Linux-Advocacy Digest #682, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Mar 01 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Interconnect")
Re: NT vs *nix performance ("Interconnect")
Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax) (riceman)
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (SoneoneElse)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux on it's way back to (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux on it's way back to (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (Dave)
Re: The GPL if you are curious. ("Mike")
Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For (Tim Hanson)
Re: The GPL if you are curious. ("Mike")
Re: GPL Like patents. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Tim Hanson)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Tim Hanson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft screws itself again! (Ray Chason)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Tim Hanson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[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: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:15:13 +1100
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Quantum Leaper wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >
> > > Is your IQ scored in dog points?
> >
> > Do either of you know what an IQ test really measures? (Hint it not how
> > smart you are...)
>
> You idiot.
>
> Please name *ONE* person who scores highly on IQ tests who is also a
retard.
>
Actually I believe many High Ranking individuals of the 3rd Reich of WWII
had high IQ's. Although not medically retarded, still most definately
retarded as in being a normal human being.
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[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: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:27:52 +1100
> If I set up a major web site or internet application to allow you
> and 4 million other friends of mine to download that CD, THAT
> would be a problem. =)
Only if you are in the *click* of companies milking the public for the most
$$ and offering a *small* selection of artists.
Does anyone here think that shutting down Napster will solve the recording
industries problems? Regards *free* music distribution.
------------------------------
From: riceman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: MS Price Strategy (was Microsoft Tax)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 04:27:25 GMT
Just tell 'em you have your own copy of windoze. If they won't take off the M$tax then
look else where.
WarpKat wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> > Armando Ortiz wrote:
> > >
> > > Aaron Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > > WarpKat wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I've actually asked a full $180 (or whatever the cost of Windows currently
> > > > > is) to be deducted from a laptop that I had no intention of running Windows
> > > > > on. The sales person laughed at me. I hung up. 'nuff said.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Better to talk to a supervisor, and inform said supervisor of
> > > > said order-taker's lack of customer service skills.
> > >
> > > Supervisors are glorified laugh-ats in customer service and have just about as
> > > much of a clue as a sack of wet mice.
> >
> > Then you keep going up the food chain until you get the VP of Sales.
>
> That's just it...why should I have to keep eating up the food chain for a measly
> $180 that the company can simply put elsewhere for some Windows zealot to buy?
------------------------------
From: SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...)
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 04:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: Truthteller
I agree that the limit will soon be reached, but consider this.
Last I looked PowerPCs at a comparable speed did not require
the cooling that PII's did. The fact is that as bad as MS is at
producing slow bloated software, so too is Intel at producing
inefficient microprocessors.
That buys a few more years.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: 7 Mar 2001 05:01:42 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 03:33:15 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>What's really funny about that clown's posting is that
>the voodoo 3 is about the best supported video card
>you can get for Linux.
>
>Same with adaptec - I've been running linux on adaptec
>scsi cards for years, no problem!
Ditto -- I've installed a small f*cking lab of machinse with Adaptec
SCSI cards, as well as my home computer. Or maybe I've just been
hallucinating.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux on it's way back to
Date: 7 Mar 2001 05:04:58 GMT
On 7 Mar 2001 01:09:34 GMT, Bloody Viking wrote:
>
>Donovan Rebbechi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: No, it doesn't. It means that Linux needs to play by the same rules as
>: everyone else.
>
>A game where Microsoft makes up the rules as it goes along.
I'm talking about the law. Microsoft do not write legislation.
>: Win 95 does add real functionality to 3.1. It's not just Win 3.1 with
>: a pretty face tacked on. In fact that's part of the problem -- the
>: fact that it's burdened by so many layers of compatibility. There's
>
>Which is why 95 has that new improved crash function, the blue screen of
>death. So, you're right. It has a new functionality over 3.11 after all.
Pre-emptive multitasking, improved memory management. You might argue
that t's not the most reliable product, but it is dishonest (or stupid)
to claim that it is essentially Windows 3.1. It is not the same at all.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux on it's way back to
Date: 7 Mar 2001 05:06:48 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 03:43:53 GMT, CR Lyttle wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 20:18:22 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bloody Viking
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> >If Microsoft develops the next "killer app" (parse that any way you
>> >like :-) ), Linux may run into major problems. Even now, things like
>> >DeCSS have been thrown into a gray legal area, which means Linux may
>> >have problems playing DVDs --
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It means that Linux needs to play by the same rules as
>> everyone else.
>>
>You forget that Linux is a revolution. Linux is creating a whole new
>game with a whole new set of rules. Let everyone else play by *our*
>rules.
I have no problem with Linux being a revolution, but I have a problem
with it being a lawless mob.
As for writing the rules, it's not for "The Linux Movement", Microsoft,
or anyone else to do this -- it's a job for the legislature.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...)
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 22:02:46 -0700
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 04:46:03 GMT, SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse) wrote:
>I agree that the limit will soon be reached, but consider this.
>Last I looked PowerPCs at a comparable speed did not require
>the cooling that PII's did. The fact is that as bad as MS is at
>producing slow bloated software, so too is Intel at producing
>inefficient microprocessors.
>
>That buys a few more years.
Not to mention multiprocessor systems, distributed processing, and
more-efficient programming. Thanks to the Microsoft-Intel partnership
we've also been locked into an archaic CPU architecture for almost 20
years now, but linux is easily portable to new CPU architectures.
To be honest I think desktops already have more power than most of us
will ever know what to do with. The only uses I can imagine for
needing more processing power at home might be AI couple with speech
recognition, and ever-better virtual-reality games. Both are likely to
be handled by dedicated chipsets anyway.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The GPL if you are curious.
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 05:13:04 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 06:28:22 GMT, Mike wrote:
> >
> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >GPL is only a few pages long. I suggest that anyone who says something
like,
> >"GPL states that..." also publish the paragraph where it says "that".
That
> >would end half the speculation.
>
> I more or less agree with this sentiment, though where interpretation is
> possible, I would also consider a quote from RMS as an authoritative
> source on the *intended* meaning.
I disagree. Intended meaning carries little weight in a courtroom. It's a
legal document, and it has to stand on its own.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Virus Alert : "A Virtual Card for You" + "An Internet Flower For
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 05:45:22 GMT
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <snip!>
>
> :> Hell, it doesn't even harm Windows. There is no such article on cnn.com,
> :> nor has there ever been. It's a hoax.
>
> : That was meant to be sarcastic
>
> Naturally. No flames intended. I just want to ensure people don't
> think there's *yet another* godawful Windows-Email virus on the
> loose.
>
> The rest of us have to update sendmail filters to protect the Windows
> users whenever one appears, and that gets old after awhile...
There's *yet another* godawful Windows-Email virus on the loose.
"Corporate networks exposed to NakedWife virus"
By Robert Lemos
ZDNet News
March 6, 2001 2:25 PM PT
"A virus advertising itself as an e-mailed photo of someone's wife has
started infecting computers in Europe and the United States and may have
started spreading from the U.S. military, antivirus experts said
Tuesday.
"The virus also uses Microsoft Outlook to spread, sending itself to
everyone listed in the address book including groups. Because it uses
mass-mailing techniques, NakedWife is considered a worm as well.
"After sending the e-mail, the virus displays a dialog box titled
'Flash' and the contents, 'You're now F***ED! ©2001 by BGK (Bill Gates
Killer).'"
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2693088,00.html
--
Bizarreness is the essence of the exotic
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The GPL if you are curious.
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 05:45:53 GMT
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:982q03$1o7b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The GPL is pretty much bullshit. It is a very poorly drafted, vague
> document that is more of a political statement than a recipe on how to
> handle distribution of software.
>
> Obvious example: you are not required to distribute source of a part of
the
> work, if that part is "...normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system...".
>
> Is the windowing system a major part of the operating system? Is libc? Is
> Internet explorer a major part of windows?
>
> Who knows? The GPL is poorly drafted, so it's not specified. You have to
go
> by opinion. Are you willing to be sued on that opinion? Then you have to
be
> conservative. Then you don't link. Then your reinvent the wheel. Because
> the GPL makes you do it.
Indeed, you make a good point, Roberto. Much of GPL is clear and
unambiguous, but there are potential pools of quicksand. There's also
section 10: "If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to
ask for permission." It would appear that if I gain permission from the
original author to sell a version of program x, that section 10 implies that
I can sell program x regardless of all the contributions of others, who may
not want their code included in the sale of program x.
On the other hand, overspecification can be a disaster for a contract. If
you try to specify every possible condition under which the contract holds,
then every other condition may be considered not to hold.
This was part of what the article in Business Week talked about. As I
recall, the GNU folks indicated that they had found some violators, but also
said that they had been able to convince them to change their ways without
going to court.
Red Hat's annual report carries this warning, under "Risks Related to Legal
Uncertainty":
We could be prevented from selling or developing our products if the GNU
General Public License and similar licenses under which our products are
developed and licensed are not enforceable. ... We know of no circumstance
under which these licenses have been challenged or interpreted in court.
Accordingly, it is possible that a court would hold these licenses to be
unenforceable in the event that someone were to file a claim asserting
proprietary rights in a program developed and distributed under them. Any
ruling by a court that these licenses are not enforceable, or that
Linux-based operating systems, or significant portions of them, may not be
liberally copied, modified or distributed, would have the effect of
preventing us from selling or developing our products.
Their point seems clear, and it's the same thing Business Week was saying:
until it's been through the courts, nobody really knows for sure.
Any attorneys out there who'd like to offer a free (as in beer, naturally)
opinion?
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 05:48:59 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > > > (2) Indicates that if you keep the GPL code separate from yours
and your
> > > > > code is not merely an extension, yours need not be GPL.
> > > >
> > > > As I told you half a dozen times: RMS says that if your code links
to the
> > > > GPLd code, it can not be reasonably considered separate. Why do you
say
> > > > when it links dynamically it is separate?
> > >
> > > Dynamically linking to GPL code does not include the GPL code into
> > > your binary where statically linking does.
> > >
> > > This is vital to understanding the difference. When something is
> > > statically linked, it creates one binary. When something is
> > > dynamically linked, you have multiple "independent" binaries. That
> > > is the key.
> >
> > What's the difference? They do exactly the same thing.
>
> The difference is that when you dynamically link to code, you do not
include
> the external code into your binary. When you statically link, you actually
> include GPL code into your binary.
What we need is a legal case to determine the real meaning of a 'derived
work'
in this context. Commercial libraries exist specifically for the purpose
of being linked so it is unlikely that anything but the GPL would even
raise this question unless Microsoft decides tomorrow that it wants to
own and control all code that uses any system dlls.
The ability to load and use a library regardless of what else happens to
be loaded at the same time seems like something you would expect
under 'fair use' instead of being restricted under copyright law. Likewise,
distributing GPL code that dynamically links to other libraries would seem
not to include the parts that trigger any copyright restrictions.
RMS, on the other hand claims that not only does dynamically linking
create a 'derived work' containing all the linked parts but that using
functions
from a library that is only implemented in GPL code also constitutes
such a derived work, even if you don't include the GPL library in your
distribution. His legal threats resulted in the rewriting of a functional
equivalent of the gmp library (as fgmp) for the sole purpose of using the
interface in another program free of the GPL virus.
http://www.ptf.com/products/UNIX/current/0264.0.html
This was necessary to allow unrestricted distribution of 'ripem'
http://www.funet.fi/pub/crypt/mirrors/rpub.cl.msu.edu/crypt/ripem/posting.tx
t
Don't you just love that spirit of sharing from the FSF folks? How
do people manage to stay unaware of these things that have been
very controversial and yet never resolved?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 05:53:06 GMT
Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
> On 6 Mar 2001, Steve Mading wrote:
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: No. They only have the right to distribute it with strings
> >: attached. The software must be redistributed under their license. If
> >: the software is library software, the GPL requires work that so much
> >: as links dynamically to it to be released under the GPL (or so RMS
> >: says. Whether such a draconian condition is enforceable remains to
> >: be seen)
> > You are deliberately not mentioning the existence of the LGPL, which does
> > NOT have that requirement. Sure, a library released under GPL would
> > have that requirement, but this doesn't matter given that libraries
> > are typically released under LGPL not GPL.
>
> Not necessarily true, Mr Mading. First, there are a number of GPLed
> Java classes out there. In Java, *everything* is a library. How does
> RMS's interpretation of library foolishness square with this? Second,
> there is at least one significant library under the GPL and not the
> LGPL. Third, RMS himself has been arguing recently that libraries
> should be under the GPL and not the LGPL -- and has renamed the LGPL
> from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL" in accordance with this
> change of mind.
>
So? He doesn't rule the software business. He didn't change his mind;
he's never liked the LGPL. His isn't the last word on it, either.
--
Bizarreness is the essence of the exotic
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 05:59:41 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >In the GPL world, a person can share code with the world. Anyone can come along
> > >and use and improve this code. To do so, however, they must agree to share in
> > >the same spirit as the authors who created the code they wish to use. If you
> > >ask me, this is not unreasonable, nor does it infringe on any freedoms. One
> > >need not use GNU software at all. if you want to keep it to yourself, you are
> > >100% free not to use something with a GPL license.
> >
> > All nice words, but the GPL is incompatible with most other *free* software
> > licenses as well as with proprietary ones. Someone who wants to put their
> > software under another free license is certainly willing to share, but cannot
> > use code from GNU software.
>
> Then don't build on something which the author chose GPL, use another open
> source package to build on. If there isn't one available, it is a free country,
> write your own.
That's what annoys me about this continual GPL debate. There is a ready
solution for those who don't want to release their work under the GPL:
Don't use or link to GPLed code in your program. That's pretty
straightforward, I would think.
> --
> The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
> The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
> consistency.
> -- Albert Einstein
> ------------------------
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
--
Bizarreness is the essence of the exotic
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:01:10 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Other operating systems aren't relevant. It's Windows that went from
6
> > > floppies to 150Mb with no apparent improvement in the environment.
> >
> > Not apparent because you refuse to look.
>
> By all means, show me how you can justify over 100Mb for the petty
> advantages you get going from 3.1 to ME.
If they're so petty, why aren't you using 3.1 right now? I notice you're
using Gravity, a Win32 news reader.
> In my Win98 install directory, there's just over 20Mb of Driverxx.Cab.
> The entire directory takes up 170Mb. They certainly add up, I don't
> dispute that. I dispute the idea that they can contribute substantially
> to this massive increase in size.
That's over 10%. That's certainly substantial.
> > > Win 3.1 had wordpad
> >
> > No, it had Write, a much inferior word processor (not that Wordpad is
all
> > that, but it has a lot more than Write)
>
> It's just a newer version of the same thing. Write lets you process
> words, wordpad lets you process words. It's interesting that wordpad is
> still named write.exe too.
No, it's not. write.exe is a 10k "wrapper" application that calls
Wordpad.exe and translates the arguments to be wordpad compatible arguments.
> > > a terminal proggy,
> >
> > Nowhere near HyperTerm.
>
> Bollocks. Same app, just more evolution. No different to wordpad, and
> the improvements still don't justify the size increase.
TCP/IP support, scolling ANSI support, various TAPI support, multiple
terminal emulations. Hell, there are programs that sell for hundreds of
dollars that do just what Hyperterm does.
> > > media player.
> >
> > A wav and MIDI player/recorder. Hardly the full featured audio/video
applet
> > that WMP is.
>
> Yet still more evolution. They haven't really CHANGED anything, just
> updated it.
Have you even *LOOKED* at WMP? Hell, the damn thing creates CD's in version
8.
> > I didn't even mention programs like NetMeeting, MSN Messenger, FrontPage
> > Express, and many more...
>
> None of which I install, yet my install is still well over 150Mb. (98 not
> ME too)
Does that include the size of your registry and swap file?
> > > So what accounts for the increase in size by a factor of 15 or more?
> >
> > The architectural changes alone take up a lot. There's an entirely new
API
> > with thousands of functions.
>
> Do you have any details? The newer bastardized Win32 they created for
> Win95 used to occupy 20Mb suchandsuch 16 bit DLLs, and now consists of
> 85Mb in blabla 32bit DLLs?
DirectDraw, DirectSound, Direct3D, DirectPlay, DirectAnimation, DirectShow,
TAPI, MAPI, SAPI, WININET, WinG, Winsock 2 (in addition to Winsock 1 and
1.1), fonts, bitmaps, sounds, cursors, icons,
Strange, my /usr/X11R6/bin is 40 megs alone. Just for the binaries and
scripts used for the GUI.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft screws itself again!
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 06:01:23 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>The fun begins when chips come with _integrated water
>jacket packaging_ to watercool them like car engines. At that point, Moore's
>Law ends on the desktop with silicon, leaving any speed increases to
>overclockers with ice water cooling systems.
I seriously doubt J. Random Luser will tolerate water cooling in his
computer. Consider how often car radiators spring leaks, and then
consider the consequences when this happens in anything electronic.
And then there's all that energy that the faster chips suck up, a
serious problem for laptops and anything that needs a UPS.
Thus I give the Pentium architecture about five years to live. To
get more speed, Intel either must stuff more and more circuits onto
a chip, generating more and more heat, or just say the hell with it
and move to Itanium.
The Pentium instruction set will live on in emulation, of course, as
the 68K set does on PowerPC Macs.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 06:03:01 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Tim Hanson wrote:
> >
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> > >
> > > Tim Hanson wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think that is the "threat" he was addressing. His argument was
> > > > with taxpayer supported software and the GPL. He was saying, in effect,
> > > > "Our company pays taxes to support the creation of software we can't
> > > > fold into our products." This refers to, among others, the Beowolf
> > > > project, which was developed with the at least in part by NASA, but
> > > > which Microsoft can't stea^H^H^H^H use because of the license. He was
> > > > saying that since Microsoft dollars fund NASA through taxes, Microsoft
> > > > ought to be able to reap the benefits.
> > >
> > > FWIW, the Beowulf code would be useless to MS, because it won't run with
> > > Windows. (Actually, parts of it might, but the kernel hacks definitely won't.)
> > >
> > > If they wanted to they could create a me-too that *would* run with Windows,
> > > because the GPL is a license to the code, and nothing else -- the GPL doesn't
> > > patent the idea. They would just have to write their own code. (Though I
> > > suppose it's possible that someone did patent the Beowulf system. Anyone know?)
> > >
> > > What has MS upset is that even if they did come out with a Windows-based
> > > BeoClone, not many people would use it. Who wants to pay for hundreds of W2K
> > > licenses (plus the extra BeoClone license), and then still have a system that
> > > runs slower because of W2K's bloat. (Yes, trolls, it's possible to build a
> > > bloated Linux system too. But what's important here is the ability to build a
> > > customized non-bloated system, which Linux offers and MS doesn't.)
> >
> > Allthough I agree with you, I was using Beowolf as an example only.
> > Incidently, the Microsoft clustering solution goes all the way up to
> > (brace yourself) 32 nodes, at only $3,000 per node. You work for
> > government? Want the price on toilet seats?
>
> The high-priced toilet seats was a propagandistic smear against the
> military purchasing system.
>
> Military production contracts are kind of weird...during most of
> a long production run, the government pays the contract with the
> stipulation that the supplier deliver a certain number of units
> with a plus/minus margin of error. This continues until the last
> payment of the contract. If the manufacturer has not delivered
> all of the contract yet, then you might get several months of
> deliveries "purchased" on the last payment...which would make the
> parts look rediculously cheap (in the case of the toilet seats,
> they would come out appearing to be 30 cents apeice, or something,
> and then the press would have been whining about how our aircrews
> are forced to spend 16+ hours on bombers with substandard toilet
> seats, making them more irritable and thus more likely to start
> a nuclear war.
>
> Conversely, if the manufacturer is AHEAD of schedule, then the
> remaining payments on the contract are made in one lump sum for
> the small partial lot which finishes the delivery of the contract.
>
> In this case, you end up with several month's payment for a
> partial lot.
>
> Also, there are other things: The designers of the aircraft in
> question did NOT design the airplane around the toilet. Anybody
> familiar with military vehicles knows that creature comforts are
> an afterthought (if even considered at all). My guess is that
> there was a clearance consideration which prevented the use of
> toilet seats of standard shape and size, which mandated that the
> manufacturer tool up the factory for a short-run of special-sized
> toilet seats.
>
> In that event, and it's YOUR decision, which would you do?
Use a coffee can, open source.
> a) tell the aircraft manufacturer to redsign the airframe
> (which means another several MILLION dollars in costs),
> or
> b) use a special-made toilet seat, and get into production,
> thereby avoiding costs which would amount to TENS OF THOUSANDS
> of dollars for a trivial problem.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
--
Bizarreness is the essence of the exotic
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
