Linux-Advocacy Digest #542, Volume #32 Tue, 27 Feb 01 22:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Chris Torek)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (John Hasler)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("gary")
MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure! (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? ("Joel Barnett")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: [OT] .sig (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? (Johannes Bauer)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Kaz Kylheku)
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. (Chris Torek)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? ("Joel Barnett")
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (mlw)
Re: [OT] .sig (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Windows guy. (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Torek)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 17:48:10 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Can I, or can I not write my own printf() which behaves utterly and
>completely differently than the printf() in the standard library?
You can try. Whether it will work, and under what conditions,
depends on your implementation. Tell me enough about these and I
can give you a yes or no answer.
The same applies to all the functions in Section 7 of the ISO C
standard. Something that *looks* like a function call in the C
source code may or may not turn into an actual function call in
machine code. Moreover, something that does *not* look like a
function call in the C source may also turn into an actual function
call -- so there is no 1-to-1 correspondence between source construct
and machine code.
As another example, consider what GCC does with structure assignments
and calls to memcpy(). On some machines (e.g., i386), memcpy()
calls are expanded inline into REP MOVSL instructions. On other
machines (e.g., sparc), inline structure assignments are compiled
into calls to memcpy() whenever the size of the structure exceeds
a fixed limit (around 20 bytes).
If you replace your memcpy() with some function that does something
different, some -- but not all -- structure assignments will fail.
Worse, where and when they fail depends on the size of the structure
and the target machine -- even though you are using the same compiler!
% cat scp.c
struct s { int a[1024]; };
void f(struct s *a, struct s *b) { *a = *b; }
sparc% cc -O -S scp.c
sparc% cat scp.s
[irrelevant bits snipped]
mov %i0, %o0
mov %i1, %o1
call memcpy, 0
sethi %hi(4096), %o2
[structure assignment calls memcpy()]
i386% cc -O -S scp.c
i386% cat scp.s
[irrelevant bits snipped again]
movl 8(%ebp),%edi
movl 12(%ebp),%esi
cld
movl $1024,%ecx
rep
movsl
[structure assignment uses REP MOVSL]
i386% cat scp2.c
#include <string.h>
struct s { int a[1024]; };
void f(struct s *a, struct s *b) { memcpy(a, b, sizeof *b); }
i386% cc -O -S scp2.c
[irrelevant bits snipped yet again]
movl 8(%ebp),%edi
movl 12(%ebp),%esi
cld
movl $1024,%ecx
rep
movsl
[memcpy still uses REP MOVSL]
For better or worse, back in the 1980s, the C standardization group
(the ANSI X3J11 committee) decided that the library was going to
be part of the language. If you care about portability, you have
to make sure you do not accidentally re-define a Standard C function,
because yours might get called when you did not ask for it, and not
get called when you did!
It *might* all work the way you wanted -- but you had better be
pretty sure about your implementation.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
Note: PacBell news service is rotten
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:16:37 GMT
Aaron Kulkis writes:
> Socialism is merely a polite word for politicians stealing from those who
> work for the benefit of those who choose not to do so.
[Fill in the blank]ism is merely a polite word for politicians stealing.
Fill in the blank properly, and you can invoke the law that will end this
thread. Please do so.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: "gary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:58:10 GMT
"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:29:42 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > He posted the price of a refurbished floppy, not a new one. You can
always
> > find loss leaders.
>
> Who on earth would refurbish a floppy when new ones cost so little. Can't
> be any money in it.
>
> Peter
I don't think they actually fix them... they just say "OK, someone returned
this floppy, it seems to work, sell it as a refurb."
------------------------------
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: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure!
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:02:50 -0800
"." wrote:
>
> > Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of Hotmail to NT
> > all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than credible news
> > site with "unnamed" sources.
>
> Cnet - Sun->NT
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-344896.html
>
> ZDNet - BSD->NT
> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/30/ns-17071.html
>
> True to form with the Microsoft web site, searching for something doesn't
> turn it up. Do you have a link to microsoft.com with their most recent
> official statement?
>
> > Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion was ever
> > attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT within
> > weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just to
> > familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin such a task, let
> > alone complete and fail within weeks.
>
> That's based on a false premise... MS would be quite capable of fucking
> up the conversion in just a couple of weeks. A sane programmer wouldn't
> attempt it without reading and understanding the source code, but sanity
> is a bit short in some areas.
I believe that the most recent story was based on multiple (many)
sources, all current MS employees. They repeated the same statement
about MS not being able to run Hotmail on NT after multiple tries and
also stated that almost all of MS big websites are running on Unix,
even after numerous attempts to get them running on MS software. All
of the employees wished to remain anonymous.
Here are the facts from that article (from my notes).
1. Link Exchange. MS bought Link Exchange and tried to move it from
Oracle over to SQL. They threw a ton of their best employees into the
problem. After 2 months they gave up and put it on Oracle/Solaris
where it remains. :)
2. BCentral. This site runs on Free BSD, BSD/OS and Solaris. MS
tried very hard to migrate it to NT and Win2K. They had to quadruple
the servers to pull it off and they decided it was not worth it! :)
3. Hotmail. Sure there are a few Win2K servers there but 99% of the
site runs on Free BSD. :)
4. MSN!!!!!!! Yes, MS' own flagship site runs on Apache/Solaris! :)
5. BCentral's ad server is 100% Free BSD. :)
6. WebTV is almost completely run on Solaris. :)
7. An interesting tidbit: When MS announced the release of Win2K, MS
issued a memo to all of its employees telling them to not even think
about using it for production because it was too unstable!!!!!!! :)
Since the sources were all current MS employees, they had to remain
anonymous. Sorry but I forgot to write down the source of the article
but it was one of the bit computer ezines that is very pro-MS. ;)
Hehehehehe. This article came out, I believe, around November so
things might have changed since then.
--
Bob - shooting the bozo bit at 550 MHZ :). Wheeeeee! ;)
Microsoft "Tech Support".
1) Re-boot
2) Re-boot
3) Re-install all your software
4) Buy the new release (again)
5) Go to 1
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:03:42 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> I have a Solaris box (Ultra10) sitting underneath my desk at work.
>
> I installed Gnome on it because CDE sucks. Gnome is largely unstable
> and crashes frequently. Rebooting the Sun box, or even logging out
> sometimes causes Gnome to die, meaning I usually have to reinstall
> it to get it up and running again.
>
> Netscape no longer starts for me. It complains about not having
> an X server present, or no connections left or something, even though
> every other applications starts 3/4 of the time. I say 3/4 of the
> time because when I launch an application, say, GEdit (because
> vi and emacs are overkill), it will start 3/4 of the time. The other
> 1/4, it will load, but never show up. I must kill it and try again
> and it usually works the second time.
>
> I installed IE. It had a very simplistic installer and didn't require
> editing of text files or copying files around or making any
> links, etc, it did everything automatically.
>
> I ran it, it has run every single time I have called it or dbl-clicked
> on the icon I created for it.
>
> I have never had it crash and it has loaded every single page I've
> requested it to, and faster, than Netscape ever did when it worked.
>
> I thank God every day that I don't have to use that box as my
> desktop because the state of Unix and Linux is so poor, I would
> have to shoot myself if I did. When I do have to use it for whatever
> reason, it's nice to have a little bit of something working that I
> can always count on.
Here we go again with this troll-tape, which I recall seeing him play
a few months ago. I wish he would shoot himself.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:04:34 -0800
"Johannes Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Since I don't know what you want to do, it is difficult to answer these
> >questions. More info would be needed.
>
> Rhetorical questions do not to be answered. I could also have stated:
> "I do not need a GUI to have a server running".
>
> >Hardly. Windows is not a version of Linux. Our W2k terminal server is not
> Really? Win is not a version of Linux? Damn thanks for telling! I
> always thought it was just X11 running on those machines. If you
> didn't get the irony by now I make it clearer: Windows is a
> dummed-down OS that tries to be as functional as Linux.
>
I really don't care if it is 'dumbed down' and I don't know if MS makes it
in an attempt to duplicate the functionality of Linux. Fact is, for what we
use it for, it works great. Period. Now, if I could do the same thing with
Linux, I'd definitely be interested.
> >Hardly. Windows is not a version of Linux. Our W2k terminal server is not
> >unstable.
> If your machine is so stable then go enter it in the >Uptimes project
Why ?
> (www.uptimes.net). Take a look at the stats while >you're on it.
I don't need to visit a website to know how well our W2k terminal server is
working.
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:01:39 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:52:05 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Gergo Barany wrote:
>>
>> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Micah Cowan wrote:
>> > >
>> > > And there is no definition of PI in Standard C.
>> >
>> > Standard C doesn define getc(), putc(), printf(), scanf(),
>>
>> Yes it does (assuming "Standard C" means one of the incarnations of
>> ISO 9899 in this context, which I strongly suspect).
>
>Wrong. That's a definition of the STANDARD LIBRARY.
ISO 9899 defines both the language and library in a single document.
That document's introduction clause claims that the entire document
(language *and* library clause) specifies the form of, and provides an
interpretation for programs written in the C language. To interpret
programs written in the C language, you need to have a definition of
the library. Otherwise a program which, for instance, refers to
getchar, has an uncertain meaning.
This has an analogy in natural languages: to understand text written in
English, you must know not only the syntax rules of English, and the
fixed ``keywords'' such as articles, pronouns and prepositions, but you
must also understand a lexicon of words. A subset of that lexicon is
universal among English speakers; it includes words like ``water'' and
``air''; this is analogous to the standard C library. Then there are
regional words; these are analogous to non-standard C functions.
>> Well, this subthread *is* about PI's presence in C headers. And, it
>> turns out, an implementation that defines a PI macro violates the
>> ISO C Standard. And since the ISO C Standard and related issues
>> are the topic of comp.lang.c, this is rather significant.
>
>None of which is relevenant to whether or not a *COMPILER*
>is conformant to standards or not.
The C standard doesn't mention the word compiler; it talks about
language implementations. The standard headers are part of the language
implementation. If a standard header is not constructed in accordance
with the requirements of the language standard, then correct programs
break. The entire language implementation is nonconforming.
Consider that headers need not be files at all; a preprocessor
directive like #include <stdio.h> can be treated as a magic incantation
which causes identifiers to appear in the bowels of the language
translator. A bug in the contents of the header is then a translator
bug.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:06:14 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:01:38 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>When I'm overseas, I blend in very well with the locals. I observe
>the local customs for behavior, and observe local laws.
Why, then, can you not apply this principle to your participation in
Usenet?
------------------------------
From: Johannes Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:13:07 +0100
>Why ?
Because you can prove to the world that Windows is the "superior" OS
thus increasing the number of people who buy it thus increasing the
money MS earns thus increasing the support Windows will get by
Microsoft. "Make a better world"
>I don't need to visit a website to know how well our W2k terminal server is
>working.
But maybe you'd need one to show you the clear facts: For every one
Windows-server that runs stable (high uptime) there are dozens (if not
hundreds) of Linux-servers (well, Linux, Unix, BSD, etc.) that run
stable. Point proven?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:12:44 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:42:53 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Well, this subthread *is* about PI's presence in C headers. And, it
>> turns out, an implementation that defines a PI macro violates the ISO C
>> Standard. And since the ISO C Standard and related issues are the topic
>> of comp.lang.c, this is rather significant.
>
>Out of curiosity, which part of the ISO standard does it violate?
That part which establishes the interpretation for correct programs;
namely the whole thing, really.
A C programmer is entitled to use the identifier PI in whatever manner
he or she sees fit, because that name is not reserved in any context.
An implementation which wrongly claims a name from an unreserved
namespace breaks some correct programs; instead of interpreting them
properly, it silently changes their meaning or causes them to be
rejected with diagnostic messages. Therefore it is a nonconforming
implementation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Torek)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: 27 Feb 2001 18:27:47 -0800
>>> Well, this subthread *is* about PI's presence in C headers. And, it
>>> turns out, an implementation that defines a PI macro violates the ISO C
>>> Standard. And since the ISO C Standard and related issues are the topic
>>> of comp.lang.c, this is rather significant.
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:42:53 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Out of curiosity, which part of the ISO standard does it violate?
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kaz Kylheku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>That part which establishes the interpretation for correct programs;
>namely the whole thing, really.
>
>A C programmer is entitled to use the identifier PI in whatever manner
>he or she sees fit, because that name is not reserved in any context.
>
>An implementation which wrongly claims a name from an unreserved
>namespace breaks some correct programs; instead of interpreting them
>properly, it silently changes their meaning or causes them to be
>rejected with diagnostic messages. Therefore it is a nonconforming
>implementation.
As a practical example, consider what happens when you take a C
program that you wrote on your DOS/Windows PC using some commercial
C compiler, and go to move it to a Unix-like box. Suppose that
this commercial C compiler was strictly conforming and did not
define a "fileno" macro. You defined some other macro or function
to deal with a file by index number, and called it "fileno". Now
you try it on the Unix box and, oops, <stdio.h> has a line like
"#define fileno(fp) (fp)->_fd". Your code suddenly stops working!
Of course, contrary to ANSI, POSIX actually *requires* <stdio.h>
to define a "fileno". So a Unix-like system has to have a "disable
POSIX" flag in its compiler before it can claim ANSI C conformance.
The more "extension"-type names appear in some header, the more
likely it is that you will get a name clash with something someone
defined themselves. C++ solves much of this with its "namespace"s
(and weakened need for a preprocessor), but in C you just have to
be careful.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Berkeley Software Design Inc
El Cerrito, CA, USA Domain: [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 510 234 3167
http://claw.bsdi.com/torek/ (not always up) I report spam to abuse@.
Note: PacBell news service is rotten
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 28 Feb 2001 02:33:23 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:58:24 -0700, Dave wrote:
>On 27 Feb 2001 08:25:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
>It's not my intent to belittle their work. I'm simply comparing what
>it cost to develop linux all the way to its current state, to the
>"$100M to billions" that Eric claims MS needs for "minor
>enhancements". Even if the linux kernel contributors had been paid
>from the beginning, I doubt their entire development effort would come
>anywhere near $10M, let alone $100M.
The package deal that's called "Windows" is not comparable to the Linux
kernel. The closest approximation would be the kernel, X11, Qt,
KDE (libs, support, utils, base), glibc, and libstdc++. Now if you
look at the amount of code in *that*, I wouldn't be surprised if it cost around
that much. kdebase is about 800 files and at approx 1000 lines/file that's 8
million lines of code. How much does it cost to write 8 million lines of code ?
(and that's before we start counting other KDE components and the kernel)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:33:48 -0800
"Johannes Bauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Why ?
> Because you can prove to the world that Windows is the "superior" OS
> thus increasing the number of people who buy it thus increasing the
> money MS earns thus increasing the support Windows will get by
> Microsoft. "Make a better world"
I have no interest in promoting Windows, nor do I believe it is superior to
Linux. I need the functionality that W2k terminal server offers and I know
of no equal or better alternative.
>
> >I don't need to visit a website to know how well our W2k terminal server
is
> >working.
> But maybe you'd need one to show you the clear facts: For every one
> Windows-server that runs stable (high uptime) there are dozens (if not
> hundreds) of Linux-servers (well, Linux, Unix, BSD, etc.) that run
> stable. Point proven?
I am not denying the validity of the information you are referring to.
You asked why someone would run a Windows server OS. I have told you why I
do. If there is a better alternative for me, I would like to know. If there
isn't, then you have a good reason why someone would use Windows as a server
OS.
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 28 Feb 2001 02:39:35 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:44:40 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>If that's my argument you're referring to, then I changed it to:
>
> A pipe passed the output of one process to the input
> of another process.
Good for you. I'm not attacking the merits of the revised argument, I was
merely discussing the bugs in the beta version (-;
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,alt.unix.alt.unix.geeks,comp.unix.sys5,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.solaris,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.aix,csu.unix.aix,comp.unix.sco,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7)
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:45:13 -0500
Sphinx367 wrote:
>
> I'm going to begin familiarizing myself w/Unix to ultimately become a Unix
> system administrator. I've got copies of FreeBSD 4.4 (&Lite) and Linux
> RedHat 7. I'd like to get some advice on a strategy to take to get into the
> Unix Administration field.
>
> Does anyone have any opinion/documentation on whether focusing on FreeBSD
> would be better than studying Linux (RH or other form)? I'm interested in
> focusing on Unix-oriented info that's applicable to the largest number of
> Unix-like OSes, since there are so many of them out there.
>
> Would it be a smart move to master the command-line commands, and then worry
> about the GUIs later?
>
> Are the commands in Linux pretty much the same as in other Unix systems,
> like FreeBSD, Solaris, SVR4, SCO and AIX?
>
> Any help/advice/websites would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
This is a very good question. I often compare FreeBSD and Linux to friends
interested in open source.
FreeBSD is like that really strict english teacher you had in school. You hated
every minute of the class, but look back and are thankfull for the discipline.
Linux is that really free spirited physics teacher you had that taught you to
look at problems differently and that life is too short.
Some people say start tough and then relax, others say start easy and gradually
increase difficulty. Your choice.
For what it is worth, FreeBSD is as rock solid as any operating system I have
ever seen. I have never once seen a FreeBSD system crash. Linux is good too. I
think it is a little less stable around the edges, still far better than any
Microsoft product could wish to be, either one is a good choice.
> Bryant C Charleston
> A+ Network + MCP MCSE (NT4)
First step to freedom is to put the mcse in small letters ;)
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: 28 Feb 2001 02:41:11 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:33:59 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>W: Joona tried to infringe on my constsiutional rights because he is a
>**** comunist **** **** **** *****. And if he tries again then I'll get my
>gun and shoot him in to little pieces, because he is a Nazi *********. Oh
>and don't anyone bother to mention Goodwin because you can go an
>************* Goodwin.
That's more like it (btw, it's "Godwin". Not to be confused with the guy
"Goodwin" who hangs out here)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 28 Feb 2001 02:49:51 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 21:11:52 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>> I wonder what id software's profits are as a percentage of their revenue
>> -- which raises another question -- why aren't id software's games
>> cheaper ? They sell enormous amounts of games, as well as getting money
>> from licensing the engine. Shouldn't they be able to get by just giving
>> away the game and licensing the engine ? Why don't these unwritten
>> rules about pricing also apply to id ?
>
>
>The games market is very volatile and the products have a very short
>life. My guess would be that the best strategy is to jump in and take
>what you can as quickly as you can.
This is essentially true. Games sell mostly in the first month.
> Because of the enormous pace of the
>market, everything needs to be rewritten over quite a short cycle which
>increases the cost.
It's not clear how much code needs rewriting, though one suspects quite
a lot given that early releases are typically very buggy. However, the
other content, (art and level design) needs to be fresh every time.
The codebase has a somewhat greater degree of reusability.
Id are in a somewhat enviable situation though, because their codebase
does get reused several times, because they license it out to other
companies. Some games using the Quake 2 engine were released some time
after quake 2 ( eg: Rogue spear, and I think the HalfLife games )
So the argument would be that since their engine is widely used, they
should be able to sell their games for a lower cost.
In practice, it's rare that a product will be cheaper *because* it's
more popular, markets just don't behave like that. I'm not saying that
this implies that MS don't have a monopoly. I'm saying that the pricing
is not "monopoly pricing", and it's not in itself very good evidence of
a monopoly (better evidence would be forced preloads, strong-arming
OEMs, etc)
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: 28 Feb 2001 02:55:00 GMT
On 27 Feb 2001 20:56:01 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: No, it's completely different. Read the other argument. The other argument
>: said (essentially) that "DOS pipes can't do everything that UNIX pipes
>: can do, therefore they are not pipes". This argument is obviously
>: inadequate (unless you use "UNIX pipe" as a definition of pipe, which
>: sort of defines the argument into triviality)
>
>If you look at the argument trivially, then it might look like that
>on the surface,
An argument that requires you to look beyond the surface is not an argument,
it's merely an invitation to discover an argument. (another way of looking
at it is that it's the argument's job to "look below the surface")
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot 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
******************************
