Linux-Advocacy Digest #614, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Something Seemingly Simple. ("Edward Rosten")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Peter Hayes)
Re: I am Bobert the Great! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Peter Hayes)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (pip)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Non-Microsoft Copyright Code in Windows 2000 Professional ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
("Edward Rosten")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("JS PL")
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Charles Lyttle)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("JD")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 11:53:53 +0000
>> You are only considering the freedom of the distributer and not the
>> receiver (ignoring the case wherer the receiver is also the
>> distributer, for the moment).
>
> Yes, please consider the receiver when the receiver is anyone other than
> a program developer himself, and wants working software, software that
> interoperates with other things that may be propriatary and may be
> willing to pay for it. How is this person's ability to obtain and use
> the well-tested free portion of the code as a part of the program he
> actually wants affected?
Not everyone in the world has free or broadband access. If I bought
something and got sent the CDs (without source code) I would not have the
code. When I don't have boradband access, it would not be proctical to
download BSD for me to look at the code. Whereas, I paid for Linux on CD
and got the code too. This point is especially important for most places
in the world, since most places do not have unmetered access.
>> The free licenses are more free than the GPL for the distributer since
>> there are fewer restrictions.
>
> And for the recipient.
No. The recipient may receive it with restrictions.
>> However, those licenses enable the distributer to place restrictions on
>> the code, so for the person receiving it it will not be as free.
>
> Beg your pardon, but it those things will be non-existant with GPL
> code. I don't see how people mange to confuse that with 'more free'.
I don't follow. The GPL disallows more restrictions, so the software
maintains its level of freedom, where as the other ones can lose it.
> Judge the freedom of the recipient by the number of choices he can make.
There are many ways to judge freedom. i'm using a different judge of it
from you. That is why comparing freedom in this way is fruitless since
there are so many ways to interpret it or judge it.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:07:42 +0000
>> >> I mean, ignoring the obvious and inane, like "run 32 bit apps" or
>> >> "click the start button", assuming you haven't installed any apps at
>> >> all, what bonuses does ME give you over 3.0?
>> >
>> > I'm not really sure what you're looking for. What can you do in Red
>> > Hat
>> > 7.0 that you couldn't do in 6.2? What can you do in MacOS 9 that you
>> > couldn't do in 8?
>>
>> Why do you post time and time again without doing any research. By
>> comparing the package lists, RH7 has 55 more packages than RH6. I can't
>> be bothered to find out which ones they are, but you are free to look
>> if you choose.
>
> Those were rhetorical questions. The original poster (Craig, I think)
> asked a similar question.
You looked verty much like you were trying to make a point
>> > Well, there are many new applets. ME does include a Windows Movie
>> > Maker, Wordpad, HyperTerminal, disk defragmenter, Windows Media
>> > Player,
>>
>> Win3.11 had Write and a disk defragmenter (under DOS which was required
>> for Win311) and IIRC it included hyperterminal too.
>
> Write did not read Word documents, and had a much lower capacity.
> Win3.11 didn't have a disk defragmenter, DOS did.. and what if you used
> DOS 5?
No, I know that. But you have to have DOS to use Win311. If you have DOS
you have a defragemnter. If you run Win311, you can defragment your disk.
>> > Personal Web Server, Plug N Play, Thousands of devices that WIndows
>> > 3.x
>>
>> The personal webserver is not worth the disk space its on. The
>> thousands of devices didn't exist when win311 was around so I don't
>> think that current drivers are a fiar comparison. Besides, given a
>> driver disk, those devices would run under Win311.
>
> Someone else used new device drivers and USB to describe what was new in
> 2.4, why can't I?
Windows just has to rely on manufactures for most drivers. Linux has to
rely on the community. The circumstances are quite different.
> And PWS works just fine. It's not feature laden, but it's a personal
No it doesn't. And its not new. There was some personal web sharing on
Win95.
> web server... claiming the quality of the app disqualifies it is rather
> shaky ground for a Linux advocate to take, since the vast majority of
> the apps that come with Linux are of questionable quality (90% of the
> window managers are very buggy for instance).
Thats just a lie. If you get a stable distro (such as debian stable) most
things will be of high quality. Why do you keep posting wild and
incorrect claims?
>> > can't use, such as Winmodems and the like, DirectX, etc...
>> Win311 can use winmodems given the correct drivers.
>
> Really? Then it should be quite easy to post a link to a winmodem that
> lists Win 3.1 or greater as a requirement.
Win311 doesn't provide any support for Winmodems than Win9X does. The
support is in the manufacturers drivers.
-ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Something Seemingly Simple.
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:24:28 +0000
>> This is about on a par with "Can I drive my car down Main Street while
>> wearing a blindfold?" There may, in fact, be occasions where this even
>> makes sense, such as if you happen to be a professional show driver and
>> are currently giving a show, but in the general case, the answer is a
>> firmly resounding "NO!"
>>
>> FWIW, I actually *did* use a replacement printf() function in some code
>> I wrote, way way back. And yes, it did what I wanted.... on that
>> particular compiler, configured a *very* particular way.
>
> Thank you for conceding my point that, yes, you CAN write your own
> printf.
NO
Not in general. Under some compilers, you can. If you want your code to
be portable you CAN NOT.
> That which is not strictly prohibited is allowed.
Anything that leads to implementation defined behaviour is allowed but
not reccomended. If may work, it may crach it might not compile or it
might give a warning [*]. You really should not use it, since it is not
portable.
[*]
I like the comiler on Digital UNIX (can't remember the version). I
compiled some code on a Linux box and it worked fine. I compiled it on an
SGI and it segged out. I couldn't fing the bug and I decided to try it on
a DEC. The compiler warned me about some undefined bahaviour.
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:34:25 +0000
> I'll sell you the bits All you want! Give me a list, I'll give you a
> price.
Give me a link and let me follow it.
I still contend that you can't assemble a laptop from bits.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:47:48 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2 Mar 2001 16:02:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
> >On 1 Mar 2001 04:29:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >No, they aren't. But they have competition, which limits their freedom
> >to set prices however they want. Microsoft has a lot more flexibility
> >in that regard.
>
> Perhaps. But then, I don't see much evidence that they're using that
> freedom.
>
> The argument does seem circular -- MS can price as they choose because
> they have a monopoly and they have a monopoly because they can price
> as freely as they choose.
It only appears circular to someone who is not aware of how Microsoft
achieved their dominant market position.
Since you will know this history we can only conclude that your comment is
merely a diversionary tactic, much like Microsoft claiming that they
"innovate".
Furthermore, the definition of Microsoft's monopoly doesn't solely rest on
their ability to set their prices independent of any consideration of
market forces, which is my interpretation of your statement "they can
price as freely as they choose." Microsoft's monopoly is defined by their
ability to restrict or curtail competitive activity within their field of
operations. Their ability to "price as freely as they choose" then follows.
It's not chicken and egg at all.
> >That wasn't my argument. My argument was that competitors oblige them
> >to either reduce their prices or add more value. But there haven't been
> >any competitors on the desktop.
>
> To show that MS would reduce their prices, you would need to show that
> someone else would offer much better prices. No-one's offering better
> prices at this stage.
Linux is free (in the "free beer" sense on this occasion). How much "better
prices" do you want? No, MS are able to keep their prices as high as they
are because of the illegal deals with major OEMs that generated their
stranglehold on the market.
<...>
> >> I think you'd have a hard time making a case that the sales increase
> >> resulting from further reduction in price would justify the loss of
> >> per-sale revenue.
> >
> >You certainly would, since they have 93% of the desktop market according
> >to IDC.
93% must be worrying to Microsoft, since they are running around like
headless chickens trying to manufacture a threat from Open Source
technology to disprove that they are a monopoly, even though anyone with
half a brain cell knows they are.
> >There's not a whole lot of room for growth beyond growth of the
> >market itself, which is apparently slowing.
They generate growth with "new" bloatware that 99.99999% of the market
could get along without perfectly well, but are conned into buying by MS's
marketing strategy and idiot CIOs who should know better, but are
themselves conned into buying it because their IT personnel are desperate
for job security.
Just what *will* Whistler/XP offer that 99.99999% of the PC market couldn't
do without? The lemmings will rush out and buy it anyway.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am Bobert the Great!
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:47:49 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 14:16:17 GMT, Bobert Big Bollocks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am Bobert the Great from the planet Bobertron
> Bow before me!
Been fiddling with daddy's computer again?
Now run along, mummy's got your bottle ready for your next feed.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:47:50 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 08:20:48 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <97pg2m$ce1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > I repeat, I'm surprised any OS would have multiple drivers for a
> > > printer.
> >
> > HAVE YOU NOT READ A SINGLE ONE OF MY REPLYS?!
> >
> > THE OS DOES NOT HAVE MULTIPLE DRIVERS
> >
> > THE EXTRA DRIVERS BELONG TO GIMP
> >
> > GGGGGG IIIIIIII M M PPPPPPPP
> > GG GG II MM MM PP PP
> > GG GG II MMM MMM PP PP
> > GG II MM M M MM PP PP
> > GG GGGG II MM M MM PP PP
> > GG GG II MM MM PPPPPPPP
> > GG GG II MM MM PP
> > GG GG II MM MM PP
> > GGGGGGG IIIIIIII MM MM PP
> >
> > GIMP is NOTHING at ALL to do with the OS. It is SEPERATE. It is an
> > APPLICATION. The OS does NOT provide multiple drivers. GIMP provids its
> > OWN. GIMP is NOT part of the OS.
>
> Then I will rephrase what I said.
>
> I'm surprised any OS or application needs extra or multiple drivers in
> this day an age. All the drivers (and there should just be one set) ought
> to be in the OS, not in an application. Is that clear enough for you?
I thought there weren't any drivers in the OS. You have to run Ghostscript,
CUPS, apsfilter or the like to get anything except a dump of Postscript to
the printer port.
Presumably if you have a ps printer you don't need any of these apps?
Peter
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 13:31:27 +0000
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> > Who cares?
> >
> > You're the weakest link, goodbye.
> >
>
> We could do with anne robinson investigating MS and telling everyone to use
> Linux - everyone will be too scared of her to ignore her.
Does she have to wear a penguin suit? I am not sure which would be more
scary...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 3 Mar 2001 13:34:12 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 12:47:48 +0000, Peter Hayes wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2001 16:02:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 02:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>> >On 1 Mar 2001 04:29:23 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >No, they aren't. But they have competition, which limits their freedom
>> >to set prices however they want. Microsoft has a lot more flexibility
>> >in that regard.
>>
>> Perhaps. But then, I don't see much evidence that they're using that
>> freedom.
>>
>> The argument does seem circular -- MS can price as they choose because
>> they have a monopoly and they have a monopoly because they can price
>> as freely as they choose.
>
>It only appears circular to someone who is not aware of how Microsoft
>achieved their dominant market position.
>
>Since you will know this history we can only conclude that your comment is
>merely a diversionary tactic, much like Microsoft claiming that they
>"innovate".
Don't stoop to this kind of dishonesty. I am not a Microsoft fan and never
have been. Unlike a lot of the Linux zealots, I use Linux as my OS
at home, and at work. I haven't used Windows for anything besides games
for more than 4 years.
I am just trying to make sense of an illogical argument.
>Furthermore, the definition of Microsoft's monopoly doesn't solely rest on
>their ability to set their prices independent of any consideration of
>market forces, which is my interpretation of your statement "they can
>price as freely as they choose." Microsoft's monopoly is defined by their
>ability to restrict or curtail competitive activity within their field of
>operations. Their ability to "price as freely as they choose" then follows.
>
>It's not chicken and egg at all.
So you're saying that we know that they have a monopoly, and you're stating
that this implies that their prices must be excessive because of that
monopoly (and not the converse) ?
Well we know what the prices are, and those speak for themselves.
>> To show that MS would reduce their prices, you would need to show that
>> someone else would offer much better prices. No-one's offering better
>> prices at this stage.
>
>Linux is free (in the "free beer" sense on this occasion). How much "better
>prices" do you want?
The packaged box sets are not "free". Copies of other OS's aren't "free"
either. For example, Sun gives away Solaris for "free", but the media kit
is $80.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Non-Microsoft Copyright Code in Windows 2000 Professional
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 13:42:23 +0000
Tim Jarman wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Adam
> Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I know. This could have been done much more efficiently in Perl. I
> > just have to understand how to do it :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
>
> Or even more efficiently in Python...
>
> regards
>
> Tim Jarman
> balder.prohosting.com/tmjarman
I don't know about more efficiently, but it would be prettier.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft dying, was Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:27:24 +0000
In article <OmZn6.420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:97ph28$ceo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
> IBM and Dell both sell laptops with Linux.
Not on every model.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <js@plcom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 09:31:45 -0500
"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Microsoft Big Brother InBiz wrote:
> >
> > "Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who
has
> > > >ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay
extra
> > > >for an OS they didn't want. I can't think of a time when hardware
hasn't
> > > >been available seperate from software. If you own a copy of Windows
it's
> > > That ignores the years when DOS and Windows were licensed
> > > per-processor of course.
>
> These agreements, in general, continue to this very day.
> > >
> > > The OEM paid for a license on every computer they shipped whether
it
> > > was actually loaded or not.
> >
> > That was one package available. But even at it's hieght, 60% chose that
> > route.
>
> I find that very hard to believe. I am sure the other packages were
> also some sort of illegal, anticompetitive agreement. That makes your
> statement utterly meaningless.
Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the late
1980s at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the administration of
their per system licenses. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97; Hosogi
Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less frequently
than they change other components of their systems, a per processor license
decreased the number of contract amendments that had been necessary under a
per system license due to system changes. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at
96-97; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 103-06.)
Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a royalty
on every machine shipped containing a particular processor, Microsoft
negotiated exceptions with at least twenty-seven OEMs to allow those OEMs to
ship up to ten percent of their machines containing particular processor
types without paying royalties on those machines. (See Kempin FTC Testimony
(Exh. 9) at 104-05; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 92; Apple Dep. (Exh. 10) at 23-24;
Microsoft's Second Response to Department of Justice Civil Investigative
Demand No. 10300 (excerpts attached as Exh. 21) at C001309-11.) Other OEMs
with no such exception in their per processor licenses nonetheless offered
non-Microsoft operating systems with their computers during the term of
their per processor licenses. (See, e.g., Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 111-13;
Roberts DOJ Decl. (Exh. 11) at C005864; Lieven Dep. (Exh. 12) at 187.)
During Microsoft's 1994 fiscal year - the final year in which it offered per
processor licenses - approximately 59% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM
customers were covered by per processor licenses. In fiscal year 1993,
approximately 62% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM customers were covered by
per processor licenses. The prior year, Microsoft's 1992 fiscal year,
approximately 51% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEMs were covered by per
processor licenses. Per processor licenses made up 27% in fiscal year 1991,
22% in fiscal year 1990 and smaller percentages in earlier years.
DRI similarly attempted to combat piracy by entering into exclusive OEM
licenses that required the OEM (unlike in Microsoft's per processor license)
to install and pay a royalty for DR DOS on each and every computer shipped
by the OEM. (See Vasco Dep. (Exh. 14) at 125; DiCorti 7/30/98 Dep. (Exh. 15)
at 165-71.) DRI executives have testified that these licenses were
equivalent to per processor licenses. (DiCorti 7/30/98 Dep. (Exh. 15) at
357; Gunn Dep. (Exh. 16) at 165.) Numerous examples of these DRI per
processor-type licenses are attached as exhibits to this memorandum. (See
License Agreement with ABC Computer Co. Ltd. (Exh. 26) at C0309430;
[REDACTED] ; License Agreement with Olidata SpA (Exh. 28) at A0228806;
License Agreement with Athena Informatica (Exh. 29) at A0654065.) In
addition to combating piracy, DRI had another business reason for offering
its version of the per processor license: giving the OEM customer what it
wanted. (Gunn Dep. (Exh. 16) at 166.) DRI pricing policies authorized price
discounts for OEMs that elected to bundle DR DOS with every hardware unit
shipped. (See DRI's Price List, Pricing Memoranda, and Pricing Policies
(Exh. 30) at PC9653-54.)
>
> And the OEM's were the ones asking for per processor agreements.
>
> Hahahahahahaha! What a joke! Like IBM, for instance?
Read the undisputed evidence which was presented in court above.
snip - all the - My friend told me....
> When the higher
> > court laughs this whole "monopoly" joke out of court you'll see that MS
has
> > never enjoyed even the remotest hint of being a monopoly, fool.
>
> God, what a stupid fool!!!!!! Doesn't even believe that MS in a
> monopoly! Anyone with a 50 IQ can see that.
But your IQ theory only applies to those in the 50 to 120 range. Since I'm
160 I can see the obvious. There's no possible monopoly when theres always
been a huge number of OS choices.
http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
------------------------------
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 14:36:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>Thanks for the research, Charlie.
>
>It's always cool to learn something new...especially if it utterly
>contradicts a lie you've heard so many times
>
You did not LIE.
You could SAY it was a PUBLIC OPINION at the time for 60 years and
this PUBLIC OPINION seeminly continues on to THIS DAY and I would
like it to finally die as it actually DIED in 1975.
And I think it was an argument in good faith that had not been actually
tested in a court of law, EVER! Not until 1975 did the test happen
and it was reinforced again in 1982 in another judicial legislative
slap on the hand!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:39:48 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> > I'll sell you the bits All you want! Give me a list, I'll give you a
> > price.
>
> Give me a link and let me follow it.
>
> I still contend that you can't assemble a laptop from bits.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
Do a search on wearable pc. The Jan/Feb issue of Embedded Linux Journal
has articles on building Linux small Linux boxes. The article "Smaller
Than a Paperback" has info on Jumptec's DIMM-PC, about the size of a
book of matches. The main problem you would have is packaging. Laptop
packaging isn't standard as desktop, so you will have to build your own
container. I would build one without internal cd or floppy. Just use a
"disk on a stick" for non-volitle temporary storage.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 14:54:32 GMT
JS PL wrote:
>
> But your IQ theory only applies to those in the 50 to 120 range. Since I'm
> 160 I can see the obvious. There's no possible monopoly when theres always
> been a huge number of OS choices.
> http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
Looks like your IQ score was a random deviation of a couple sigmas, then.
Imagine if the car situation were similar to the OS situation:
GMC 93%
Ford 4%
Saturn 2%
Nissan 0.5%
Toyota 0.2%
Volkswagen 0.01%
and on and on and on.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:03:12 -0500
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3aa02f71$0$28756@reader2...
> >
> > You'll often hear about the GPL being free with lots of spin that
> > morally justifies it. But no matter what, because of the contstraints,
> > it isn't free.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> Hmmm,
>
> About those constraints: I have a right to free speech, it's in my country's
> constitution. However this right is constrained by libel and slander
> laws.
>
You have a right to write software, it's in my country's constitution. There are
libel law restrictions (but seldom encountered in software.) Using the most severe
commercial license doesn't impact upon your freedom to write software.
You show an inability to refute the fact that comparing 'free speech' with 'free
software'
is nonsense, and that is typical of many of the GPL crew.
I think that further statements in your email, that I have elided, should be
considered with
the basis in fact that there is a serious problem with some people in distinguishing
between
human rights, software rights, and property. This is maybe even a medical problem.
Thorazine
is useful in helping calm the lack of such distinction.
John
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 03 Mar 2001 08:08:17 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Then I will rephrase what I said.
>
> I'm surprised any OS or application needs extra or multiple drivers in
> this day an age. All the drivers (and there should just be one set) ought
> to be in the OS, not in an application. Is that clear enough for you?
Then explain PageMaker for Windows.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
