Linux-Advocacy Digest #554, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 09:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: why open source software is better (Nick Condon)
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (Gerry)
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Jackson Incompetence (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Nick Condon)
Re: I will now perform a neat trick ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Windows guy. (Peter Hayes)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Nick Condon)
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship ("Nigel")
Re: Breaking into the Unix field: FreeBSD vs Linux (RH7) (Bobbi Leasure)
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" ("Nigel")
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (chrisv)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: 28 Feb 2001 12:14:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craven Moorehead) wrote
>My system of software development is proven, sustainable and creates a
>good living for everyone involved.
Code-sharing is much older development model than closing it up and keeping
it all secret. That didn't happen until the late 70s - Microsoft was one of
the pioneers. Up until that point everybody shared their code. They were
mainly scientists and sharing your ideas is a corner stone of the
scientific method.
>Yours is unproven, has no business model, is creating a bunch of
>companies existing on hype alone.
Open source software doesn't require a business model. I hope the
businesses do well, but really they are irrelevant. If every Linux company
disappeared overnight, there would still be Debian, the would still be the
GNU project, and there would still be Linus.
>Who would you rather be Bill or Linus ? One is wealthy,the other has
>to take a second job in the real world to make a living.
I don't want to disagree over every single point, but honestly? I have no
doubt I'd rather be Linus. Gates is a spoiled bully who is over-accustomed
to getting his own way. I have zero respect for him.
>The most successful Linux company Redhat is derided by most hardcore
>Unix guys as a heap of crap. The AOLer of Linuxes. It is the most
>successful and is still an economic basket case.
I am beginning to see a pattern in your thinking:
Making money == success
Success == making money
Fortunately not everybody sees the world in those terms.
--
Nick
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerry)
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 06:15:57 -0600
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When you see the lines:
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
>
>
> STOP READING!
The same thing I do for spam.
However, I consider your signature spam also.
I'm sure you don't like receiving spam.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepage.mac.com/gbeggs/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.GerryICQ.com/
A: Aaron Kulkis is an immature insecure paranoid retard who gets his
jollies putting other people down so he can feel better about himself
instead of giving real arguments for his case (of which he has none).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:23:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 20:46:25 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>
>>The desktop monopoly may be a thing of the past.
>>
>>However, to the extent, that it is still a monopoly, the DoJ/Jackson remedy
>>leaves the OS monopoly intact.
>
>The fact that they have a monopoly is not the problem. The fact that they
>are alleged to be an abusive monopoly is. The remedy makes it harder for
>them to leverage their monopoly.
>
Since the word MONOPOLY was actually formed during the STANDARD OIL
breakup.
The same argument was settled over 100 years ago as to whether the
word Monopoly was associated with the word Market Abuse.
>I don't see any way to get rid of their monopoly, and I don't think they
>should even try to do so.
>
>>Per processor licensing was banned.
>
>Until very recently, it was nearly impossible to buy a laptop with paying
>the Microsoft hardware tax. The laptop manfucaturer would preload it, so
>the vendors were stuck with it.
>
>>>Microsoft is attempting to corner the internet with .NET!
>>>If you don't run .NET your not going to use the internet!
>>
>>A web developer is more likely to be trapped into using the Java Platform.
>>.NET is in beta.
>>
>>Without the .NET Platform, there is no competition to the Java Platform.
>
>Depends on how you define "competition". If you define "virtual machines"
>as a market, then that's probably true.
>
>>Sounds like the Java Platform, except you are stuck with using the language.
>
>Not exactly. You can run python on java, for example.
>
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
>elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Jackson Incompetence (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:30:44 GMT
In article <97hq5l$9up$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Not only was Jackson biased, he was so incompetent that he gave the appeals
>court all the rope in the world if they want to hang him.
>
>Take any particular incident. That trial had 2 witnesses where, say, 10 were
>needed. The rest was made up by hearsay.
>
>The judge let the kitchen sink into evidence, since the parties could not
>call the witnesses they wanted, due to the overall limit on the number of
>witnesses.
>
>The witness limit was done for speed. Yet then the judge recessed the case
>for over a month in the middle to hear some garden variety drug case.
>
>It strikes me that a core finding that Microsoft has a monopoly in the
>desktop OS might stand.
>
>But the allegation that might not hold up is the one that it prevented the
>competing "middleware" from "exposing APIs" to challege its monopoly.
>
>The strongest case has always been the Netscape browser. Since the browser
>is the web middleware client, it is obvious that it is a candidate for
>integration.
>
>The appeals judge correctly said that Netscape never had the ambition to
>create a middleware OS.
>
>Indeed, THAT area was carved out by Sun with the Java platform among the ABM
>cabal, trying to prevent server world competition from the low priced spread
>(of the time, now that's Linux :) ).
>
>Obviously in the innards of any platform's framework, there is not going to
>be any clear separation of client functionality in the class libraries.
>
>So the DoJ made a strategic mistake in focusing on removing all the
>middleware out of the desktop OS in the remedy and pushing the browser as
>just another app.
>
>This allows the counterattack that tech tying is involved as it clearly is.
>The industry is hardly going to end up with two "screens" based on some
>fluff about what is a browser client and what is a desktop client.
>
>And the DoJ did not need to shoot itself in the foot with this. It could
>have easily focused on the marketing of any browser product. In marketing
>terms, during this "dumb terminal" era of the internet, the browser is
>limited as a device-like user interface.
>
>Obviously, it won't be in the future. It's just the legacy of Netscape's
>incompetence as a tech company, being based on some U. of Illinois grad
>students along with one University employee who wrote most of it, when
>Netscape stole the Mosaic browser (for which they paid a settlement--after
>all it was being licensed at the time :) ).
>
>In other words, it's just another failure of that supreme mud-slinger,
>Boies, who is good a casting aspersions, and then losing on the substance.
>
>The case had repeated areas where no challenge was made by the DoJ to
>important tech areas, such as DoJ expert Felton's definition of a browser or
>Intuit CEO's testimony on the benefits of integration.
>
>A loosely coupled legal model would have stood up to scrunity better.
>
>The problem now is that the appeals court has to believe that products that
>were market leaders on "monopoly" platform were prevented from competing,
>notwithstanding the tech tying loophole.
>
>And that multimedia middleware like Real Audio/Player represented material
>competition, even though they are still the market leader and have not
>TRANSMUTATED into a competing OS.
>
>Now missing all these subtleties was the brain dead Jackson, which the type
>of judge for those for whom the "cause" bias trumps everything.
>
>Within its own orbit, the Windows OS has always had the most competition,
>since it is where the action is. Of course, the web network OS shatters that
>now small world.
>
>2 + 2
>
>
This would have been much clearer and a lesser waste of bandwidth
if you had just typed this line...
I think I was full of shit to begin with. I withdraw my comment.
Hope this helps..
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 28 Feb 2001 12:33:57 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner) wrote:
>Again, you're showing your mindset. If the armed forces of a
>government turned against the citizenry, the "mobile gun unit shelling
>you from 60 miles away" would be right in SOMEONE'S backyard, and if
>the armed forces have declared war on the citizens, that someone would
>likely be sympathetic to your cause.
That's not how governments suppress people. As a government, you can't pick
a fight with everyone, armed or unarmed (see Eastern Europe circa 1989).
The trick is to pick out a minority and and turn everyone else against
them. Hitler did it with the Jews, Gypsies, the homosexuals. The British
Empire called it "Divide and Rule" and did it with India, Africa, China,
Ireland, the Middle East, everywhere really.
The point is, done skillfully, oppressing people involves not pissing them
all off at once. Piss them all off and you lose. It doesn't matter whether
they are armed or not.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I will now perform a neat trick
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:27:40 +0000
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Clamchu
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote
> > on Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:04:04 -0500
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >Watch closely:
> > >
> > >Kulkis is a shit-head.
> >
> > Uh huh.
> >
> > And this advances the cause of Linux precisely how?
> >
> > I still want someone to count the number of fleas on Planet Earth
> > and then prove that that count is less substantive than arguing
> > about a participant's signature's length in c.o.l.a.
> >
> > (I'd do my part, but I don't have fleas or a pet. :-) )
> >
> > >
> > >There. A. Kulkis' .sig will now grow in size to at least 3 more lines.
> >
> > Heh. Well good luck; judging from his .sig, it takes truly inspired
> > idiocy to be enshrined therein. :-) Mere run of the mill moronity
> > doesn't make the cut.
>
> True.
>
> Chad Meyers and Erik Funkenbusch STILL haven't made it in yet.
>
<snip>
I'm sure if you give them enough time...
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:33:48 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:51:13 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Steve Mading wrote:
> >
> > Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > : Steve Mading wrote:
> > :>
> > :> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :>
> > :> : Wrong.
> > :>
> > :> : Pipes REQUIRE multitasking.
> > :>
> > :> : Pipe are an INTER-PROCESS COMMUNICATION method....*NOT*
> > :> : short-hand for system-generated tempfiles between seperately
> > :> : run processes.
> > :>
> > :> Dos didn't even techncially have seperate one-at-a-time processes.
> > :> By the CS meanings of the word, it had one process that lived
> > :> forever, frequently replacing it's code with a new load from an
> > :> EXE or COM file.
> >
> > : Oh god, that's sick.
> >
> > Not really - just what it means to be not multiprocessing.
> > This is the same way all other non-multiprocess OSes were.
> >
> > When a program ends and another starts, the OS doesn't do
> > the same sort of process-shutdown stuff that it does on
> > a multiprocessing system. It doesn't close files. It doesn't
> > free up memory. If a program dies prematurely, it leaves
> > junk behind. In Unix parlance, think of it like this:
> > The text segment contains the OS, and the COMMAND.COM
> > shell, and the TSRs and the currently loaded program,
> > but this is all in the same 'text segment', with one
> > 'context record' that threads between these routines. When
> > the currently loaded program dies and a new one is loaded,
> > the portion of the 'text segment' containing the OS, the
> > COMMAND.COM, and the TSRs stays in place, and the portion
> > containing the program is 'exec'ed to bring in the new image,
> > but the PROCESS never really goes through a process-death
> > and restart cycle, because the OS, COMMAND.COM and TSRs are
> > all part of the one big process and they can't be killed.
>
>
> Ah, ok. From your original description, it sounded like even the
> in-memory image of COMMAND.COM gets over-written every time the user
> runs a command, and that upon completion, COMMAND.COM gets reloaded...
You've never run DOS on a machine without a hard drive then. When you kill
your app it asks for the disk with command.com
Peter
--
The past is almost as mysterious as the future.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: 28 Feb 2001 12:41:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) wrote in
> Edward Rosten, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>I don't think the tool would last for a significant amount of time.
>>What would stop that govt. shelling the house of someone with a
>>personal arsenal? Meanwhilst, I am more free out of a gun culture than
>>in one.
>>
>
>They have to know about it. Tell me why they didn't shell the IRA into
>the history books?
The British Army could quite easily round up every Republican and line them
all up against the nearest wall. It would be an error of monumental
proportions: every man they shot would be replaced by a dozen new recruits,
not to mention the political fallout, foreign and domestic.
The battle in Northern Ireland is about hearts and minds, not bodies.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:31:59 -0000
> >> * MS Outlook
> What's the fuss with this app ?
> Is it the 'favorites' list that slips to the left and dissapears?
> Perhaps its the ease with which, your Windows pc can become virii ridden?
>
> I submit that EXMH is a capable GUI emailer that offers many advanced
> facilities, that 'Outhouse Distress' does not.
>
Or what about KMail for email and KNode for newsgroups.
> >Try the latest build of Mozilla, or Opera. I'be been using Mozilla, but
> >recently DL'd Opera and find it's fast and works well so far.
> I hate netscape too, and I'm quite stuck on Mozilla 0.8 atm.
>
Or what about Konqueror?
> >For migrating Windows users, Linux isn't ready yet for prime time on the
> >desktop.
> Linux may never be 'ready' for migrating Windows users.
>
Perhaps linux users should try petitioning the authors of all apps they need
as surely
companies won't throw away the opportunity to sell linux versions if they
know there
is enough demand for them?
------------------------------
From: Bobbi Leasure <[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: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:34:13 +1100
OMHO...
If you are coming from Windows the learning curve is steep...
You are going to need documentation and lots of it, and Linux has more...
At this point Linux is much easier to set up and get running than FreeBSD is...
(I would judge setup and configuration to be about where Linux was with RH
4.2...
[i.e. the install program has no Back function, if you make a mistake...
your only recourse is to exit the install and start over, and such non
friendlies])
Once you are comfortable with Linux, FreeBSD is pretty much a piece of cake...
Differences are small and easily understood when you understand *nix mindset...
And you WILL learn enough command line stuff with Linux (like it or not)...
To be comfortable with FreeBSD's mostly command line and edit file stuff.
Another area of frustration would be trying both at once...
Both have put a lot of work into living with Dos/Win on the same machine...
Neither seem to have put much work into living with each other on the same
machine
At this point in time...
Linux is easier and closer to being the everyman/desktop/average user OS...
FreeBSD is more stable, more robust, and performs better under heavy load.
Think of them as Win98 and Win2000 Server, only much better.
(That won't stop the flames, but one must try : )
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!
>
> --
>
> ...................................................
> Bryant C Charleston
> A+ Network + MCP MCSE (NT4)
------------------------------
From: "Nigel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:40:21 -0000
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Not the concept - the word. It's seriously getting over-used.
Add the word 'Windows' to that list ;-)
Seriously, why do the wintel monopolists take words in common use by others
and change the meaning to refer to their product.
Examples :-
PC - Used to mean personal computer (any computer used by 1 person at a time
rather than the timeshare systems in use at the time),
now seems to exclusively mean MS Systems.
BASIC - Now seems to exclusively mean MS Visual Basic.
Access - another word for entry or entrance, now hijacked as a MS database.
Innovation - used to mean inventing a way to improve something in a major
way, now means whatever MS stole from the previous version
of their rival's product.
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:50:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon) wrote:
>The British Army could quite easily round up every Republican and line them
>all up against the nearest wall. It would be an error of monumental
>proportions: every man they shot would be replaced by a dozen new recruits,
Then by definition, THEY CAN'T. They are UNABLE TO.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:47:32 GMT
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner) wrote:
> >Again, you're showing your mindset. If the armed forces of a
> >government turned against the citizenry, the "mobile gun unit shelling
> >you from 60 miles away" would be right in SOMEONE'S backyard, and if
> >the armed forces have declared war on the citizens, that someone would
> >likely be sympathetic to your cause.
>
> That's not how governments suppress people. As a government, you can't pick
> a fight with everyone, armed or unarmed (see Eastern Europe circa 1989).
>
> The trick is to pick out a minority and and turn everyone else against
> them. Hitler did it with the Jews, Gypsies, the homosexuals. The British
> Empire called it "Divide and Rule" and did it with India, Africa, China,
> Ireland, the Middle East, everywhere really.
>
> The point is, done skillfully, oppressing people involves not pissing them
> all off at once. Piss them all off and you lose. It doesn't matter whether
> they are armed or not.
The U.S. government (at least the Democrats) seem to be doing this
with poor vs rich, black vs white, atheist vs Christian, etc.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
