Linux-Advocacy Digest #708, Volume #32 Thu, 8 Mar 01 19:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: GPL, an open mind, options? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Scott Gardner)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
No problem with multiple GUI's (Donn Miller)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Scott Gardner)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Scott Gardner)
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (Bloody Viking)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("JD")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Austin Ziegler)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Scott Gardner)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Anonymous)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Scott Gardner)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 23:59:19 +0200
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:988tq6$i1e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> : On 7 Mar 2001 23:56:51 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> :>Here's a free clue: Freedom is optimized when *some* reasonable
> :>limits exist.
>
> : I think that, in a careful analysis of those limits, they all boil down
to
> : one principle: "Do not harm another without his consent." The GPV goes
well
> : beyond the requirements that principle places.
>
> :>The key debatable point here is whether or not the GPL's rules are of
> :>the type that lead to greater freedom. I don't think they are,
> :>but I also dislike this line of argument that claims the only
> :>way for a license to be free is for it to have absolutely no rules
> :>attached at all.
>
> : The only rules that need to be attached are those that prevent people
from
> : taking code released freely and making it no longer available at all to
> : anyone under the terms it was originally released. Fortunately, it is
not
> : necessary to write such rules into the license; they are inherent in the
> : body of law that licenses are a part of. BSD-licensed code can NEVER be
made
> : non-free, even though the BSDL contains no explicit provisions to
guarantee
> : that.
>
> BSD socket code was put into Windows, a non-free (in both senses of
> the word) product. Originally it had been giving credit to BSD
> in some verbiage, but it dropped that now that the newer BSD liceses
> no longer require mentioning where you got your code from. This is
> an example of making some BSD licensed code non-free. It's true
> to say that the GPL goes too far by requiring all derivative code to
> be released, but the BSD doesn't go far enough, because it doesn't
> even require that its own code be released, even if unmodified.
Nope, the original code is still available, whatever MS did with the code is
irrelevent.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL, an open mind, options?
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:22:01 +0600
mlw wrote:
> RMS seems to have made it clear that, by his interpretation of the terms of the
> GPL, that an unbiased, pure, interpretation of the GPL is not what he intends,
> but more over, that his interpretation (which I do not feel the text of the GPL
> 2.0 supports) makes it an all encompassing document.
>
> If one reads the GPL, in a vacuum of RMS comments, it seems pretty reasonable
> and fair. It is when you apply his definitions of the various terms and
> comments that the effect is chilling.
Most likely a court would rule on the basis of what the contract *says*, not on
the basis of the spin that one party or the other would like to put on it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:25:24 GMT
Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:17:17 GMT, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Even for free Windows is too expensive. And unless you get the proper
>drivers from the PC manufacturer, hardware problems in Windows are
>simply a nightmare. You don't spend a Saturday afternoon, but a full
>week.
Ah, but that's the rub--at least you can be relatively certain of
GETTING a driver for Windows for a particular piece of hardware. It's
usually pretty simple. You buy the sound card, for example, and it
will most likely have drivers for the latest version of Windows in the
box. Even in the unlikely event that it doesn't, you jump on the
internet, go to the manufacturer's web site, (usually
www.manufacturername.com), and download the driver you need. This is
all it takes, because the hardware manufacturers know that they had
better support Windows, since that's where most of their market is.
My experience with linux from a newbie point of view is that if it's
not supported in the kernel, you're in for a lot of internet
searching, (and it's usually not as simple as going to the hardware
manufacturer's site), then you get to play with compiling modules
and/or recompiling the kernel. Can it be done? Probably, given that
you're willing to jump through your own ass for a while trying to find
support for your hardware that may or may not be out there. Is it as
easy for Joe User as adding a new piece of hardware to a Windows box?
Probably not.
Think of it this way. Let's say that you have a friend that
is going to build a new computer from scratch, and he was going to go
down to CompUSA and randomly select a motherboard, CPU, case, modem,
soundcard, hard drive, mouse, keyboard, video card, monitor, DVD-ROM
drive, printer, and scanner, with no thought as to what operating
system was going to go on the machine, do you think he's going to have
an easier time installing an out-of-the-box linux distribution or
Windows 98/ME? If he came to me, put a gun to my head (some friend, I
know..) and said "Make it all work, use any operating system you
choose, and you have this weekend to get it working.", My money would
be on Windows.
This is a farcical example, I know, but a lot of potential
linux converts already have computers, and those computers were likely
built with Windows in mind, not Linux. Until novice users can go to
the hardware manufacturer's web site and download self-installing
drivers to make their hardware work under Linux, this will always be a
barrier to Linux's widespread acceptance into the desktop arena.
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
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: 8 Mar 2001 22:22:51 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 8 Mar 2001 21:32:54 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>BSD socket code was put into Windows, a non-free (in both senses of
>the word) product. Originally it had been giving credit to BSD
>in some verbiage, but it dropped that now that the newer BSD liceses
>no longer require mentioning where you got your code from. This is
>an example of making some BSD licensed code non-free.
Baloney.
Horse exhaust.
Not even close to the truth.
If they made the BSD socket code non-free, then we wouldn't be able to use
it now. If that's the case, my NetBSD IRC server has some explaining to do.
The original code can NEVER be made non-free. It is now and forever
available.
------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: 8 Mar 2001 16:23:03 -0600
Sure, you sacrifice some consistency. But, I like to think of multiple
toolkits and GUI's on Linux as more of artistic freedom. I think that there
are enough unix apps around that, if you don't like a particular app's GUI,
you can also choose from a similar app linked to a different toolkit.
Besides, no matter which toolkit you use, the standard X cuting and pasting
mechanism of left-click highlight/middle-click paste *always* works. So,
what's the problem?
All this talk about consistency is bogus. People who complain about
consistency are merely looking for a Windows replacement. If X had a fixed
API like Win32, people would be complaining about it being so inflexible.
Painters don't like to be told which types of paint/convass to use, so as
programmers, I like the idea of picking and choosing which toolkit I want to
use.
I get kind of tired about people in here who whine that Linux's weakness is
its lack of a consistent GUI, and that you can't edit an image with unix
command-line tools. Duh! You just pick your fave window manager, configure
it to your personal liking, and lauch a GUI app to do your image editing.
having a mixture of CLI and GUI tools is the strong point of unix systems and
Linux. For example, I like ImageMagick's mogrify tool, because it is a CLI
app that I can use to convert a bunch of images to thumbnails in one fell
swoop. Had this been a Windows app, I'd have to 1) lauch the program from
the start menu or desktop, 2) select file->open and then hold down the shift
key to select all the files I wanted to convert to thumbnail format. So, in
this case, image manipulation/conversion tools ARE better implemented as a
CLI app.
I think that people who complain about Linux's lack of GUI to do everything
and anything should just use a GUI-based OS, such as BeOS, Windows, or MacOS,
or just shut up. Tools such as KDE or GNOME are NOT meant to be a Windows
replacement, but to make unix more accessible and easy-to-learn than having
just motif apps with twm, or whatever. Also, I'd advise people who want to
dedicate themselves to learning Linux to get one of many 100's of unix books
that are out there. It's one thing to make Linux easy to use and more
accessible. It's another thing to deny it's a unix variant (good thing). If
you don't want to run unix, and want a 100% GUI system, then just run Windows.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:34:46 GMT
On 08 Mar 2001 09:15:50 +0100, Klaus-Georg Adams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just as 95% of the people I know do it with NT or W2k... but this will
>end with XP thanks to the registration :-)
>
>Then I'll watch them flock to Linux...
>
>--
>kga
I can't speak for the people *you* know, since I probably don't know
them. but based on the huge number of copies of Windows that have been
sold, I'd be surprised to find that for every person that bought a
copy, there are nineteen pirated copies floating around out there.
For that to be true, every man, woman, child, and house pet would have
to have a couple copies. Personally, I don't view Windows as being
that expensive, all things considered. I bought a computer in 1990
with Windows 3.0, and I've done the $89 upgrade route with each new
version. Considering the amount I've spent on other parts of my
computer over the same time period, I just wouldn't feel right about
stealing the operating system.
Scott "But hell, I register shareware, too..." Gardner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:49:11 GMT
On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:43:05 GMT, Giuliano Colla
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In the Middle Age almost no bridge could be crossed without paying a
>toll. The toll bridge was the rule, the free one was the exception. Time
>went by, and things have changed. Today toll bridges do still exist, but
>they're the exception, not the rule. I have the feeling that current
>technology will oblige the record industry to reconsider its traditional
>ways of getting profits from their activity. Maybe the real distortion
>arises from the attempt to extract millions of dollars from a few people
>singing a song, just because you can make millions of copies of this
>song.
In that case, this will have ramifications far beyond music. How
about publishers (and authors) that make millions of dollars because
ONE person wrote ONE book, just because the publishers can make
millions of copies of the book? I don't think that anyone would
begrudge an author the money he makes from multiple copies of a book
being sold. The only reason that books aren't being illegally copied
on the same scale that music is is that the cost of reproducing a book
hasn't approached zero as quickly as it has with music.
Along the same lines, what about movies? In this new age of
cheap, digital copying, I think it's going to become very difficult
for anyone to make any kind of a living trying to sell anything that
has a market price higher than the intrinsic value of the medium, *if*
that medium can be easily copied. How cheap would a store-bought CD
have to be before people would just buy the disc, rather than just
pointing-and-clicking on Napster and getting it for free, or copying
it from a friend? $10? $5? $1? I submit that unless the retail
price of a disc is less than the cost of a blank CD-R, people will
continue to steal the disc instead of buying it, and as broadband
access becomes more widespread, and file-sharing programs become
easier to use, they will continue to steal at an ever-increasing rate.
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
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: 8 Mar 2001 22:51:34 GMT
Donal K. Fellows ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I'm not too sure about using water. Though it has an excellent thermal
: coefficient, it's conductivity (especially when you add the inevitable
: contaminants) is pretty shocking in the case of a leak. However, not all
: architectures are as stricken by heat problems as the Intels...
That's why you would want to be careful about building a water jacket for a
chip. Admittedly, I think the idea is plain nuts as it adds whole new modes of
unreliability to a computer. It's best left to the overclockers already nuts
enough to do it.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "JD" <[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: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:04:11 -0500
"Jay Maynard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 8 Mar 2001 21:32:54 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >BSD socket code was put into Windows, a non-free (in both senses of
> >the word) product. Originally it had been giving credit to BSD
> >in some verbiage, but it dropped that now that the newer BSD liceses
> >no longer require mentioning where you got your code from. This is
> >an example of making some BSD licensed code non-free.
>
> Baloney.
>
> Horse exhaust.
>
> Not even close to the truth.
>
> If they made the BSD socket code non-free, then we wouldn't be able to use
> it now. If that's the case, my NetBSD IRC server has some explaining to do.
>
> The original code can NEVER be made non-free. It is now and forever
> available.
>
Apparently, the GPL crew are just selfish, and want everyone to give all of their
work away. Who cares if Microsoft has added some of their own stuff to the
BSD code and hasn't given it to the GPL crowd?
The BSD code is certainly still free :-). Microsoft cant take that away. Alas,
the GPL crowd is also against free code (yet uses the term incorrectly.)
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 18:05:25 -0500
On 8 Mar 2001, Steve Mading wrote:
> BSD socket code was put into Windows, a non-free (in both senses of
> the word) product. Originally it had been giving credit to BSD
> in some verbiage, but it dropped that now that the newer BSD liceses
> no longer require mentioning where you got your code from. This is
> an example of making some BSD licensed code non-free.
No, it's an example of code derived from BSD-licensed code non-freely
available. The original socket code is still freely available.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:17:57 GMT
>*sigh* In my second response to Mr Mading, I point out that Stallman
>can and will change the terms of the LGPL and people won't have a lot
>of choice about the matter because they've released the code with the
>phrase "LGPL version 1 or later..." because they assume that the FSF
>will keep the spirit in mind.
>
>If it doesn't, then people will probably abandon the FSF, but the
>possibility is there, and it will affect the licensing of the existing
>code significantly.
>
>-f
>--
>austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
>Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
>-----------------* I speak for myself alone
>
This is twice in this thread so far that I've seen this erroneous
assumption, so I'll quote from the GPL version 2, paragraph nine:
"Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it
and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms
and conditions either of that version or of any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not
specify a version number of this license, you may choose any version
ever published by the Free Software Foundation"
So you see, just because a later version might not follow the same
intent as the version referred to in a program's documentation, that
doesn't mean that you are bound to the whims of whatever the new
version of the GPL specifies. You can always at least fall back to
the version that the original program specifies, or pick the version
of your choice to adhere to if the original program did not specify a
version number.
I know that I quoted from the GPL, not the LGPL, but I don't
have a copy of the LGPL right in front of me. I suspect it's the
same, though. Anyone care to post the appropriate portion of the LGPL
so we can put this fallacy to rest for *both* the GPL and the LGPL?
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 16:20:14 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The corallaroy being that individual brillance is at best mediocore, if that
> person can't interact with their peers to leverage their combined knowledge
> and produce by a factor of exponent significantly more than acting alone.
>
> Aron Kulkis "YOU are the weakest link good-bye"
you're forgetting just one thing
you're not paying him to cooperate
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
p.s. windows may have the highest cost-benefit ratio of any product i've
ever owned
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:23:24 GMT
JD wrote:
> >
> > The original code can NEVER be made non-free. It is now and forever
> > available.
> >
> Apparently, the GPL crew are just selfish, and want everyone to give all of their
> work away. Who cares if Microsoft has added some of their own stuff to the
> BSD code and hasn't given it to the GPL crowd?
>
> The BSD code is certainly still free :-). Microsoft cant take that away. Alas,
> the GPL crowd is also against free code (yet uses the term incorrectly.)
You need to actually read the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:25:53 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:05:02 GMT, Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >David Brown wrote:
> >>
>
> >Waiting Kylix to be ready, we've implemented some part of our software
> >using VMware, to have a Windows GUI, and Linux processes. Linux and
> >Windows communicate through TCP/IP sockets. As the communication is two
> >way (one server and one client on each side), the implementation is
> >quite symmetrical.
> >Well the Linux side implemented in C is ten times shorter and simpler
> >than the Windows side, implemented with a RAD instrument like Delphi
> >(which hides most of the idiocies of Windows). The one which locks in
> >case of error is the Windows side.
>
> Yes, but you haven't tried writing any GUI code in Linux. Why ? Because
> you're waiting for decent GUI development tools to become available.
>
Yes, you're right. However I've implemented a few very simple things
using tcl-tk, and I've been amazed by the ease of use. However I didn't
even consider using something different from a real RAD tool, because
we're producing custom control systems for industrial machines, and a
couple of weeks is the standard time to we're allowed for a new machine.
So you need a good modular system, and a very rapid development tool to
put things together. Graphic appearance doesn't change that much, but
changes nonetheless, so rapid GUI tools are a must.
> This doesn't contradict my point at all, it backs it up -- Linux is only
> just starting to mature as a GUI development platform.
>
Once more I agree. What I wanted to stress is that being Linux/Unix well
designed, with functionalities well partitioned, different software
layers clearly identifiable, etc., designing in Linux environment is
intrinsically much easier than in Windows environment. Better tools for
Linux means working at a higher abstraction level, better tools for
Windows means tools which build a coherent environment which wasn't
there to start with.
> It's inherited a good set of APIs for network/systems programming from
> UNIX (and indeed improved upon them), and the GNU project adds a bunch
> of good dev tools which make it easy to write portable code (make, gcc,
> autoconf, libtool, automake)
>
> However, it's only recently that decent, stable toolkits have been available
> on Linux.
I started considering Linux in november 1999: I purchased a book which
included RH 5.0 and it appeared well done but rather rudimental as far
as GUI is concerned. Considering the progress made in this short time, I
foresee a bright future.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:28:33 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 21:50:16 GMT, Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 15:41:40 +0100, David Brown wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >>> and certainly does not have any development tools.
> >> >>
> >> >>It has shared libraries.
> >> >
> >> >Shared libraries are not development tools. A developer might take
> >> >advantage of existing shared libraries in a program, but that is a far cry
> >> >from calling libraries "development tools".
> >>
> >> Yes, I should have been more clear. The development tools are not part of
> >> what comes on the Win9x CD. However, the APIs *are* developed in tandem
> >> with the operating system, and an operating system with a good set of
> >> APIs tends to offer developers a lot when it comes to writing applications.
> >>
> >> The question I was addressing is "what is modern about Windows". While the
> >> header files and compiler do not come on the Win9x CD, they do add value
> >> to the platform from a users perspective, because they make it easy for
> >> the developer to write user friendly applications.
> >
> >Did you ever look into those API's? Well, I did. I was used to special
> >purpose real-time OS's, but customers wanted nice GUI's, so I considered
> >trying to use Windows environment, and I started looking into Windows
> >not by a casual user point of view, but by a developer's point of view.
> >After that I had no other idea than to find an alternative solution.
> >I've never seen such a mess of inconsistent idiotic things, with no
> >plan, no design philosophy, no logic behind. Lots of different API's to
> >do the same thing, just because the first one takes some parameters from
> >global data (forgetting the multitasking environment), the second one
> >just provides a flag to tell apart two different cases out of 50
> >possibilities, then 48 more to cope with the other possibilities, and so
> >on. It's a programmer's nightmare. Beginner programmers with some talent
> >turn out much better software than what you clearly understand to lie
> >behind those API's. That way you may produce tens of thousands of API
> >calls (that's the number reached up to now, if I understand properly)
> >without providing a fraction of the functionality of a well designed
> >system with just a few hundred system calls.
>
> Are you talking about Win32, or MFC/VCL ?
Win32. It's a mess.
>
> I don't think you'd have found the situation in Linux much better before
> Qt/GTK. Back then, all the "serious" GUI applications (a console app with
> a lightweight GUI doesn't count) were done in Motif, and there simply
> wasn't anything free to work with. The motif apps had to be distributed
> statically linked because the stupid thing required a runtime license
> (WTF???)
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:32:02 GMT
On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 22:33:21 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(referring to Betamax players)
>
>But they exist in small numbers for a specialist market. Sounds like
>Linux!
And Ferrari, and HP pocket calculators with RPN, and Rolex, and Ping
golf clubs, and ... Are all of these companies/technologies
"failures"
Scott Gardner
>
>--
>Pete
>All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[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: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 23:33:40 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> > I cannot, however, make copies and distribute them to my friends. Most
> > people do, and it's rather like speeding, it's not a big deal and most
> > people (even the RIAA) don't worry about it much. They're much more
> > worried about the people who make a business out of selling these
> > copies to their friends.
>
> That would be believable if, and only if, the RIAA and MPAA were trying
> to do ANYTHING to stop big scale pirates. They're not. I would say,
> they're not because they can't. All copy protection can be circumvented,
> and possibly even duplicated perfectly.
> All their latest endeavours have been aimed towards stopping ordinary
> people copying/recording things, legally OR illegally. They want you to
> pay every time you watch a movie. They want you to pay every time you
> listen to music.
>
> I'm seriously surprised they haven't created a credit-card mp3-player -
> ie: a player that automatically deducts a small amount from your credit
> card...
Well, it was just a flash in TV teletext news, but it appears that
Microsoft is trying to have people pay for each e-mail sent via MSN. If
confirmed it would be on the same line as credit-card MP3.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
