Linux-Advocacy Digest #479, Volume #32 Sun, 25 Feb 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: RTFM at M$ (Johan Kullstam)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Peter Hayes)
Re: .NET is plain .NUTS (Peter Hayes)
Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one. (Terry Porter)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one. (Terry Porter)
Re: why open source software is better (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: What do I do with a Windows partition? (Terry Porter)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Jim Richardson)
Re: RTFM at M$ (Jim Richardson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: RTFM at M$ (.)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] ("Chad Myers")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: why open source software is better (jtnews)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ] (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:14:04 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:43:53
> >On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 04:55:07 GMT, Norman D. Megill
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> I thought the most common DoS attacks were SYN floods. I've never
> >> heard of a DoS attack with normal, short, non-broadcast pings
> >
> >Imagine if 10,000 people all started sending one ping/sec to the same
> >site. Now imagine one guy planting a remote-control trojan like Back
> >Orifice or trinoo on a few hundred systems and sending 100 pings/sec.
>
> That's the point, Bob. Notice that this is an imaginary example.
> NOBODY has ever heard of a DoS attack with normal pings. Nor any
> particular value to the use of simple ping sweeps by hackers, which is
> the most often cited "reason" for being clueless about this matter.
correct me if i'm wrong, but wasn't the isp host for cyperpromotions
(remember samford wallace anyone?) taken down by massive ping floods
from all over the world?
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:17:40 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've restored the quote that you snipped, because therein lies the problem.
On 25 Feb 2001 22:21:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
> Peter Hayes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:54:24 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : wrote:
>
> > Said Jim Cason in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 18 Feb 2001 06:01:15
> > >Thank you for pointing out that there are companies who take care of their
> > >licensing the correct way. For those that dont, they should be fined. Its
> > >just like stealing anything else.
> >
> > Regardless of what else might be said, I'll say it, if nobody else will:
> >
> > No, its not.
>
>
> : How do you work that out?
>
> The theory is that if I copy some piece of software, say "NukeCAD", no actual
> loss occurs to the seller company.
By this reasoning it's quite legitimate for a large corporation to purchase
one copy of Win2k and load it onto every machine in their possession.
The seller has built their business model on selling licences for their
software. They have incurred a substantial loss. The purchaser agreed to
certain conditions when they bought the software. If they wanted to buy one
copy and distribute it company-wide, there are plenty of GPL licenced
products that they could have purchased instead. Nobody forced them to buy
commercially licensed software. They have broken the law and are also
morally bankrupt.
<...>
> Software is not a material object, apart from the media holding it. It can be
> copied all you want with no actual loss to the merchant,
Software is unique in this respect. What's needed is a general change of
mindset to one that respects the work put in to create the software,
together with respect for the authors' licensing policy. If they licence
under the GPL, all well and good. If they licence as commercial software
(assuming they are able to) that is also their right. Pay up or go
elsewhere.
> Why people use warez is because very likely they
> like the software but are not going to pay for it anyways.
Using warez games is indefensible. You like a game, buy it - they're not
exactly expensive and most are demo'd on cover CDs anyway so you should
know if you'll enjoy it before you buy.
Some commercial software like 3DSMAX costs thousands, kids or hobbyists use
warez versions for fun or self education and it can sometimes lead to a
career. I see little wrong with that. They're not going to buy it, they
haven't the cash, most of them, so Discreet haven't lost anything and they
may well gain a sale in the future. Autodesk's boss was quoted as saying of
warez kiddies "If they're going to use pirate products, I want them to use
ours". Where the line is crossed, IMO, is when any product is used
commercially. From there on in you have to pay your dues or find another
product.
Which is the thrust of the original comment, the one you inadverently
snipped and which T Max denied.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: .NET is plain .NUTS
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:17:41 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 17:46:29 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Cason wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for pointing out that there are companies who take care of their
> > licensing the correct way. For those that dont, they should be fined. Its
> > just like stealing anything else.
>
> This is not true.
>
> If I steal a physical object, I deprive the owner of its use and value. If I
> copy and use software, no one is deprived of the "value" of the original. Also,
> for there to be actual loss to the software developer, there has to be some
> reasonable expectation that I would otherwise have paid money for the software.
This would be the case in the example quoted above, where companies fail to
pay for all the copies used.
> If I am expected to never purchase a software package, the software company
> would never notice my use. Furthermore, I am more likely to promote the
> software, if it is good, and even provide basic technical support for my peers.
Depends whether or not you make commercial use of the software.
> The only reasonable claim of loss I have ever seen, from software
> manufacturers, is when some entity forges and distributes counterfeits. This I
> fully agree with.
Different ball game.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 Feb 2001 02:27:46 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:56:55 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well it's not exactly gone yet, but it's well on the way.
So what ?
I'm sure,
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Flatfish+++"
would like us all to believe that VA Linux *is* Linux, but of course its not,
VA Linux is a commercial company, selling Linux systems. They may fold (or
may not) as their strategies/luck dictate, but Linux is here to stay.
>
>http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=50300&id=200102211148000244539
>
>
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
Because its brain is only 1mm thick ?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:32:10 GMT
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I have shown nothing but concern. In fact, the only reason I still
> > post to this thread is because I'm concerned that there are thousands
> > of people out there happily using SSH1 and are completely unaware
> > that it is "fundamentally flawed".
>
> Chad, I don't think you are concerned about ssh security
> flaws, mainly because there is no windows ssh server.
>
> I suspect you've been on this ssh rant because it's an
> example of why Unix remote administration is easier and
> more secure than windows remote access, and for that
> reason ssh has become a target; you seem to be on a
> crusade to demonize ssh -
Anyone who has watched this group for more than a month or
so knows that Chad's only crusade is to put more money in
Microsoft's pockets. To that end he will rant about every
theoretical or imagined flaw he has heard about in any of
the many products that are better, cheaper, and easier to
use than Microsoft's own. I can't recall a single post of
his that didn't fit this pattern.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Ooooopsss there goes another one.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 Feb 2001 02:31:10 GMT
On Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:31:58 -0500, dev null
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yeah, I hear ya.
>
>For even more information about the crashing down of the Linux euphoria,
>check out:
>
>VA Linux posts big loss, will lay off 139
>http://www0.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/indepth/docs/linux022101.htm
>
>Now, what was all that I read in here earlier about how MS was 'dead' ????
>
>hehe....
Well, well, well.
If it isn't the "most killfiled Wintroll" , "Ubercat"!
Things getting too boring for you in alt.linux.sucks Ubercat ?
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:49:39 -0800
There has been a similar argument made (anbody know by whom?) regarding
the complexity of successful proprietary software. In particular, it is
always extremely complex, usually more so than is optimal from the point
of view of customers/users, because this is necessary to escape death by
cloning.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: What do I do with a Windows partition?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 Feb 2001 02:53:12 GMT
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:40:54 +0100,
Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
<snip>
>I prefer strategy games, so I do have 1 Loki title installed,
>the venerable Railroad Tycoon II. I am thinking of ordering Sim
>City 3000, but I like playing against real humans a lot better.
>Computer opponents tend to be a bit on the dumb side, or maybe I
>am just to smart for them :-)
Have you looked at Freeciv ?
We play Freeciv here on our home network and find it offers much
more than the alternate dos or windows based games of that type.
>
>Mart
>--
>YahDu (Yet another happy Debian user)
Terry
Mandrake7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:19:07 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:52:02 +0200,
Ayende Rahien, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>"Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It was the Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:02:43 +0200...
>> ...and Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > A tranquilazir gun is impracticale for several reasons:
>> > A> You can't have one-doze-fit-all,
>>
>> ROTFL!
>>
>> Sorry, but this is one of the greatest typos I've come across on
>> Usenet... even better than "antigravy".
>>
>
>It should've been tranquilizer, but what is funny with the typo?
>
>
it's the other typo, dose, not doze...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:21:04 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:49:52 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
>> >"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >Fine. The host *DOES* implement ICMP echo.
>>
>> Apparently, it doesn't. I sent a ping to www.microsoft.com, and
>> received no response.
>
>Irelevant, since your ping request isn't getting to the machine. You can
>see this in a traceroute. You have no way of knowing whether the machine
>responds to a ping or not, since the packet isn't being received by the
>destination. I think the chances are about 100% that if the packet were
>received by the machine, it would respond.
>
>> >The router inbetween the host
>> >and the outside world doesn't allow it to pass. I know of no RFC which
>> >requires a router to pass ICMP traffic.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the workings of TCP/IP. What care I about
>> a router? If there is no response, there is no response. The only
>> possible explanation is a failure somewhere.
>
>I understand them perfectly. I guess, according to you, if internet the
>backbone goes down, then the destination server is also down just because
>you can't get to it.
>
it's certainly not available, which is the practical equivilent.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 26 Feb 2001 03:14:30 GMT
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:31:03 -0500, mlw wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> Why should the operating system go down in price ? Has it
>> become cheaper to design and write operating systems ?
>
>As a matter of fact yes. Any good "for profit" business should have recouped
>expenses for initial development by now.
Businesses are supposed to make profit. I mean, they're not supposed
to say "OK, we've broke even, so let's try to avoid getting any more
revenue"
>That may be true, but the operating systems available 5 years ago are
>fundamentally the same as those available today.
So does this criticism apply only to Microsoft or is it true that no
other operating system has improved ? I'd argue the opposite -- Linux
and NT for example have both improved substantially.
>Incremental improvements are far cheaper than initial developments. So "next
>versions" should be cheaper than new versions.
If this was true, you would see a lot less rewrites. It's not unusual for
complete rewrites of software to take place (Mozilla, Enlightenment, several
other OpenSource projects), or for old software to be replaced by new
software (for example what MS are doing to 9x vs NT).
This is despite the enormous compatibility obstacles and time investment
required to do rewrites. Maintaining software is difficult, and gracefully
refactoring software to adapt it to radically changing requirements is
very difficult.
Moreover, software should be priced with a long term viewpoint -- eg for
example, the software vendor might plan to get relatively little revenue
on their first release because it will be a long term cash cow.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: RTFM at M$
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:16:43 +1300
> > You don't seem to understand the workings of TCP/IP. What care I about
> > a router? If there is no response, there is no response. The only
> > possible explanation is a failure somewhere.
>
> I understand them perfectly. I guess, according to you, if internet the
> backbone goes down, then the destination server is also down just because
> you can't get to it.
No, but the ping wont get through, which will indicate a problem with the
network, correctly so. This is why MS *shouldn't* be blocking pings.
The problem is that the RFC specifies that the IP stack implementation
needs to honor echo requests, but doesn't specify (the pasted-onto-
newsgroup parts anyway... I'm not going to read an entire RFC to post a
paragraph) that all networks must allow this traffic. Obviously, since
the network is privately owned, they have final say on what is and isn't
allowed on their network.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:24:23 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> MS still spends 100's of millions and even multiple billions on R&D, even
> for incremental improvements.
So you admit that Windoze has improved only incrementally!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 26 Feb 2001 03:30:43 GMT
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:05:22 GMT, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>no, but all the cost is in the initial design and writing. once you
>are past the non-recurring cost, the cost to stamp out yet another
>cd-rom is virtually nil.
Maintenance is not cheap. What percentage of costs involve maintenance?
I recall that the percentage was substantial.
>windows 95, nt and office haven't changed all that much (despite
>various name changes by version).
NT has changed a lot since 3.x. Windows 9x has roots in Dos, and it
has changed a lot since then. Recently, a lot of work has gone into
MSIE. Browsers are large scale projects which take a lot of work, which
is why there's still no decent prodution release browser for Linux
>it doesn't matter if it's cheaper to design and write operating
>systems because that's not happening. all you need to do is stamp out
>more copies.
You also need to maintain your software.
>yes. i paid $2k for a decent box (w/o monitor) 4 years ago. i figure
>i could pay $1k for a decent machine today.
$2k would have got you a machine near top of the line (not counting
monitor) back then. For that much, I got a P133 *with* a monitor (P200
was the fastest at the time), 28k modem, 32MB RAM, ZIP drive, and a
printer. Nice case too.
For $1000-, you're unlikely to get a super machine with a decent monitor.
How much would a machine with a Pentium 4 and a
"decent" video card cost nowadays ? I say your looking at $800 just
for the CPU and video card.
$1k will only get you a budget machine today.
>it should be cheaper because you've got more units shipped over which
>to to amortize the initial costs.
You're assuming that there are no other costs. Tell MS's operating system
group that they don't have to go to work anymore, because the "initial
development" has already been done.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:31:26 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > >>
> > >> The price of Microsoft software has not stayed level. It has increased
> > >> by an incredible amount. For example, about 3-4 years ago, I bought
> > >> an OEM version of Office for about $150. The same version is now about
> > >> $500. How's that for monopoly practice!
> > >
> > >Not even.
> > >
> > >http://www.pricewatch.com/1/146/1904-2.htm
> > >
> > >Office 2000 Standard OEM costs roughly $175, and that's through a
> middleman.
> > >If you buy directly from the distributor, I believe it's about the same
> > >price as you claim.
>
> You can only buy OEM copies wholesale, or through your OEM.
>
> How is he right? I just proved that he was wrong.
I was talking about Office Pro. On page 4 of 8 of the above link, I see
a price of $255. That's still less than the price I quoted before, though,
which came from a PC Mall catalog.
The price you quoted was for an upgrade, too.
If you go to page 6, Office Pro Retail Box is $420.
The last page shows BackOffice Small business server and Office Pro with
5 (count'em, 5) clients for $2045.
Crimosoft has more deals going than a middle-east bazaar. Ironic,
isn't it?
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:16:09 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:13:49
> >
> >>Why is SSH1 considered "fundamentally flawed" by its own makers?
> >
> >Because there are theoretical vulnerabilities which do not exist in the
> >maker's new (commercial) version. Duh!
> >
> Because by using such inflammatory and alarming language they hope to
> divert frightened people away from the free alternative.
>
> I am amazed that Chad has not managed to misspell "fundamentally
> flawed" yet. Anything dealing with "mental" is not his firmest
> ground. (Territory might be beyond his comprehension level)
Spelling Schmelling. I'm too lazy to hit F7. I'll be the first to tell
you spelling isn't my strong point.
It's unfortunate that this is the only thing you have to argue. That
personal attacks are your first target rather than the gist or
merit of what I have to say.
> Chad's reward will be to gain wider recognition so his Sock Puppet
> handlers will continue to find his antics amusing.
>
> Life as a Sock Puppet has so few bright moments.
Like I said...
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:33:05 GMT
mlw wrote:
> >
> > Besides doubts about the assumptions of the argument, the logic
> > is equally absurd -- why *should* software become cheaper ?
> > Are they saying that it should get cheaper because hardware
> > is cheaper ? If that's the case, why not complain that milk isn't
> > getting cheaper ?
>
> Incremental improvements are far cheaper than initial developments. So "next
> versions" should be cheaper than new versions.
You all are missing my point. Microsoft was almost giving away the
office products a few years ago. Now they're gouging you for it.
Monopoly power.
Chris
------------------------------
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:30:34 GMT
I like open source software because
it tends not to get cluttered by creeping
featurism, the adding of superfluous
and mostly unused features. Therefore,
you can understand it a lot
easier and are more likely to be able
to fix it yourself.
If the original author starts going in a
direction that doesn't satisfy the needs
of the users, the source tree can simply
be replicated and a new author can take over.
In this sense, open source software is
one of the purest forms of competition.
phil hunt wrote:
>
> Consider:
>
> 1. proprietary software must capture a market and get revenue from it; the
> more revenue it gets, the more successful it will be, from a proprietary
> software company's point of view
>
> 2. it can make more profits if it has no competition, because if there
> is competition, the per-item sales price can reduce to near zero
>
> 3. one effective way of preventing competition is to stop competitors
> from making competing software, by commodifying protocols, e.g. by
> obfuscating or patent-encumbering them
>
> 4. therefore, commercially successful proprietary software will always
> tend to harm users' interests in ways that open source won't
>
> This is my paraphrase of an argument is given in more detail by Ralph
> Levien in his essay "The decommoditization of protocols".
> <http://levien.com/free/decommoditizing.html>
>
> --
> *****[ Phil Hunt ***** [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]*****
> "Mommy, make the nasty penguin go away." -- Jim Allchin, MS head
> of OS development, regarding open source software (paraphrased).
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:37:10 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 25 Feb 2001
> > [...]
> > >The article is based on a faulty premise. Since Windows 95 came out, not
> > >all components have come down in price in any significant way.
> >
> > A) What difference does it make when Win95 was released?
>
> Because, in general, when talking about monopoly we're talking post Windows
> 3.1.
Wrong, Erik. Microsoft gave the big push to Windows 3.1 while mouthing
platitudes about how IBM/Microsoft OS/2 was the OS of the future.
> > B) The article is not based on the premise that every single component
> > has come down in price, but that the OS should have, as very many others
> > have.
>
> The article states quite clearly that the *ONLY* component of a typical
> computer that has not come down significantly in price is the OS.
You're being pedantic just to be able to say you are correct.
Chrissie don't play that.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: SSH vulnerabilities - still waiting [ was Interesting article ]
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:40:59 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> CHAD-MYERS-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
>
> IMPORTS
> microsoft FROM ONE-MICROSOFT-WAY-MIB.my
> OBJECT-TYPE FROM RFC-1212
>
> myers OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { microsoft W2K }
> chad OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { myers 1 }
>
> ChadTrollStatus OBJECT-TYPE
> SYNTAX INTEGER {
> PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE ASSHOLE(1),
> LYING PRICK (2),
> IGNORANT JERK (3),
> FAT-HEADED TROLL (4),
> MANIC DEPRESSIVE W/OCD (5),
> NET KOOK (6),
> UNINTELLIGENT SOCK-PUPPET(7)
> }
> ACCESS write-only
> STATUS unfortunate
> DESCRIPTION
> "Troll status of the net.kook Model 5; Chad Myers."
> ::= { chad 1 }
Where's the VERSION_INFO, haw haw haw! I'm laying on the floor
here, flopping like a carp, laughing my ass off.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 03:47:05 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> So in other words, you agree that not all components have come down in price
> in recent years, and that the premise only applies to components which have
> a performance issue associated with them. The current model goes down in
> price when a better performing product replaces it.
Actually, someone posted even cheaper prices for the keyboards and floppy
drives than I realized existed! So I was wrong. It's beginning to look
like that author I quoted was correct, after all, Erik.
> OS's generally do not improve their performance significantly from release
> to release.
If you're talking about Windoze, I agree.
> There is usually some, but the releases are years apart versus
> the months apart of hardware items.
Which is why Linux is blowing by Windoze in features and performance,
even with the kernel delays.
> The other factor is that the cost of the hardware item has a significant
> amount attributable to raw components, processes, and production. It's not
> economical to just throw away a 650 processor when the 700 comes out. With
> software, the actual cost to manufacture the product is near 0, which means
> it's quite economical to just throw it away rather than reduce it's price.
Again, I'm talking about the price INCREASES of Crimosoft software.
> > > Many components have gone UP in price. The GeForce 3 video card
> > > will cost $599, the GeForce 2 Ultra costs $499.
> >
> > I'm willing to agree here, but would ask just how much horsepower these
> > babies have. Those prices are the cost of a good PC box today!
>
> Windows ME certainly has orders of magnitude more software that comes with
> it than Windows 95 when it first came out.
How many CDs does it come on? Same number as Windows 95, or not?
(I don't know, because there's no way in hell I'm wasting my money on
ME... I learned my lesson with 98.)
Standard RedHat comes on four CDs now. (2 binaries, 1 document CD, and
1 source-code CD). That's one more than the previous version came on.
Whoopee doo.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
