Linux-Advocacy Digest #746, Volume #32 Sat, 10 Mar 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (Dave Martel)
Re: The merits of the BSD license. (Tim Hanson)
Re: Dividing OS to groups. ("GreyCloud")
Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your computer")
("GreyCloud")
Re: Microsoft & GM (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Sun Blade 100 (Darin Johnson)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[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: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:08:12 -0700
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 23:06:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>Heh...personally, I don't know what I want, as I'm not the one going
>to rev up the chip -- but at some point, this is going to be one of
>those issues that will either have to be solved, or the chip melts
>at 10 GHz or so -- and considering the state of software, everyone wants
>computers to be cheaper, faster, more intuitive, backward compatible,
>and consistent. :-)
Hey, you get a computer and central heating in one convenient box!
Actually this isn't new technology. My old CP/M system made a pretty
good room heater. It wasn't as compact, though.
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The merits of the BSD license.
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 23:23:40 GMT
Adam Warner wrote:
>
> I think ZDNet put it quite nicely:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2690587,00.html
>
> ---Begin Quote---
>
> In the meantime, we're sympathetic to Allchin's preference for the BSD
> license, which does not "contaminate" products based on open-source
> foundations with carry-forward open-source requirements. Yes, this would
> make taxpayer-funded software a foundation for both open-source and
> proprietary software products. We're sympathetic, but that doesn't mean
> we're persuaded: First, someone needs to establish that taxpayer-funded
> proprietary software is good for (they started it) the American way.
>
> ---End Quote---
>
> I am sympathetic to Microsoft's plight. Doesn't mean I'm convinced though.
>
> Regards,
> Adam
There has to be a way to allow use of the code without pulling a
"Kerberos."
--
It's better to be wanted for murder that not to be wanted at all.
-- Marty Winch
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Dividing OS to groups.
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:17:44 -0800
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98e50o$l3f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <Snipped because I tend to be overly pedantic sometimes >
>
> I'm interested in the division that you did.
> Anyone care to help me complete a list of OS with groups?
>
> Unix-based:
> Solaris, Linux, *BSD, HP-UX, AIX, Irix, Unicos, Unixware, MacOSX
>
> VMS based:
> VMS
> WinNT line.
Uh,... I don't think vms is even remotely related to nt at all.
> Dos based:
> Ms-Dos
> Dr-Dos
> Win1.0 - 3.11
> Win9x line
> CP/M?
>
> What design principals are behind Mac OS (9 and down, OSX is BSD, so it's
a
> unix based) ?
>
> For that matter, what are the main differences between VMS & Unixes?
>
> Hurd?
> Plan9?
> Where does BeOS belong?
>
>
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Customising Wrap-Up Screen. (WAS: "It is now safe to shut off your
computer")
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 16:21:43 -0800
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Its amazing, even with all the hype about NT, Universities are still
> teaching UNIX, even after 35 years! 10 years in which NT has been around.
> It tells Microsoft and other UNIX disputors, that UNIX is here and it is
> here to stay, and Linux, which I believe could be classed as a UNIX
Varient,
> is one of the many UNIX"s that will be giving Microsoft a thrashing in the
> future, what we see now is only the tip of the ice burg, wait until there
is
> a real Linux/UNIX vs. Microsoft war, then you will see some bloody flow.
> There will be people who will be paranoid of the "OpenSource" words, and
> instead, opt for a SUN solution (such as the SUN Netra @ $NZ2300 + GST),
> which will be no serious loss to the Lintel field. The Wintel empire is
> like the Eastern Bloke, it will enventually crumble unders its own mass of
> problems.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
I think the dam is about to burst the Wintel bubble here.
The sun blade 100 is only $950 and its the sparc IIe (64-bit). sun is
pushing hard as there
is a window of opportunity that just can't be passed here. MS can't get
their o/s for the itanium
ready in time and intel can't make the itanium work correctly... it was
supposed to be out last
summer but its still not available in quantities yet.
> "Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:98cbo4$75t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I just got done customising the Windows 95 wrap-up screen, the "it's now
> safe
> > to turn off your computer" screen. It now says:
> >
> > It's now safe to type "mode co80 and light off UNIX, the OS Bill Gates
> hates!
> > GNU's Not UNIX!!!
> >
> > Thanks! That was after a few hours of quality coding time working on a
pet
> > snail billpay proggie in C on Linux. For what it's worth, Linux IS UNIX
in
> my
> > book, it's a GNU freeware UNIX.
> >
> > Ah, the pleasure of having the OS of Big Iron on a PC. UNIX is the OS of
> Big
> > Iron computing, and while we may enjoy it on our boxes, it will always
be
> THE
> > OS of Big Iron. How could anyone pass up the chance to play with an OS
> like
> > Linux, a PC freeware UNIX? Maybe some of us are hackers (in the good
sense
> of
> > the word) after all. (:
> >
> > --
> > 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: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.conspiracy.microsoft,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Microsoft & GM
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:31:40 GMT
"Norman D. Megill" wrote:
>
> In article <98cs5f$bnr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Terence Kam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 13. You'd have to press the "Start" button to turn the engine off.
>
> There is a Stop button. But as typical for Windows it is binary-only
> and you have to purchase it as third-party software.
>
> http://www.softwrights.com/downstop.htm
>
> I guess the binary-only mystique of Windows gets people to PAY for
> the most trivial things. Probably the code that handles the 15-day
> free trial timeout and nag screens is bigger than the app itself.
>
> --Norm
Maybe I'm not up with innovative trends, but I've solved the start/stop
problem by installing a different OS, which starts up with "Power on",
shuts down with "Shutdown", and reboots with "Reboot". And paying my
money for a boxed set of 10 CD's, two manuals and 90 days assistance,
and not for a stop button. In the CD's there are tools to make my own
personalized stop button in a matter of minutes, if I really need it.
Maybe the 15 day free trial period is the time required in order to
ensure that you have the opportunity to use the stop button before the
system decides to crash by itself.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Sun Blade 100
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:29:50 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2.) a box
> that old doesn't require Sun vendor support.
And probably can't get it :-)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:38 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 4 Mar 2001 01:18:55
>On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:13:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 27 Feb 2001 05:27:50
>>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:43:43 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>>On 26 Feb 2001 00:41:54 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Why should the operating system go down in price ? Has it
>>>>>become cheaper to design and write operating systems ?
>>>>
>>>>The unit volume is higher than it was. Software development is almost
>>>>all fixed costs. So the unit price should be lower unless development
>>>>costs have increased at least as fast as the market has grown.
>>>>
>>>>This also explains why CAD software costs thousands while Office is
>>>>hundreds. There's about the same level of effort in development, but
>>>>CAD is a much smaller market.
>>>
>>>This explains why OEM Windows is about $50- despite being an enormous
>>>project (-;
>>
>>No, it would explain why $50 is outrageously overpriced.
>
>No, it would not. They are not morally or legally obliged to offer
>low prices just because they can.
The simple fact is that if they don't have to compete on price with
*anyone* (regardless of how much any might compete on price alone),
they've broken the law, as only a monopoly has the power to maintain
prices above competitive levels "just because they can", or for any
other reason.
>As my id example suggests, it's not optimal to substantially outprice
>your competitors, and it has already been established that the Windows
>OEM license is cheaper than the OS/2 OEM license.
Again, you attempt to use the pricing of the monopoly as a benchmark for
the competitive level. I understand your consternation, Donovan,
seriously I do. I know how hard it is to deal with the idea that not
even the *competitor's* pricing can be such a benchmark, when there is
effectively no competition. When you have barriers to competition such
as erected by Microsoft, and customer lock-in as evidenced by monopoly
levels of market share, there is no competition, whether there are
putative alternatives available or not. You don't need 100% market
share to be a monopoly, and so you can't presume that the fractions
remaining after you control 97% of the market *persistently for more
than ten years* can somehow evidence competitive levels of pricing.
Competitive levels are theoretical, I'm afraid, as is the very idea of a
free market, supply and demand, or any other basic economic principle,
when monopolization occurs. In principle, of course, a free economic
market cannot be monopolized to begin with. Yet the real world isn't
theory; just as there are no prices one can point to within the
monopolized market as evidence of competitive levels, there is no way to
claim that because monopolies are theoretically impossible then they are
tolerable when created through anti-competitive and illegal activity
outside of economic principles.
>>>>Because unit volume is much higher now than it was in 1995 and software
>>>>development costs are independent of volume.
>>>
>>>How much higher ?
>>
>>What difference does it make? Do you pay for Windows only once, or is
>>the license tied to the PC? Even with sales volumes *decreasing*, the
>>cost has dropped enormously on a per-unit basis.
>
>All of this is irrelevant -- they aren't obliged to lower prices just
>because they can.
That is, in fact, extremely relevant, you see. If they aren't obliged
to lower their prices, then this must mean they have no competitive
pressures. Lack of competition is monopoly; monopoly is illegal.
Therefore, it is not senseless railing against cold hard business
reality when one complains, specifically, about Microsoft's pricing. It
is recognition that their prices are, objectively and truthfully, even
legally, "too high". Monopolies are bad things simply because they
aren't obliged to lower prices just because efficiency of production
enables them to do so while maintaining adequate profit levels.
>On the contrary, if they can sell their product at
>a competitive price, and make a huge profit, then they are obliged to
>do that, because they are responsible for upholding the interests of
>their shareholders.
Indeed, and if they weren't an illegal monopoly, I'm sure they'd
consider doing that. But what's your point?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:39 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 03 Mar 2001
>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
Well done, Charlie, and entertaining to see you match your typically
casual tone with such outstanding and rigorous information. Quite
important, too, as you've noted. I find it personally gratifying, as
well, having argued so long and hard that the concept of 'legal
monopoly' is not present in the USA, except as an entry in law
dictionaries.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:40 GMT
Said pip in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 02 Mar 2001 11:08:55 +0000;
[...]
>Listen to this carefully: PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE OS. They don't
>know what it is or what it does and why they should have different
>types. Maybe only Apple has succeeded in getting a different message
>across to 20% of these people, but on the whole they just buy a pc. pc's
>have win98 (at least for the home market).
A) People care about the *platform*. This concept is more abstract than
they might suppose, encompassing anything from an app with an API on one
hand, "middleware", an OS, or a whole computer (the Mac) on the other.
B) The Mac, unlike the other platforms mentioned, does not run on
PC-compatible industry standard hardware.
>Would you really advocate that these people try Linux for the first
>time?
Why not? If they don't care about the OS, as you say, what possible
problem is there in learning the best one first?
>Well, that is an interesting question and I have mixed feelings
>about the pro's and con's, but on the whole until Linux gets a better
>win32 compatibility layer[...]
Win32 compatibility is one of the 'cons', to be sure. Until the
monopoly which ensures that Win32 compatibility is all that matters in
an OS is destroyed, nothing will get any better, Linux or otherwise.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:41 GMT
Said John S. Dyson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 1 Mar 2001 20:09:09
>"phil hunt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> What's wrong with the principle "I'll share with you if you share
>> with me"?
>>
>Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem with the
>GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the term 'free' misleadingly
>in describing it.
Not this again. Its *such* a pathetic argument.
If you are not willing to understand and take responsibility for your
freedom, John, it is nobody's fault but your own. Cross-posting to
misc.int-property doesn't make it a new argument.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:42 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 13:51:54 -0500;
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97nmcd$sgt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Nothing, except such sharing doesn't make software 'free'. The problem
>> > with the GPL isn't the license, but the people who use it and use the
>> > term 'free' misleadingly in describing it.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> in what way?
>>
>Think of it like this: GPL is free sort of like our Income Tax is 'voluntary.' In
>fact,
>our Income Tax isn't 'voluntary', and GPL isn't free. Another common misusage (by
>almost all parties in the US) is that the US is a Democracy, which technically it
>isn't.
>In fact, the misusage of the term 'Democracy' has often caused confusion.
>
>If GPL is a license of free software, then you wouldn't have multiple rules and
>redistribution
>encumberances.
Says you. And purely because it is necessary to provide the entirety of
your argument, as incorrect as it is. GPL software is free; a
distribution and development license will only cost you adherence to the
GPL (which costs you nothing but support of free GPL), but that hardly
prevents GPL software from being "free", in either the oft-cited "free
beer" or "free speech" connotations.
>A few, simple, non costly rules wouldn't be important, but the GPL is a
>multi-page license with significant redistribution requirements.
No "requirements" whatsover. You are not forced to redistribute GPL
software in any way. Nor is there any limitation on your ability to
distribute; merely your ability to circumvent the GPL.
>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.
Bullshit.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:43 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 17:12:30 -0500;
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:97p2vl$37v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Think of it like this: GPL is free sort of like our Income Tax is
>> > 'voluntary.' In fact, our Income Tax isn't 'voluntary', and GPL isn't
>> > free. Another common misusage (by almost all parties in the US) is that
>>
>> > the US is a Democracy, which technically it isn't. In fact, the misusage
>> > of the term 'Democracy' has often caused confusion.
>>
>> Representative Democracy?
>>
>I think that the term 'Constitutional Democracy' might be more fully encompassing,
>where the constitution specifies the democratic and representative mechanisms. The
>US has a mix of democratic elections and representative government, with the
>constitution being the 'contract' between the government and the people.
The US is a democracy. A particular form of democracy, known as a
Republic; what Ed called a "representative democracy".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:44 GMT
Said JD in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 3 Mar 2001 10:15:36 -0500;
[...]
>Free software doesn't constrain the freedom of those who redistribute code.[...]
You are correct; free software doesn't constrain the freedom of those
who redistribute code. Free software does constrain the freedom of
those who redistribute free software code, however, just as freedom of
speech constrains the freedom of those who don't want others to speak
freely.
As for Lee's argument that BSD is "more free" because of fewer
limitations, I submit that a poor man in the US is more free than a rich
man in communist China, despite the fact that he has less ability to
enjoy his freedom. Had society insisted that all software be GPL since
before TCP was developed, the Internet would work just fine, save a
re-arrangement in the specifics of the business model used by the
earliest developers. Claims that the modern world wouldn't exist but
for BSD sound rather like Mr. Ballard's routine claims that the Internet
owes its existence to Linux (or Microsoft's fawning sock-puppet's idea
that Windows can be considered responsible for modern computing or
networking); not untrue on the face of it given the perspective of the
author, but certainly not an objective fact which should be accepted
without argument on the authority of the advocates.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:45 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 8 Mar 2001 00:04:01
>On Wed, 07 Mar 2001 21:50:16 GMT, Giuliano Colla wrote:
[...]
>>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 ?
It doesn't matter; both are from Microsoft, so they're all just "part of
the monopoly crapware".
>I don't think you'd have found the situation in Linux much better before
>Qt/GTK.
I don't think that matters at all.
>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???)
WTF is that it was this kind of adoption of the "commercial software
model" which led RSM to create free software via the GPL, and thus we
come to Linux. And as far from Microsoft as we can manage to get.
Which isn't very far, of course, which is the whole point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:46 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 9 Mar 2001
>"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > 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.
>> >
>> > I have no idea what you're talking about here.
>>
>> I had no doubt about that. But it's your problem, not mine.
>>
>> [snipped the rest because writer has no idea of what he's answering
>> about]
>
>Fuck off Giuliano, this is about as disengenuos as you can get, and highly
>dishonest.
>
>Come back when you can actually contribute to a discussion.
You're getting them stirred up again, Giuliano. ;-)
Try not to be so right, next time. They can't handle it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:47 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> > > WordPerfect, in short, *can't* compete because the market isn't fair.
>> >
>> > How is that MS's fault? What could they do to prevent that?
>>
>> How about
>>
>> 1) Stop pre-loading at ridiculous rates with Windows bundles (ie,
>> using one monopoly to foster the other)
>
>Make up your mind. You just sat here and bitched about how high the price
>of Word was compared to it's competitors, now you're bitching because it's
>too cheap. Can you at least choose a single position and stick with it?
Fuck off Erik, this is about as disingenuous as you can get, and highly
dishonest.
Come back when you can actually contribute to a discussion.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 00:40:49 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001
15:22:00 -0600;
>"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 21:07:07 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Windows XP will ship in three major versions. Personal, Pro, and
>Server.
>> > Pro is equivelant to Windows 2000 today and will cost about the same.
>> > Personal has fewer features and will cost what ME costs today.
>>
>> And will they have the same easy registry tweak to convert the one to the
>> other as NT4 had?
>
>The registry tweak didn't "convert one to the other". All it did was remove
>the physical connection limitations and cause the OS to tune itself
>differently. Changing a registry setting didn't automatically give you the
>server software (such as DNS servers, WINS servers, DHCP servers), server
>management utilities, etc... Further, it didn't change your license.
I think that's a "yes", Peter, though you've already pointed out how MS
plans to prevent such horribly anti-monopoly behavior.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
