Linux-Advocacy Digest #635, Volume #32 Sun, 4 Mar 01 11:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jay Maynard)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (pip)
Re: Linux Joke (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Why can't Apple do it? (Mike Flournoy)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (pip)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Nico Coetzee)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Norman D. Megill)
Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum? (Tim Hanson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why can't Apple do it? (Marcel Weiher)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
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: 4 Mar 2001 14:18:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:26:24 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I believe you don't have to modify the work to change the license.
>Besides the origional is not necessarily easy to obtain.
If you do not change the work, you are not its author, and so you can
neither claim nor enforce a copyright on it. You cannot, therefore, change
the license under which it is distributed and make it stick - or else the
multitudes calling for GPVing the BSD codebase would have done so already.
The BSDL, or any other truly free license, is permanent for the code to
which it is applied.
>Choice is only one measure of freedom. there are others.
All freedom boils down to choice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 4 Mar 2001 14:23:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 23:11:43 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One man's freedom is another mans prison. Perspective has a very important role
>in the definition of freedom. Should southern plantation owners have had the
>freedom to run their farms as they see fit, or was slavery infringing on
>another's freedom?
Nice try, but even I (who considers himself a Southern gentleman) do not
support the idea of slavery - for it does indeed harm others without their
consent. Talk about persective: How does the BSD license even come close to
the evil of slavery?
>The BSD license is anarchy. A person can contribute code to the world. Someone
>else can build upon this work, and not contribute. This means that someone is
>gaining an advantage from something they do not own.
As long as they are not harming you without your consent, they are not
infringing on your freedom. You, by your insistence on the GPV, are
infringing on others' freedom to profit from the fruits of their own labors
by dictating the terms under which they can do so. This is not freedom. It
is Communism.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 4 Mar 2001 14:25:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:21:58 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted:
>> I wish Jay and others would give the GNU crowd this one and limit their
>> protest to the use of quotes on "free". If someone licenses proprietary
>> software at no cost (as with the GPL), it is truthful English, if not
I have not seen the message Edward and others are quoting; it may have been
cancelled.
>You can accuse GPL of not being free but it is in no way proprietary (not
>according to my dictionaries definition).
I don't have an opinion here; can someone forward me the original message?
It would not be beyond the FSF to argue by redefinition, as they already do.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:48:19 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > > There's absolutely NOTHING stopping people from buying Linux or BeOS
> > > seperately.
> >
> > Yes, there is. If someone gets an OS automatically loaded on the
> > system, the impulse is to look no further for another OS.
>
> That's not actually STOPPING them, that's just laziness.
Consider this, Pete: If Windows weren't mandatory, the salesperson
would have to offer a choice: Windows 95, 95-SR2, 98, 98-SR1, ME,
Windows XP ("Xtra Profits"), 2000 Pro, 2000 Pro with SP1, some
brand of Linux, some brand of BSD, BeOS.
Of course, we know that inertia and laziness, as well as the many
fragmented versions of Windows, would lead to some sort of
Microsoft selection. But there would be some people who would
opt for something else, and then actually not have to pay for
a hidden Microsoft selection.
Excuse me, not Microsoft... Crimosoft.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:50:26 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Once they've bought Windows, of course. Microsoft gets compensated nicely
> > that way. :-)
>
> You can still buy a blank PC.
>
> --
> Pete
The average Office-Depot shopping jerk cannot. And such comprise the
bulk of the consumer market.
To be fair, having a Windoze-only choice makes it simpler, if more
expensive, for the Office-Depot owner-jerk.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:49:29 +0000
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> I start freaking out. There's something I can't stand about Windows,
> but I can't figure it out. I have to have a command line, and when I
> can't have a command line, I can feel my brain cells start to stagnate.
> I suffer from sensory deprivation. Windows just seems devoid of all
> intellectual activities.
start->run "command"
>I can run
> top and ps and find out exactly what is running, and where it is
> running.
If you use WinNT you can also trivially find this info
>I get an exact number for CPU usage and memory consumption of
> any process or application, and what state each process it is in. But
> most of all, I don't have to hit control+alt+delete, and try to guess
> which instance of a program is hanging.
that will be the one that says "progname [not responding]"
>And furthermore, when I kill
> something, it dies right then and there.
It sends a signal to the app - and gives it time to exit gracefully
>With Windows, you never know
> if something is going to die or not, and if you've even got the correct
> instance of the app you want to kill.
You do, unless you are stupid.
> Unix is an example of an operating system that was designed properly the
> first time.
It was. But it was designed in a different era. That is why Linux
departs in many aspects.
>Windows 9x and NT seem amateurish by design.
Are they? The guy in charge of WindowsNT also did Digital VAX.
>They are
> designs that assume every computer user is an idiot, and that all
> computer users like using something just because a company tells you
> it's good, or because it's popular.
How does it do this?
> Windows has gotten better, but its design is indeed amateurish compared
> to unix.
In many respects Unix is amateurish. Toolkits, printing subsystems and
GUI all lack behind at the moment. Of course things are changing FAST
and great programming toolkits are now available (read GTK+).
You are only demonstrating that you don't understand windows are brand
it stupid. I am not convinced that it is Windows that is.
Of course windows is restricting in MANY ways - but this gibberish above
just goes to show how some Linux users are absolutely blind to the good
points in the Windows OS. In contrast Linux is a fanastic OPEN system -
but before you pat yourself on the back - just remember that is still
crap in many areas and until these get properly solved then you'd better
not knock "products" that do solve these problems for "normal" users.
They may not be GPL - but they do work.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Joke
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:00:13 GMT
Keldon Warlord 2000 wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Q. Why does the Linux user constantly obtain
> > upgrades of the kernel and other OS facilities?
> >
> > A. Because he can.
>
> wrong answer.
>
> the real answer is: because he has to.
Allright! I was waiting for some dumb lamer to come
up with that retort, so I could spring this one:
No, that's the answer to the question "Why does the Windows
NT/2000 user always obtain the next Service Pack".
yeeee haaaa!
By the way, note that Service Pack is essentially
a butt-fucking by Bill Gates.
Chris
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
From: Mike Flournoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:47:09 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Rudd at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
on 3/4/01 7:58 AM:
< snip >
> In a sense, subscription based computing is a step backwards in
> computing history, not a step forward. What you're basically talking
> about is the same type of situation that people had with mainframes.
> They'd build up a batch, and then send the batch off to be processed by
> a mainframe. They'd pay expensive amounts of money for mainframe time,
> and do as much as they could without taking up time on the mainframe.
> The growth of powerful local processing on PCs is precisely what killed
> this processing model. Subscription based computing in the modern sense
> will give high end processing projects a more powerful means of using
> the mainframe model than they had before, but it's not a valuable model
> for the consumer user.
Back when you paid per minute for AOL (or Compuserve or Internet ) AOL came
up with a way for you to download your E-Mails, read offline, Write offline,
and then with one click upload/download ( update your offline file ) in
about 2 minutes of connect time. This was a great selling point for AOL and
the main reason I stayed with them until unlimited became available.
Back then being online felt like a trip in a NY taxi, the ticker was always
going in the back of my head. 3 out of 4 times that I had the impulse to go
surfing I told myself no and walked away.
If MS goes .net and there is a viable alternative that is unrestricted
(Linux, Apple, Beos, NewDeal) .net will die.
> And to bring it back to the original point, that means that consumers
> WILL still be pushing PC makers to build bigger and faster computers to
> run bloatware 2010, play Quake XVII with a true immersive environment,
> and to make home movies that are more creative and visually stunning
> than the entire Star Wars series of movies. They wont send their home
> movies off to be rendered on a CPU farm, they wont send their
> spreadsheet data out to be calculated on CPU farms, and they wont pay
> per-cpu charges to play games of ever increasing complexity. They will
> demand home computers with ever more power to handle their local
> processing needs and desires.
So where is the program that makes it easy for me to make my own game? My
own application? That kicks open the doors to creativity? I don't want to
make movies but I want to use the computer to express my creativity. Where
is the modern Hypercard that could shine on this new hardware? Why am I
still fighting with a machine that insists I talk to it with it's language?
Damn it, the modern machine is at least 62 times faster than my Mac Plus
( 62 times! ) but I still have to bend to it's will. ( Speech recognition
only replaces the keyboard, it doesn't change the underlieing tool kit. )
My point is we have the power already but it's being pissed away on
immersive envirnments and faster shoot-em-ups. Why should I chase longingly
after ever faster hardware if the incredible stuff we have right now isn't
being used?
> 2 way and 4 way personal computers have already happened (and that 4 way
> personal computer only died because Apple ended the clone program). To
> reject that the leap to a 16 way personal computer wont happen in the
> next 10 years is pretty short sighted. It truely is up there infamous
> industry quotes like the IBM top exec who predicted that the world wide
> global market for computers was some small 2 digit number (IIRC), or
> Gates' quote about 640k being all the memory anyone would ever need.
We all know Bill only said that because it was all he had to offer and what
MS has to offer defines the limits of the universe.
> Subscription based computing will have a place, but it wont eclipse the
> growth of the desktop system.
I agree. If your boss insists on using Excel and you need to do make up
work from home it might make sense to rent Excel at $2.00 for a weekend
every once in awhile instead of buying it for $200. Especially if this is
made exceedingly easy to do.
On reflection I think that defines the ideal consumer application - Cheap
and Exceedingly easy. And why not?
Mike
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:02:17 +0000
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> I've never had one. I can even kill this process:
>
> main{
> while(!fork())
> }
The fork bomb :-)
> Could you back this with more than 1 example. The cli tools + piping is
> one axample of a very elegant design o parts pulling in the same
> direction.
Elegant? You must be kidding me.
So tell me this:
taskA > taskB
how does taskB communicate the results of its operation to taskA?
Enter CORBA Gnome architecture to fix up broken thinking such as this.
How was that inspired - guess - M$
Component programming is clearly the way to go. Small is beautiful, but
only when it is also smart.
> WinNT is no way as good as UNIX.
For what? As a workstation it may be better but as a server it is not.
Depends what you value.
>That's why Micros~1 is trying to make it
> in to a UNIX.
How?
> Oh yeah. I can't live without the drop-shadow cursor and fading menus.
Yeah - they are an incredibly stupid addition - but at least you can
turn them off.
>
> > air; in Linux everything is old and crumbling and reeks of yesterday.
>
> What fresh air. Are GNOME and KDE older than windows?
Quite so - and this is a VERY good point. If you want to see innovation
then THESE are great examples of how Linux continues to be the most
innovative part of computer software today! If people start criticising
the GUI then they may well note that Andy Hertzfield involved in making
the next generation of file-manager that will be _better_ than anything
mac or windows users have seen.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 17:23:58 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> I start freaking out. There's something I can't stand about Windows,
> but I can't figure it out. I have to have a command line, and when I
> can't have a command line, I can feel my brain cells start to stagnate.
> I suffer from sensory deprivation. Windows just seems devoid of all
> intellectual activities.
>
> When I run Windows, I get this closed-in, claustrophobic feeling. With
> Linux, I feel as if I have more space to roam intellectually. I feel as
> though I am free, frolicking out in a spacious field someplace, using
> the window manager I want to use, the toolkit I want to use. I can run
> top and ps and find out exactly what is running, and where it is
> running. I get an exact number for CPU usage and memory consumption of
> any process or application, and what state each process it is in. But
> most of all, I don't have to hit control+alt+delete, and try to guess
> which instance of a program is hanging. And furthermore, when I kill
> something, it dies right then and there. With Windows, you never know
> if something is going to die or not, and if you've even got the correct
> instance of the app you want to kill.
>
> Unix is an example of an operating system that was designed properly the
> first time. Windows 9x and NT seem amateurish by design. They are
> designs that assume every computer user is an idiot, and that all
> computer users like using something just because a company tells you
> it's good, or because it's popular.
>
> In Windows, I am locked into a stale, closed, but yet comfortable room
> with no windows and no fresh air. With unix, I am frolicking in the
> wide-open field, doing the activities I want to do, not what some idiot
> company feels I should be using.
>
> Windows has gotten better, but its design is indeed amateurish compared
> to unix.
>
> -----= 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! =-----
What you experience is the classic symptoms of someone who paid to much
for nothing.
It's not really the command line - it's more about looking for tools
that should be there, but it's not there. Or if it's there, it just does
not have the depth of functionality you expect from an expensive OS.
Furthermore theres the total lack of individualism in the whole Windows
Experience. You are literally forced in certain directions - like active
desktop in 98. Ya, the winlosers will now post something on how easy it
is to switch off, but why not give the user the option on first
installation or first log on? At least all the Linux Window Managers
starts with a basic settings, and from there you can add to your harts
content as you get to know your environment better.
We have multiple desktops now for how long? And this is probably the
most irritating thing for me when I have to work on a Windows machine -
theres only one damn desktop! It clutters so quickly, you soon feel
lost, even though you might have 20 odd years experience with computers!
The XP thing also does not look good on the eye to me - we will just
have to wait and see how the marketing people will sell it - definitely
not on looks!
Well, maybe one day we will no longer be forced to use Windows (as in
many company policies). I can't wait.
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
It is true that if your paperboy throws your paper into the bushes for
five
straight days it can be explained by Newton's Law of Gravity. But it
takes
Murphy's law to explain why it is happening to you.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:10:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Sharing with your friends so that they
> can make copies" is *NOT* authorized copying under the copyright
> laws...OF ANY PERIOD in US history.
This is a common misconception that the RIAA wants you to believe. In
fact making a copy of an audio recording is perfectly legal in the US,
even if you don't own the original recording, as long as it is for
noncommercial purposes. The reason for this is the Audio Home Recording
Act (AHRA).
Since 1992, the U.S. Government has collected a tax on all digital
audio recorders and blank digital audio media manufactured in or
imported into the US, and gives the money directly to the RIAA
companies, which is distributed as royalties to recording artists,
copyright owners, music publishers, and music writers:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.text.html
In exchange for those royalties, a special exemption to the copyright
law was made for the specific case of audio recordings, and as a result
*all* noncommercial copying of musical recordings by consumers is now
legal in the US, regardless of media:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1008.html
"No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a
digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an
analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the
noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making
digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."
The intent of Congress was clear when this law was passed:
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1993-01/0018.html :
>From House Report No. 102-873(I), September 17, 1992:
"In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all
noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical
recordings."
>From House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4, 1992:
"In short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly
establish that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital
audio copies for private noncommercial use."
Therefore, when you copy an MP3 the royalties have already been paid for
with tax dollars in accordance with the law. If you are a musician
whose recordings are publicly distributed, then you are entitled to your
share of these royalties by filing a claim under Section 1006
( http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1006.html ).
Now, this law does not apply to Napster, which is a commercial company.
But as a consumer you are perfectly within your rights when you make a
copy for noncommercial private use.
--Norm
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is there a real purpose to this forum?
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:17:38 GMT
pip wrote:
>
> Tim Hanson wrote:
> >
> > Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <iZsh6.339615$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "KLH"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is there a real purpose to this forum?
> > >
> > > 1) To advocate ( or dis-advocate ) Linux.
> > >
> > > 2) To keep all that crap out of the other forums.
> >
> > 3) Waste time.
> >
> > 4) Procrastinate my weekend chores.
>
> 5) to argue for the sake of it
>
> 6) as a programming break
>
> 7) better than crap game shows on TV
>
> 8) keeps us of the streets
>
> 9) INN "testing"
>
> 10) to say to some people - "hey there is this wonderful open OS that
> you can use" and to say to others that "in many respects it sucks".
> Having polarized views is bad for Linux.
11) I exceeded the 25 meg daily limit on the news server I use for
porno.
--
Teamwork is essential -- it allows you to blame someone else.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 15:42:19 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:01:03 GMT, Ed Allen wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>
>>>Linux can be had for free. This isn't better prices?
>>
>>No, it can't be "had for free". You either need to have a high bandwidth
>>connection, or you need to pay for it. And no one sells Linux for free.
>>
>>In particular, when Linux *is* sold by a company, it usually goes
>>for $40-80
>>
> Those companies are selling the support to get running and to help
> identify and work around unusual hardware.
I'd argue that Windows is as eassy to install without tech support than Linux
is with it.
> The same CD which you get from RedHat with a nice manual can be had
> from CheapBytes for $1.98
No, the Cheapbytes CD only includes the downloadable stuff.
BTW, do you really expect them to compete with downloadable CDs ? I find
it more realistic that they'd try to compete with the box sets, and
commercial OSs on price.
> What is the low end of the Windows price ?
>
> I thought that was supposed to be the "consumer oriented" Windows ME
> at $180.00
No. You can't have it both ways -- either their oprice is $180 OR they
have enormous sales volume. Since most of their sales are OEM based,
they don't sell many copies at $180-.
> MS does not sell versions older than two back because the tiny
> improvements,
I bet you can't buy RH 4.2 from redhat.com either. Who cares ? They
don't sell those versions because they're old. You can always buy them
somewhere else. The "tiny improvements" claim is not backed up by any
factual data, you're basically airing your personal bias here. From what
EF has posted about the number of lines of code in the different versions,
a lot of work has gone into them. You may not find the new features
useful, but that doesn't mean they aren't there.
> You seem to want a single facet to be pointed out and be able to say
> that defines the monopoly.
I am not saying this at all. I am not even trying to argue that MS don't have a
monopoly.
What I am saying is that the "MS's prices are too high" claim is
unsubstantiated nonsense.
>>I bet you would find that a lot of people who really understand economics
>>more than any usenet crank would disagree with you.
>>
> You mean like the ones hired to give speeches at the "seminars" for
> Federal Judges where they claim that single producers can make goods
> more efficiently and that monopolies are "good" for consumers ?
If you're claiming that anyone who's knowledgeable and appears to disagree with
Max has somehow been bribed, well suffice it to say that I find such an absurd
conspiracy theory very hard to believe.
The funny thing is that the price whiners have been putting forth a very
convincing argument that a monopoly is more efficient -- the argument
is that the production costs are more or less fixed, so the production
cost per unit goes down with sales volume. Some people have also cited
fear of competitors entering the market as a reason for them keeping
their price where it is. This would indicate that even a "monopoly" has
price pressure on it. I think it would be difficult to argue that the
mere existence of a monopoly is doing any harm to consumers.
However, what the knee-jerk MS bashers have lost sight of is that MS are
not in court for being a monopoly. Being a monopoly is not in itself
illegal. So a case against MS based on the mantra "monopoly bad" is
completely irrelevant to the MS vs DOJ case.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcel Weiher)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
Date: 4 Mar 2001 15:43:24 GMT
Mike Flournoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[bone-headed-ness of subscription-based software]
> If MS goes .net and there is a viable alternative that is unrestricted
>(Linux, Apple, Beos, NewDeal) .net will die.
I couldn't agree more.
[local CPU power]
> So where is the program that makes it easy for me to make my own game?
Well, I don't know if it is ever going to be 'easy'.
>My own application? That kicks open the doors to creativity? I don't want to
>make movies but I want to use the computer to express my creativity. Where
>is the modern Hypercard that could shine on this new hardware? Why am I
>still fighting with a machine that insists I talk to it with it's language?
There are people who are working on this. My current approach is to
treat 'programming' as just one very specialized means of accomplishing
a much more general goal, which is providing 'abstractions' to others,
or to put it another way, another way to package know-how so others
can use it without necessarily posessing that know-how.
So, for example, a designer should be able to package some of his
design knowledge and ship it to customers, in the form of something
resembling today's applications. That isn't really possible today.
[..]
> On reflection I think that defines the ideal consumer application - Cheap
>and Exceedingly easy. And why not?
The poblem, I think, is that Exceedingly Easy is incompatible with being
"universal". Therefore, apps that want to be exceedingly easy will have
to be more specialized. Of course, having specialized apps instead of
generalized monster suites breaks MS's business model.
Marcel
--
Java and C++ make you think that the new ideas are like the old ones.
Java is the most distressing thing to hit computing since MS-DOS.
- Alan Kay -
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:43:40 GMT
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 21:42:08 -0500, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
> Only 95% are forced to buy windows? Why not 100%?? What is different
> about the five percent that they are exempt from being "FORCED" to buy
> windows?
Presumably they bought Macs instead of PC's.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
