Linux-Advocacy Digest #565, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Clamchu)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: My long signature ("Edward Rosten")
Re: why open source software is better (David Masterson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: why open source software is better ("Edward Rosten")
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("Gary Hallock")
Re: M$ doing it again! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:35:18 +0000
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Thanks. There is an article in this, and it won't be very kind to M$.
>
> The BSD networking stack development was funded by the US Government to provide
> a reference implementation of the networking protocols. With few exceptions,
> every TCP/IP stack out there that I'm aware of uses this code at its base.
>
> Microsoft is to be commended on making use of the best available implementation
> for a change.
The problem(it seems to me) is the implication M$ wrote code that they
didn't.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:36:52 -0500
From: Clamchu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Christian Brandt wrote:
> In late 1993 I tried NetBSD0.9 and was disgusted :-)
Very well. NetBSD is up to version 1.5 now, so for starters, your
information is a little out-of-date.
http://www.netBSD.org/Releases/formal-1.5/
> In early 1994 I tried Slackware and Suse-Linux (both were pretty much
> equal then) and since then I am a loyal chameleon ;-)
So, are you running a 1994 version of Slackware now? Which Linux distro
are you talking about?
> Later I also worked with Solaris, FreeBSD, Debian, Slackware, AIX, some
> oldish HPUX (eek, it even used ps -edaf in good, reallyreally old
> BSD-syntax :-)
>
> And from what I have seen I realize: Even for the hardcore admin a
> gnuish world looks much brighter than a bsdish world.
Well, with FreeBSD, you get the best of both worlds. See, both NetBSD
and FreeBSD had their object code format changed from AOUT to ELF for a
reason, one of which is to better support a GNU toolchain. FreeBSD, for
example, uses GNU binutils (as, ld, etc., as well as gcc). But,
FreeBSD's gcc has been integrated into the system and modified to
specially support FreeBSD. So, please don't tell us BSD doesn't have
GNU software. In fact, without GNU software, FreeBSD would not even
exist. So yes, I'd have to agree that GNU software gives us all a
bright future.
> "its faster" (hum... as soon as you switch on softupdates on ufs it is
> comparable to linux, but not faster, its memorymanagment seems to be a
> bit smarter, so some daemons perform 5-10% better as long as I do not
> handoptimize linux or use a small, modulized kernel - which seems to be
> a sacrilege for BSD, most of our systems run with some >>4MB
> All-Inclusive-Kernel...
It isn't? Well, you didn't exactly post any benchmark numbers, either.
So, your reasoning is purely subjective.
> "its smarter" well, I never got a more detailed answer than "make
> world", so I guess apt-get or yast-updates or even a mere
> packaging-system without 100Megs of Sources and hours of compiling just
> donīt count :-)
With FreeBSD, I can do a make world and kernel in under 5 hours on a
P166 w/64 Megs of ram. On more up-to-date HW, a make world and kernel
build takes about 1 hour or less. Plus, FreeBSD-stable has a lot of
version changes committed over the lifespan of the release, so doing the
occasional make world and kernel provides a tidy way to keep your system
up-tp-date WRT to the latest committs to the src tree. It's not like
you have to do it every day, you know. On my P166, I start the make
buildworld and buildkernel, and it's finished before I even wake up a
lot of times.
> "its more directed at powerfull servermanagment" well, maybe its just
> me, but even cut seems to be mangled to uselessness in BSD, not to
> mention find and tar...
> I WANT HUNDREDS OF OPTIONS AS LONG AS I ACTUALLY NEED THEM.
>
> "its more stable" uhm.. what can I say? I have seen all kinds of
I think that in this day in age, it more or less comes down to how well
the HW is supported. I've seen some troublesome NICs/driver combos that
have caused page faults and fatal traps in FreeBSD. Also, it boils down
the the quality of the VM subsystem. For example, I've heard that
FreeBSD is (or used to be, anyways) better at killing apps when the
system's swap space/virtual memory has been used up. So, you may get
more stability that way. Other than that, the stability is probably
pretty comparable. Compared to Windows NT and 2000, with their MTF of
120 days or less, both are solid as a rock.
> "no exploits" Hahaha! Most exploits are targeted at applications and not
> the kernel. Basetools are mostly not targets of exploits. A Apache or
> sendmail running at bsd is as vulnerable as under linux. Or to be more
> precise, you need to exploit a specific bug and thats mostly bound to
> the specific release of the OS, like Suse7.1, Slackware7.1, Debian2.2r2,
> FreeBSD4.2, AIX5 (well, would be fun ;-), Solaris7, NetBSD1.4, Suse4.4.1
> and so on...
Well, pieces of the kernel are possbibly subject to buffer over-runs,
and the TCP/IP stack, which is vulnerable to buffer over-runs, is in the
kernel as well. So yes, the kernel is a possible vulnerability. Also,
FreeBSD has a number of securelevels that can be set via sysctl. This
limits what can and can't be done, depending on the securelevel, even as
root. The only way to change a securelevel is to reboot the machine.
And if the proper securelevel is set, I'm sure remote reboots are not
possible, and that you'd have to reboot the machine at the console. So,
you could possible get better security out of FreeBSD if Linux doesn't
have something similar. I'm sure Linux has something like this by now.
** Note: in FreeBSD-stable, the only way to gain your typical wide-open
access that root normally has is to set the securelevel to -1. Other
securelevels limit even what root is capable of doing, and the only way
to reset the securelevel is to reboot the machine, which is only
possible at the console for certain secure levels.
> "the kernel is more powerfull" actually BSD-folk stopped to use this
> argument one year ago. Seems like they finally realized that you can
> shit into any recent computer and expect linux to deliver a driver for
> it :-)
Well, the BSD kernel has been known to provide more Watts than Linux's
kernel. So, if you have a lot of appliances, make sure your power
company is using BSD.
> Based on the rather rude behaviour of most BSD-folks against Linux I can
> just say: Consider this post as a flame and realize you are walking on
> thin ice. Ignorance makes you comfortable, but not powerfull.
You may have a point there. One time I was walking down the street, and
I saw someone with a "Linux" jacket on. Being a rude BSD user, I kicked
his ass and stole all his money. Yes, we BSD folk are rather obnoxious
and rude.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:53:56 +1300
you could always convince all your windows using friends to move to Star
Office...hehehe, couldn't resist it, anyway, to be totally serious, I have
never had any problems, apart from a few formatting problems, the importing
and exporting of doc files is pretty good.
Matthew Gardiner
"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:t5dn6.1205$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you compose a text document in Star Office 5.2, will it be readable on
a
> Windows platform (as a text or Word doc) ? I can't seem to find any FAQs
> that address this issue. Thanks for any help!
>
> --
>
>
> ...................................................
> Bryant C Charleston
> A+ Network + MCP MCSE (NT4)
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:15:05 -0600
"Frnk N. Puppenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Which will beat down M$ the most ? KDE-2.1 looks pretty damn good. And
> the price is right.
Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the Explorer
killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to complicated to
configure (have you actually tried looking through the configuration
settings?)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My long signature
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:05:36 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Langenberger wrote:
>>
>> <snip!>
>>
>> Does anyone else see the irony of a long-winded, occasionally
>> flame-filled thread on the subject of bandwidth conservation?
>>
>> *I* find it amusing, in any case...
>
> Exposes the hypocrisy, doesn't it.
Like when, in the middle of a flame filled thread about your sig, you
claim that the sig reduces flame wars?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:12:32 -0500
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "John" == John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> vrml3d.com writes:
>> Ahem... government employees who produce software in the course of
>> their daily work are *legally* obligated to place that work in the
>> public domain.
> This is not true. The US government is forbidden by statute to
> enforce its copyright on works produced by its employees in the
> course of their duties, but nothing requires that the works be
> released under any particular terms: they need not be released at
> all. It's just that if you do somehow get ahold of them, you can do
> with them whatever you wish. Including incorporating them into
> GPL'd works.
>> Any government employee who contributes to a GPL'd project is
>> technicly violating the law.
> Wrong. Since those contributions are effectively in the public
> domain, it is perfectly legal to incorporate them into GPL works.
> Or proprietary works.
Hmmm. What he said is that a government employee who releases
software developed with government monies must release it to the
public domain. This public domain software can then be incorporated
into anything (GPL'd or proprietary or ...). In his last statement, I
think he meant that a government created piece of software could not
be released with a GPL copyright on it.
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:13:05 +0000
>>> So the argument would be that since their engine is widely used, they
>>> should be able to sell their games for a lower cost.
>>
>>But their operating costs are high compared to most other types of
>>software because there is much less reuse of code, and a very high
>>proportion of designers as well.
>
> But the same is true for other game software companies. Why can't Id
> sell their games cheaper than *other game companies* who have higher
> costs (namely they have to license an engine) ?
I guess they like to be rich %-)
Besides, when the market is so volaile, you never know when your next
product will go belly up and you need a bit of cash to see you through.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:16:40 +0000
>>GCC will scan the string and check for errors such as too few arguments
>>or mismatched arguments if you set one of the warning oprions (it
>>escapes me at the moment).
>
> From there it's not a big jump to doing code generation.
True, but I don't know if it does that.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:20:47 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Kaz Kylheku"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:14:00 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>Can I, or can I not write my own printf() which behaves utterly and
>>completely differently than the printf() in the standard library?
>>
>>a) no B) YES.
>
> You cannot define your own printf name with external linkage.
You can if you're not linking against the standard library. However the
compiler reserves the right to mung all library functions, so you can
expect undefined behaviour even if you define printf as static.
-Ed
> The
> behavior of doing that is undefined. Some C implementations allow
> library functions to be overridden; since the behavior is undefined, any
> treatment of such an error is correct, even providing a documented
> extension.
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:32:12 -0600
FreeBSD and OpenBSD are quite a bit more secure than Linux due to many
process they adoped quite a while ago. Buffer overruns are a rarity, and
almost always in a port rather than the core OS.
FreeBSD also has what is considered to be the most robust and efficient
TCP/IP stack implementation as well.
FreeBSD has a bit poorer SMP support than Linux, especially with 2.4, but
they're concentrating on that for FreeBSD 5. They'll also have kernel
threads as well then.
If they're using a 4MB kernel, then they're doing something wrong. Even
FreeBSD's generic kernel is only 3MB. If you take out the unrelevant
drivers for hardware you're not using, you can get it down to about 1.4MB
easily.
make world may take a great deal of time, but it's one command to issue, and
everything is then optimized for your system. apt-get isn't bad either, but
these tend to retrieve generic files optimized for 386's, which isn't always
what you want.
FreeBSD is consistent, and easy to use. Linux is splintered into several
types of distributsions: those derived from Debian, those derived from Red
Hat, those derived from other sources... etc.. and each has different ways
of maintaining them, even between distros derived from the same sources.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:25:00 GMT
In article <uO9n6.15904$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Since the word MONOPOLY was actually formed during the STANDARD OIL
>> breakup.
>
> Actually, it wasn't.
>
> The word monopoly dates from the mid 16th century, and comes to English via
> the Latin word monopolium, which in turn derives from the Greek monopolion,
> "right of exclusive sale," which came from the Greek polein, "to sell."
> Needless to say, this predates Standard Oil.
>
> Do you ever research anything, Charlie? It took me less time to find the
> etymology of monopoly than it took you to write that sentence.
>
> -- Mike --
>
>
>
http://www.fee.org/education/lessons/9906/mayer.html
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:29:36 +0000
>> A simpler definition is:
>>
>> a mechanism which allows the output of one process to be put in to the
>> input of another process in the order that it (the data) was
>> outputted.
>
> You need to include some sort of reference to the fact that process1 and
> process2 are running simultaneously (as opposed to sequential
> execution...i.e. process2 must be able to start executing while process1
> is still running).
You don't need to specify that process 1 and 2 are concurrent, since it
can be deduced from the definition.
Under my definition
prog_that_wont_finish | head -3
will run under a multitasking system but not a single tasking system,
since the output of the first process never goes in to the input of the
second so under my definition, the single tasking system does not
implement pipes, therefore a multitasking system is required.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:32:05 +0000
Black Dragon wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:35:59 +0000 in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Edward Rosten' said:
>
> : In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> : "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> : > Not the concept - the word. It's seriously getting over-used.
> :
> : Can we add `technology' to this list.
>
> ``issues''
>
> THAT has got to be the most over used term in computing today!
>
What about "mission critical"?
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:30:11 +0000
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:37:03 +0000, Edward Rosten wrote:
>>> The simplest, broadest definition of pipes is that they are an
>>> inter-process, FIFO communications channel from one processes to
>>> another, which allows the 2nd process to start producing output before
>>> the first process terminates.
>>>
>>> A single-tasking OS is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling this
>>> definition properly.
>>
>>
>> A simpler definition is:
>
> Yes, it's simpler, but also narrower.
How so?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:30:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan
Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:23:31 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>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.
>
> If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make stuff up.
>
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/212/86.html
Who's making it up?
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:32:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan
Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:23:31 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>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.
>
> If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make stuff up.
>
http://www.fdl.uwc.edu/faculty/spayeste/204HD9.HTM
Here's another.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:35:08 +0000
<snip>
>... "e"-anything
"e"-anything implies bullshit follows
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 18:42:58 -0600
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> * 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.
You seem to be confusing Outlook with Outlook Express. They are entirely
different apps. OE doesn't have scripting support, so it can't be used like
Outlook to mail viruses to people in your address book. Outlook is much
more than just a mail client. It's a PIM. Scheduling, Task Management,
Messaging, etc.. very slick. Evolution is coming along though.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:34:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan
Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:23:31 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>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.
>
> If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make stuff up.
>
http://www.techtv.com/print/story/0,23102,3002087,00.html
Here's another interesting article where-by, an independent newsgroup
TELLS YOU the word monopoly was first defined during the STANDARD
OIL breakup.
But since I have 4 years of legal training, why should I preach.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Java Platform Monopoly (Was: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:38:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan
Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:23:31 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>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.
>
> If you don't know what you're talking about, don't make stuff up.
>
http://www.trufax.org/chrono/crc.html
Here's another one where by you learn that the word Monopoly wasn't
even widely known or used in America until the STANDARD OIL breakup.
Monopoly IS an ancient word appearently which was not widely used and
EVEN not part of the dictionary until the turn of the century.
IN-FACT, if you go do the research on the board game monopoly you
will see it was modeled after the idea of STANDARD OIL and what happened.
But I must agree, being an educated man. You are correct that Monopoly
WAS a word back when in ancient times.
And if you climbed enough stone walls in Greece or whereever back in
1860's, you'd eventually find the word written on some wall.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: why open source software is better
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:38:40 +0000
> I give the OSS fad about 20 years to get to the point where the lack of
> fresh new applications becomes such a burden to consumers that they
> begin to thumb their noses at free software. You'll see articles in the
> tech mags saying things like "the shrink-wrapped box is back".
Compared to OSS, closed software is a fad, since it hasn't been around as
long.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:37:20 +0500
In article <Gngn6.660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the Explorer
> killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to complicated to
> configure (have you actually tried looking through the configuration
> settings?)
Have you? Have you even tried KDE 2.1? Not KDE 1.1.2 or KDE 2.0, but
KDE 2.1. I just installed KDE 2.1 last night and I can't see anything
complicated about configuration. What confuses you?
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:49:39 -0600
"Klaus-Georg Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > For instance, sys_geteuid16 is a syscall that's completely undocumented
> > other than it's uncommented source code.
>
> I'm pretty sure this syscall will be documented better in glibc, the
> user of these syscalls. From the name alone and some context knowledge
> I can deduce what it does, without ever looking at the source.
>
> Linux 2.4 has 32bit uids, while in 2.2 they were 16 bits. This must be
> the call to provide binary compatibility for old apps, compiled with
> 16 bits uids. The glue around this is provided by glibc.
>
> So duh, it is selfdocumenting.
Self-documenting only works when the programmer knows the context of which
to look at it in. If I didn't know what an uid was, much less the
difference between a 16 bit or 32 bit one, how would I know what that
function does?
Claiming something is self-documenting only works for people that already
know what the code is for and does.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
