Linux-Advocacy Digest #604, Volume #32 Fri, 2 Mar 01 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
("Edward Rosten")
Re: Non-Microsoft Copyright Code in Windows 2000 Professional (Tim Jarman)
Re: KDE or GNOME? ("Adam Warner")
Re: How would you do this with Linux ? (Rex Ballard)
Re: So, here's something to chew on... ("Joel Barnett")
Re: So, here's something to chew on... ("Joel Barnett")
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("Jan Johanson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:10:46 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
>
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>> >
>> >http://www.eetimes.com/special/special_issues/millennium/companies/bell.html
>> >
>> > At first the research arm of AT&T, Bell Labs enjoyed a special status
>> > after its founding in the 1920s. Because of the monopoly granted AT&T
>> > by the government, in the interests of standardizing the telephone
>> > system, the lab could both be part of a commercial operation and play
>> > the open role of a national laboratory.
>> >
>>
>> I see this in print and I've read it.
>>
>> There is no record in congress of an actual vote nor bill passed which
>> grants AT&T nor IT&T a monopoly that I've seen.
>>
>> Perhaps what they are refering to is some kind of excusive contract.
>>
>> But I can't seem to find support for where congress passed and the
>> president signed any such bill approving a monopoly.
>>
>> However, I can show you the 1970's arguments from the appeals trials
>> where the phone companies attempted to prove they had been granted
>> monopoly status from the government and they failed to exibit proof.
>>
>
>Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
>Interesting.
>
>
>> That much I know.
>>
>> Charlie
After having done some more looking I got lucky.
http://china.si.umich.edu/econ495/writings/paper/potter.html#fn3ret
Read thru this not forgetting to click on note 3.
They claim it got started in 1934 and not 1920 as your article states.
And indeed this appearently is the problem as nobody knows for sure
when the notion of phone company monopoly started BUT,
this article claims it started with Universal Service, which is a NOTION
and not an actual law.
Note in II. History we see Michael Schrage, writer for the L.A. Times
quoted Al Gore in saying that the NOTION of universal service has been
a part of American history since the day's of Ben Franklin's post office.
Then we read at the top of the paragraph where they say "Universal Service"
as a social institution was passed into a law in 1934, in that the telephone
companies must "PROVIDE THEIR WARES TO EVEN THE POOREST MEMBERS OF SOCIETY".
But to say this is a grant of monopoly is foolish as there is no market
anti competition clause. It just says they have to provide everybody with
phone service, that's all! Then it goes on to talk about FDR comming in
later with the NEW DEAL to offer rural electric power.
Then you read NOTE 3 and you know that there was never a monopoly granted.
The phone company just thought they had one as they were told they
had to server all American's rich and poor. But they were subsidised for
that. Subsidised efforts don't construe a monopoly either.
NOTE 3 again!
As you go thru the entire document you see that "Universal Service" dies
just 20 years into the program and is replaced with a voucher program.
Again, no mention of a 50's era monopoly here either.
It should be noted that the passing of the 1934 "Universal Service Act"
is the actual birth of another well known organization known as the
Federal Communications Commission, a regulatory agency.
Then we jump to this link to read about the actual breakup trial.
http://www.navyrelics.com/tribute/bellsys/decisiontodivest.html
In 1934 the Communications Act was passed by the U.S.
Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, creating the Federal Communications Commission.
Part of its purpose was to regulate telecommunications "in
the public interest"-a phrase that, incidentally, has no
legal definition that can be cited as a yardstick. One of the
FCC's missions was, in the words of the 1934 act, "to make
available, so far as is possible, to all the people of the
United States, a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide
wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities
at reasonable charges."
All of a sudden you see the word NATURAL MONOPOLY used.
You don't see legal or legalized MONOPOLY. You see
natural Monopoly and phrases out of AT& T like this.
Within AT&T, this explicit mission was reinforced by a
corporate culture that evolved within the company under
Theodore N. Vail, the business's general manager and its
president from 1907 to 1919, whose philosophy became a
corporate motto that stood for decades: "One policy, one
system, universal service."
In my next article, I will attempt to find the actual
link to the trail in 1975 where AT&T argues to the Judge
presiding that they were a LEGAL MONOPOLY and the Judge
throws the argument out citing that the FCC has no JURISDICTION
to CREATE ANY MONOPOLY.
And then I will cite links which allowed the creation of MCI,
SPRINT and also companies like FED-EX!
I'm going to do this because I think it's NECESSARY READING
FOR EVERYBODY HERE.
Not just because they think I'm full of shit and need to be
on the Art Bell program.
I just feel it's good reading and it gives you the spirit
to watch the Impending Microsoft Breakup when it hit's the
Supreme Court.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:22:49 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Scott Gardner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 03:50:59 -0500, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Joel Barnett wrote:
>>>
>>> Dr. Peanut wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>
>>What part of "You *CANNOT* buy a computer without Mafia$oft shitware" do
>> you not fucking understand...
>
> I haven't been forced to buy a MS operating system since 1990.
Unless you buy a laptop.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Tim Jarman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Non-Microsoft Copyright Code in Windows 2000 Professional
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 01:29:08 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam
Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, I know. This could have been done much more efficiently in Perl. I
> just have to understand how to do it :-)
>
> Regards,
> Adam
Or even more efficiently in Python...
regards
Tim Jarman
balder.prohosting.com/tmjarman
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:49:20 +1300
Hi Martigan,
> I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
> 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
> other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
GNOME has a superior architecture. KDE is more polished.
GNOME's greater potential explains why a lot of big development support is
going the way of GNOME:
HP to use Gnome Interface
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4683471.html
"[Gnome] also has been embraced by Sun Microsystems for its Solaris
version of Unix."
etc.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2530760.html
"As expected , a raft of corporations today announced membership in the
newly created Gnome Foundation that will control the interface. The
companies include Sun Microsystems and Hewlett-Packard, both of which will
gradually make Gnome the default interface for their versions of Unix.
Also on board are TurboLinux, Red Hat, Compaq Computer, IBM, Eazel, Helix
Code, VA Linux Systems, Henzai, Gnumatic and two nonprofit
organizations--the Object Management Group and the Free Software
Foundation."
I use Gnome. I wish to see Gnome develop. And I wish KDE developers all
the best with their desktop and applications.
Thankfully since the licensing problems with the Qt library have been
resolved there is no longer a free software issue.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How would you do this with Linux ?
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 20:55:01 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============3768A06152F1BC6C8013DF21
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
peter wrote:
>
> I've talk to a few small business and some STILL use a paper inventory
> system...WOW, so a smart, knowledgable person could go in and automate
> many facets of their business for very little cost (by using the right
> tools, etc).
>
> If I wanted to go into a business/factory (lets say a computer maker,
> furniture maker, or whatever) and automate the tracking of the work in
> progress and the finished the finished goods inventory.
>
> Of course, lets assume that they do not have a computerized inventory
> system, that everything is done in paper.
>
> So, using linux, we are going to set this up for the management and
> the workers.
>
> Let's look at this from:
>
> Hardware Side-
>
> So one or two servers, a few dumb telnet style machines for the
> workers to enter data directly into the database server.
Try 1 server with some low-cost linux workstations - terminals are very
hard to
find and Pentium 66 machines can be purchased used for about $40 with a
14" monitor
running about $30. Obviously a bit more memory would be nice, 32 meg
would cost
about $30 and would speed things up quite a bit. Use Komander web
browsers and
keep the Javascript very simple. Use default fonts and values for the
forms. The
resulting user interface will be comparable to most web sites.
The server doensn't have to be spectacular either. A Pentium 200 should
be more
than enough to handle the needs of up to 100 users. Certainly, this is
more than
enough for a small furniture company.
You might want a second server to co-host with a web site server. These
can be rsynced
so that they can prepare their copy locally and then have it replicated
to the server.
I'd probably use PostreSQL instead of MySQL since you want to do
inventory.
Then use PHP to create inventory entry forms. The "Internal" server can
serve fonts and
files. The cohosting server can function as a back-up system. These
servers don't have to
be dazzling either.
Obviously, you want to offer the advantages of B2B commerce.
> OR
>
> Use a Web style interface (win98 boxes), and a linux server running
> the database, etc.
Ironically, the Linux workstations will be simpler, more cost-effective
for
"point of service" environments.
> OR
> Software Side-
>
> Linux Server, Linux dumb terminals, Oracle or some "free" database
> (MySQL).
Linux dumb terminals? Why? Linux can be functional in "point of
service" environments
using as little as 8 meg, you can either keep a small local hard drive
or boot off the network. With SAMBA shares or NFS shares, you could
keep local storage to a minimum. You would probably
want some local storage for swap space and for some locally cached
information, what is typically known as the root, and var partitions.
Given than 1 gig hard drives run as little as $20 each at computer
fairs, Linux would be easy to implement on very cheap hardware.
The biggest expense of this project would be the initial transition from
the paper records
to the electronic records. Since most such records are usually
handwritten, scanner input
isn't likely to be practical. On the other hand, you might be able to
use via-voice for linux to enter data using voice-input. This may
upgrade your machine requirements since you will need a faster machine
for voice recognition, but the investment could be recovered very
quickly
(savings of voice entry over manual entry).
Keep the decorations simple, this will reduce the need for faster
ethernet cards.
The 10/T cards should be plenty fast for this application. With cards
running
about $15-$20 and hubs or switches running $30-50, a cluster of 5
workstations
can be configured for about $200 including cables. Ironically, the
biggest
expense of the network will be drilling holes in the correct walls and
fishing
the cable. You might consider wireless modems, but that will cost a bit
more.
> Or
>
> Linux server and win98 for the workers (web based, to make it easy for
> them to enter data, etc).
As mentioned before, web browsers work very well as data entry tools.
This can be used
to accelerate input. Some light javascript can be used to validate data
if you wish,
and the HTML forms are cheap.
> MISC-
>
> If this is a small company, 20-40 people, how much equipment would
> they need...Now, what if it's a large company, would WIN2K or Unix be
> a better choice and also use some professional inventory control
> software ?
How many people would actually be doing workstation entry? In typical
franchise operations, the sales staff, management, and accounting need
workstations/terminals. The sales staff needs smart customer service
terminals which allow them to quickly look up information on the CRM
database. The accountant needs needs access to the financial records,
and management needs general access to both the database records and
"free-form" content generators for E-mail (send HTML formatted e-mail or
links to pages on the web site. The purchasing department needs the
ability to make purchases via web browser and the ability to send
automated purchase orders when inventory falls below certain preset
thresholds.
There are quickbooks-like accounting packages for Linux, and there are a
number of consulting firms who provide Linux based CRM, SCM, and Portals
for B2B, B2C, and B2E requirements. If you have a much larger budget,
you could consider something like SAP or PeopleSoft, but this would
probably be quite a bit more expensive.
The types of applications you are discussing involve modelling the
existing business model and transforming the system from "paper on
nails" to relational databases. Most databases have some good
templates, and there are some good boiler plate tools available through
a number of different resources including the CPAN, PHP, Zope, Oracle,
DB2, and Sybase web sites. There are also good consultants who can
provide Linux based solutions. Even Anderson, PWC, E&Y, and EDS have
Linux based solutions (actually Linux ports of UNIX solutions).
Two years ago, you, or someone like you asked a similar question and the
options were very limited. Today, there are a number of options, and
many consulting firms are finding that
Linux provides an extremely valuable body of intellectual capital that
they can use to accelerate the solution development process.
The overall cost can range from $100,000 and $30,000 / year for
consulting and off-site Linux support (not even an option for NT), to
nearly $500K and $100K/year for a PWC. This breaks down to rougly
$3,000 in hardware, $400 in software, and roughly 1000 staff-hours of
consulting
and roughly 700 staff-hours per year for telephone and user support.
Put another way,
6 staff months (2 people 3 months) for consulting (modelling existing
system, customizing
the software, training staff, establishing support procedures.
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============3768A06152F1BC6C8013DF21
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============3768A06152F1BC6C8013DF21==
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:57:44 -0800
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:02:13 -0800,
> Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ray Chason wrote:
> >
> >> "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> >> >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how to
do
> >> >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> >> >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.
>
> Why don't you tell us what he should have done and what "help" he
> would have gotten on alt.os.windows2000 other that being told to
> reboot. It seems an offending process was eating 95-100% CPU and
> Windows simply wouldn't let him kill it.
>
Can't say what help he would have got if he had posted to
alt.os.windows2000. My crystal ball is in the shop.
> >>
> >> But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to
RTFM?
> >
> >No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.
>
> With Win2K you have to pay extra for decent documention, and you still
> don't have access to the OS internals. A sad story for an OS already costs
> more, is less stable, and is at least as difficult to administer.
>
Perhaps so, but all this is known in advance of the purchase, so why
complain after the fact ?
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:59:22 -0800
"Brent R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Joel Barnett wrote:
> >
> > Ray Chason wrote:
> >
> > > "Joel Barnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >If you actually need help with a W2k problem you might try
> > > >alt.os.windows2000. Of course, if all you are saying is "I know how
to do
> > > >something in *nix, I don't know how to do it in W2k, therefore W2k
> > > >sucks", I guess you came to the right place.
> > >
> > > But isn't Windoze supposed to be the OS that doesn't require you to
RTFM?
> >
> > No matter what OS you use, you should read the manual.
>
> But, with Windows, TINFM. There Is No Fscking Manual. When you buy a MS
> product (which I don't know anyone who has), all you get is a giant box
> with one CD and a tiny little pamphlet telling you how to cut and paste.
> It hardly let's someone go to the depth that they may desire.
>
That's true and it's no secret. If you want to buy W2k, it's probably a good
idea to add on the cost of a book. If the price is too high, don't buy it.
> --
> Happy Trails!
>
> -Brent
>
> http://rotten168.home.att.net
jbarntt
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: 2 Mar 2001 20:09:03 -0600
Oh really? I don't see anyone arguing with the IDC facts ...
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jon Johanson wrote:
>
> < nothing new >
>
> Well, since you´re one of the faster win-guys here, you are just 2 days
> late. This bogus stuff is already dissected as completely BS.
>
> Next time come with something interesting.
>
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
> dumb to handle the real thing.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
