about how
wonderful Windows 3x was and how much they hated OS/2. Why? Hard to
install. True. Harder to find some drivers. True but only as bad as
Linux now. There was the occasional DOS or Win 3x app that had a hard
time running. Also true. And lastly, they were all just so used to
Windows and DOS. Newbies were warned in no uncertain terms to stick
with Windows.
I have gone back to read the hype regarding the launch of Win 95
also. Win 95 would seem to be one of the most fantastic, incredible,
out-of-this-world rockin' OS's ever! It was just as good as OS/2, if
not better! The multitasking was amazing! It was rock-solid
stable!!!! I know it seems hard to believe but the press was filled
with stuff like that. There were also a lot of OS comparisons where
OS/2 lost out due to lack of native apps, while Win 3x and DOS had
tons. Never mind that OS/2 could run almost all of those Win and DOS
native apps better than the former! This was never mentioned.
The buildup for the Windows 95 release was a media extravaganza.
There were dorks waiting outside computer stores at 3 AM to be the
first sucker to fall for Windows 95. TV cameras, reporters, the whole
MS media machine...
Yet, in spite of all this, OS/2 continued to do well. In fact, in
late 95, a number of large familiar OEM's were anxious to preload it.
IBM went around to all the OEM's trying to get it preinstalled. MS
threats came thru and no one would preinstall it. ISV's were told in
no uncertain terms that if they produced an OS/2 version, there would
be no Windows version. A number, including Corel, bowed. IBM worked
their butt off trying to get ISV's to write apps for it and for HW
vendors to write drivers. The HW vendors were pressured, as they have
been for a long time, to write only for Windows. There are penalties
for those who support other OS's. IBM spent millions marketing OS/2
(I think $14 million) and they actually made a lot of money off it in
this period.
Several things came to a head. IBM was threatened with having no
relationship with MS, with having to pay retail for Windows, etc. IBM
stood up for OS/2, which MS ordered them to kill. And IBM got screwed
royally. After a couple of months, IBM backed down and was forced to
sign an anticompetitive agreement to not promote, market, etc. OS/2 in
any way whatsoever. This agreement remains in effect to this very
day.
This decision has been criticized but paying retail for Windows would
have destroyed the hardware division, which is a huge OEM. Perhaps
more importantly, it would have killed IBM in the middleware market
(Notes) where they make even more money. At this time, MS locked in
the Win32 API in court. Although IBM quickly mirrored it on OS/2 , it
was never released and to this day runs only at IBM due to legal
reasons. MS was preparing to spend $500 million marketing Win 95.
The writing was on the wall. OS/2 had to be sacrificed, and that is
what happened. It was an intelligent business decision.
This is the real story of the "failure" of OS/2. I might also add
that for a failure, it has been a pretty profitable one.
>
> Warp 3 was a brilliant piece of software - in fact, most of its major
> problems or limitations (such as the single input queue)
If an app is written to take SIQ into account, it is no problem. It
causes 1% of Warp crashes. IBM won't get rid of it because doing so
would break many legacy apps. IBM is not into forcing you to upgrade
your SW and HW every year like MS. If you want to run old stuff, that
is fine with them and they will support you.
--
Bob - flipping the bird at 550 MHZ :). Wheeeeee! ;)
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:06:21 +1300
Hi Bob,
> news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
>
> Poor Microsoft! They're running to the government to protect their
> business model against those property-stealing anti-American
> open-sourcers. Boo-hoo-hoo!
Well Jim Allchin of Microsoft has managed to deeply offend me.
I wonder if Allchin would be able to respond to this (Raymond, endnote
extract from "The Cathedral and the Bazaar"):
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/x438.html
---Begin Endnote Quote---
[IN] An issue related to whether one can start projects from zero in the
bazaar style is whether the bazaar style is capable of supporting truly
innovative work. Some claim that, lacking strong leadership, the bazaar
can only handle the cloning and improvement of ideas already present at
the engineering state of the art, but is unable to push the state of the
art. This argument was perhaps most infamously made by the Halloween
Documents, two embarrassing internal Microsoft memoranda written about the
open-source phenomenon. The authors compared Linux's development of a
Unix-like operating system to ``chasing taillights'', and opined ``(once a
project has achieved "parity" with the state-of-the-art), the level of
management necessary to push towards new frontiers becomes massive.''
There are serious errors of fact implied in this argument. One is exposed
when the Halloween authors themseselves later observe that ``often [...]
new research ideas are first implemented and available on Linux before
they are available / incorporated into other platforms.''
If we read ``open source'' for ``Linux'', we see that this is far from a
new phenomenon. Historically, the open-source community did not invent
Emacs or the World Wide Web or the Internet itself by chasing taillights
or being massively managed -- and in the present, there is so much
innovative work going on in open source that one is spoiled for choice.
The GNOME project (to pick one of many) is pushing the state of the art in
GUIs and object technology hard enough to have attracted considerable
notice in the computer trade press well outside the Linux community. Other
examples are legion, as a visit to Freshmeat on any given day will quickly
prove.
But there is a more fundamental error in the implicit assumption that the
cathedral model (or the bazaar model, or any other kind of management
structure) can somehow make innovation happen reliably. This is nonsense.
Gangs don't have breakthrough insights -- even volunteer groups of bazaar
anarchists are usually incapable of genuine originality, let alone
corporate committees of people with a survival stake in some status quo
ante. Insight comes from individuals. The most their surrounding social
machinery can ever hope to do is to be responsive to breakthrough insights
-- to nourish and reward and rigorously test them instead of squashing
them.
Some will characterize this as a romantic view, a reversion to outmoded
lone-inventor stereotypes. Not so; I am not asserting that groups are
incapable of developing breakthrough insights once they have been hatched;
indeed, we learn from the peer-review process that such development groups
are essential to producing a high-quality result. Rather I am pointing out
that every such group development starts from -- is necessarily sparked by
-- one good idea in one person's head. Cathedrals and bazaars and other
social structures can catch that lightning and refine it, but they cannot
make it on demand.
Therefore the root problem of innovation (in software, or anywhere else)
is indeed how not to squash it -- but, even more fundamentally, it is how
to grow lots of people who can have insights in the first place.
To suppose that cathedral-style development could manage this trick but
the low entry barriers and process fluidity of the bazaar cannot would be
absurd. If what it takes is one person with one good idea, then a social
milieu in which one person can rapidly attract the cooperation of hundreds
or thousands of others with that good idea is going inevitably to
out-innovate any in which the person has to do a political sales job to a
hierarchy before he can work on his idea without risk of getting fired.
And, indeed, if we look at the history of software innovation by
organizations using the cathedral model, we quickly find it is rather
rare. Large corporations rely on university research for new ideas
(thus the Halloween Documents authors' unease about Linux's facility at
coopting that research more rapidly). Or they buy out small companies
built around some innovator's brain. In neither case is the innovation
native to the cathedral culture; indeed, many innovations so imported end
up being quietly suffocated under the "massive level of management" the
Halloween Documents' authors so extol.
That, however, is a negative point. The reader would be better served by a
positive one. I suggest, as an experiment, the following;
Pick a criterion for originality that you believe you can apply
consistently. If your definition is ``I know it when I see it'',
that's not a problem for purposes of this test.
Pick any closed-source operating system competing with Linux, and a
best source for accounts of current development work on it.
Watch that source and Freshmeat for one month. Every day, count the
number of release announcements on Freshmeat that you consider
`original' work. Apply the same definition of
`original' to announcements for that other OS and count them.
Thirty days later, total up both figures.
The day I wrote this, Freshmeat carried twenty-two release announcements,
of which three appear they might push state of the art in some respect,
This was a slow day for Freshmeat, but I will be astonished if any reader
reports as many as three likely innovations a month in any closed-source
channel.
---End Quote---
I'd really suggest checking out the whole of this famous document. It is superb.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:45:39 +0200
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:49:31
> > > [...]
> > > >But Linux has come from being a
> > > >system that looked about as friendly as DOS to a system comparable to
> > > >W2K
> > > >for the desktop user, in the space of around 4 years max. Windows
took
> > 20
> > > >years to make the same changes.
> > >
> > > Let's be reasonable; Windows took closer to 10 years. But, of course,
> > > it had the 'benefit' of a monopoly from the get-go, so it hasn't
really
> > > "developed" AT ALL. Though it has *changed* quite a bit.
> >
> > And Unix is still no where near this, 40 years afterward.
> >
> >
> What 40 years are you speaking about?
> You do know that unix was modeled after MULTICS, which came
> at the end of the 60ies, right?
> So how could it be there 10 years before that?
Sorry, typo.
Although, my time line get a little fuzzy from about 20 years ago.
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:08:31 GMT
Bob Surenko writes:
> Little fairies manipulate scientific experiments...
> ...
> Prove it.
Science does not prove. It disproves. Make a testable prediction that
depends critically on the existence of your fairies.
> And as soon as you completely trust it,...
...you are no longer doing science.
> Science comes up with stuff that works... but it does not lead to truth.
What makes you think there is such a thing?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:19:36 -0800
David Brown wrote:
>
> Who did their jobs
> well, and who did their jobs badly? I believe (and it is with hindsight,
> I'll admit) that IBM could have done a better job. If IBM showed that they
> believed in OS/2,
They most certainly did this.
and pushed it hard with their own systems,
I believe it was available on all PC's.
then many
> commercial developers would have choosen to do their OS/2 version first,
No, they were thinking market share. At the time, OS/2 had about 8%
of the market and Windows had maybe 70-80%.
and
> the Win32 version later.
This is not how economics works. You produce your first version for
the largest market and the next for the lesser ones (if they come at
all).
As it was, IBM was much happier to sell systems
> with Win311 pre-installed than with Warp 3 pre-installed, and they sold the
> Windows systems cheaper.
Not really. I have never seen any evidence of this at all.
>
> Perhaps it is unfair to blame IBM's marketting - they did advertise widely
> at the time. But somewhere in the system IBM failed badly.
As Max has pointed out, it is impossible to compete against a
monopoly. It is as if you were playing cards at a table where one guy
was allowed to cheat and the others cannot. It matters not how good
or poor the other players are. You could have the best card players
in the world up against the cheater, and he would take them all. That
is why we have rules against cheating in sports and business.
I think they
> have problems with communications between their departments - Warp 3 was
> easy to install on virtually any PC, with the exception of IBM's own PCs.
Well, IBM has never been a real user-friendly corporation.
>
> Did you ever hear the story of IBM's photocopier department? It sounds like
> a joke, but is in fact true - it was a good many years ago, and they have
> improved somewhat since. IBM made some photocopiers - it was not a big part
> of their business, and they only sold to the kind of customer who bought
> everything IBM. It was also not very profitable, so they conducted an
> investigation into how to make the department more profitable. The
> conclusion was that if they increased the prices, the same customers would
> continue to buy as always, thereby increasing profits. If they lowered the
> prices, they could become competitive and sell more photocopiers, thereby
> increasing profits. The investigation itself cost more than the department
> made in a year.
You can blab all you want about how lame and stupid IBM is. And, to
an extent, you are right.
But you are also wrong. Keep in mind that we are talking about the
5th largest corporation in the world now, with 300,000 employees! A
corporation that makes close to $100 billion a year. A company who
sells more software than any other company in the world (including
MS). Have you seen their stock price lately?
> > [...]
> >> IBM could have stood against MS,
They did and got hammered. Read my other post. When you are unarmed
and facing an gang of armed men, do you fight them or give up?
and we would be in a rather different
> >> position now.
Not really. OS/2 would still have a small market share, Windows would
be just as big as ever, and IBM's hardware division and middleware
division would be toast. That would mean one less competitor for MS.
But they judged the market for OS/2 to be too small to
> >> make take on MS
Wrong again. No, they decided that the war for the desktop was over
(in Gerstner's own words in the summer of 95 to a stockholders
meeting) and, of course, it was. They got out of the home user market
and repositioned OS/2 as a business OS, and continued to make money on
it without wiping out their other lines of business.
- and that is only because the market was happier to
> >> wait an extra year or so for the much inferior Win95, rather than buy
> >> OS/2 Warp that was available at the time.[...]
This is not true. Read my other post about how OS/2 sales were
skyrocketing during this period.
--
Bob - flipping the bird at 550 MHZ :). Wheeeeee! ;)
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WindowsXP - Pay us to solve our bugs
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:26:29 +0000
Whatever happened to the old beta system where you buy the beta version at
a price far lower than the cost of a retail version (maybe half price) then
get the full retail version free after release. This way everyone wins -
the software company gets users willing to test their product and the
customer gets early access to the product and a cost saving.
The software company doesn't lose too much by selling the beta cheap as
they will only distribute a small number of betas (maybe 100 or so for a
product expected to sell several thousand final versions).
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:11:11 +0200
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What are these "shelves" that you're refering to? It will be a
> subscription based service, where a bulk of the logic resides on a
> non-hackable blackbox on the other end of your network connection.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't make me laugh, the *only* way to make sure that a box is unhackable is
to turn off the power.
Difficult to hack, sure, but no unhackable.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:27:52 GMT
Mig wrote:
>
> A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:12:40 +0100, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : Weird.... for me it looks like Ximian trus to sell a modified Gnome with
> > : some extra apps. Allways saw Gnome as the possible alternative to KDE in
> > : the distant future and not Ximian.
> >
> > You're under no obligation to buy anything from Ximian. You can download
> > *everything* that goes onto their CDs from their FTP site. Yet, this
> > still
> > seems to upset you somehow. Do you also get mad at RedHat for selling
> > CDs of their distribution? How about BSDI/Walnut Creek for having the
> > audacity to sell FreeBSD CD's?
>
> Im not upset by anything else then the avertising and that issue is
> cleared... so im NOT upset at all at the moment.
> I welcome commercialism in Linux and the BSD's since i believe that the
> quality and diversity of products will increase and i am willing to pay for
> it.. actually i have spent much more on Linux software and Linux
> distributions then on Microsoft software
>
> What irritates me is that Gnomers allways have given the impression that
> commercialism was bad and when suddenly one of their conmmercial entityes
> goes on attack on free project they welcome it. So i dont have much to say
> anymore about Ximian - thats cleared to everybodys satisfactiuon- but
> solely about the biggotery and attitude of the light brigade of Gnome loud
> voicers like Tim Hanson and a few others
Windows spell check, no doubt. I don't know any GNOME advocates who
believe commercialism is bad, and no one here is "[going] on attack on
[a] free project." Advertizing does not constitute attack. No one here
said anything bad about KDE, except for the kickback scheme from
TrollTech, which is simply their revenue model.
>
> > : Chorus of whinning?? No.. just complaining about the methods used and
> > : with the desired result.
Ah. You're not whining, just complaining. No problem.
> >
> > The KDE people act as if it was some sort of sneaky trick.. Sheesh. You
> > know, Cisco should stop advertising in Network World, since there might
> > be people who get the magazine looking for info on Juniper or Nortel.
> > Seeing a Cisco ad might make them upset. Sheesh. Grow up.
>
> BS . this is absolutely not the same... compare it to let cigarret
> comapnys advertise when searching for lung cancer.
Who mentioned looking for lung cancer? Are you looking for lung
cancer? Bizarre.
>
> > : Weird that gnomers talk about whining when they wihinned about licence
> > : issues for years.
Right. Until TrollTech got rid of the most egregious part.
> >
> > Apples to apples, please? One issue has to do with some people getting
> > their shorts in a knot over someone's small, unobtrusive ad. The other
> > does with creating "free" software that *depends* on software that was
> > not even close to free.
>
> Most of us never had any problem.. if you had you had the choice to not
> install any of it.
You might have a little problem with spelling, but I'm sure it's only
artistic lapse.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:32:10 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > The buffer size is only important if your system can not respond to
> > interrupts quickly enough. RAM is expensive, so for all these CDRs with
> > huge buffers, just so Windows can burn a CD, we users of real operating
> > systems have to pay the bill for your crappy OS.
>
> Not true. I have a P133 and can happily burn CDs at 8x (under Linux, of
> course). I probably wouldn't be able to do much reliably without burning
> coasters if the CD-RW didn't have a reasonable buffer. But, I'll admit
> that this is an unusual case.
I guess we are paying for RAM for new Windows boxes and for support of older
Linux boxes. ;-)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Nigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:34:51 +0000
> They already have encryption-in-the-monitor in the works, why not the
> same for speakers?
>
How do you stop anyone opening the speakers, removing the wires from the
speakers inside and connecting them to a tape recorder - any audio system
has to drive the speaker cones with an analogue signal so has a place to
record from.
same with the monitor - tap a signal from the RGB drive to the tube (and
scancoils) and convert this into a recordable video signal (not as easy as
modifying speakers but still possible).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
