Linux-Advocacy Digest #176, Volume #33 Thu, 29 Mar 01 09:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Nick
Condon)
For when Linux developers get bored (news item) (Charles Packer)
What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel ("Alan Po")
Re: Communism (Mathew)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' Ewande®")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Shane Phelps)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is (Austin Ziegler)
Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel (Alumne FIB - MARC COLL CARRILLO)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is (Austin Ziegler)
Software registration (mlw)
Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel (mlw)
Re: Communism (Anonymous)
Re: Linux dying ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: 29 Mar 2001 12:48:36 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The four most critical
>> pieces of infrastructure that make the Internet work are BIND [Berkeley
>> Internet Name Daemon], Perl, Sendmail, and Apache. Everyone of them is
>free
>> software.
>
>You mean DNS, CGI (why is this an infrastructure?), SMTP, HTTP ?
No ... I mean BIND, Perl, Sendmail and Apache.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Packer)
Subject: For when Linux developers get bored (news item)
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 12:49:25 GMT
Noticed in the NY Times. (See at http://cpacker.org/timesfan/faa.html)
March 19, 2001
Compressed Data: An Open-Source Future for FAA?
By MATTHEW L. WALD
The software programs that run on the
nation's air traffic control computers may
someday be kept up to date by a corps of
volunteer programmers in much the same way as
the widely-respected Linux operating system is
maintained. This, at least, is the vision of
some far-sighted analysts who are proposing a
radical new approach to the FAA's problems
with delays and dead-ends in the effort to
modernize.
A recommendation to privatize the air traffic
system by setting up an independent nonprofit
corporation raises the possibility of
following the "open source" model of software
development in which anyone can inspect and
contribute to the source code. Currently, the
millions of lines of code in the system are
maintained by hundreds of programmers employed
by a few major corporations. The software does
a multitude of tasks, such as calculating
flight trajectories, adjusting traffic as it
approaches airports and driving the display
hardware that shows controllers where
everything is.
According to Robert W. Poole, Jr., co-author
of the proposal, which may be seen at
www.rppi.org, they looked at how software is
actually created for the system and found that
the original designer of a program often went
on to another job before finishing it.
Completion was then left to programmers
assigned on the basis of availability. "It
ends up being not much different from the way
open source code is developed anyway, so why
pay programmers to do it?" he said.
An FAA official who asked not to be identified
said "We're taking this seriously," but
stressed that the government would still be
the final arbiter of safety in the system,
perhaps maintaining an "augmented" group of
software testers.
As for rewards for participating the such an
effort, Mr. Poole cited the intellectual
challenge in solving the programming problems
in a system of that complexity, but added that
the proposed air traffic corporation might be
able to offer something more -- frequent flyer
miles.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Packer)
http://www.clark.net/~whatnews
------------------------------
From: "Alan Po" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 20:46:56 +0800
Dear all
Would you tell me the size of Linux 2.4.1 kernel? Is it very large?
Thanks a lot
Alan PO
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:02:20 +1000
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) eeped:
> > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Barry Manilow wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Craig Kelley wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > GreyCloud wrote:
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > I have freedom to make as much money as I know how.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > The problem with this freedom is that this right ends up killing a lot
> > > >> > > of hard-working, decent human beings. That is why capitalism is a
> > > >> > > murdering system. It kills millions of people every year in the
> > > >> > > world.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > As opposed to *what*, exactly.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Cuba, North Korea and China are not paragons of virtue.
> > > >>
> > > >> China is practically a capitalist country right now.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Yes, they are beginning to see the light.
> > > >
> > > >However, the brutal ways of their Communist Revolution and
> > > >subsequent Cultural Revolution are still with them.
> > > >
> > >
> > > comp.os.linux.advocacy.and.debate.on.communism.vs.capitalism
> >
> > yay capitalism!
> > speaking of which, microsoft has done rather well under the free market
> > system don't you think?
>
> Actually, Microsoft has practiced a deliberate campaign of subverting
> the free market.
>
> That's why their always in court.
Its called monopoly.
>
>
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >
> > tee hee!
> >
> > p.s. why are so many linux users fat ugly beardos?
> >
> > jest axin
> >
> > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> > more even than death
> > - bertrand russell
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande®" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:05:10 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le
message news: 99upqv$7r9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I don't care what some benchmarks say - I am interested in using computers
> rather than just looking at some artificial numbers. The fact is that NT
is
Then again Winstone benchmarks are using the actual applications, even if
those are benchmarks.
> significantly faster for a "power user" than Win9x. I have NT on a 300
MHz
Microsoft agrees to the 30% figure.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/performance/overview.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/platform/performance/reports/zdla
bs.asp
Remeber that they sell the all those systems.
> machine at work, and 98SE on an 800 MHz machine at home, and I know which
I know nothing about the memory of the two systems, speed of the disks,
quality of the interface, wether UDMA is enabled or no, a whole slew of
variables. So your point doesn't carry much weight.
> one is faster for real work (web development stuff, programming, database
> serving, Delphi, text file editing, Python, PHP, etc. all at much the same
Text file editing ? :)
> time). Win9x can stop up entirely while waiting for some operations. NT
For heavy I/O access ?
> (mostly) keeps on going, and if something does go wrong, it is (normally)
> easy to kill rogue processes without restarting the whole machine, and it
is
> easy to change priorities of processes. As for floppy disk access, NT
does
That's true. I never argued that WinNT wasn't a better OS for 'power users",
I argued that it's multitasking abilities weren't *that* inferior with
regards to speed.
What kills Win98
Limited amound of so called resources (Win16 compatibility requirement for
the GDI)
So so Memory management (I have no idea why).
The need to thunk between 16/32 bits mode (some speed is lost here).
Partial memory protection (apps can still write in the system memory space,
Win16 compatibilty requirement).
All that makes for the inferior scalability and robustness of Win98.
> it happily in the background, while Win98SE takes a break. In fact, my
> Win98 machine often hangs while copying back and forth on an IDE ZIP
drive.
It would be interesting if you could dual boot each system and observe the
floppy access. Dollars to doonuts that Win98 on your work machine woudn't
have problem accessing the floppy.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: 29 Mar 2001 13:09:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 22:34:19 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> More fodder for those who like to point out you've obviously never been
>> >> in combat. Nor have I, but I'm bright enough to know that, were I one
>> >> of those blobs, I'd be the shadowiest, most camouflaged fucker in a
>> >> hundred miles, if at all possible. Believe me, its for camouflage.
>> >
>> >Those of us who've actually done it know otherwise.
>>
>> Look, I don't know what kind of psycho rush it might give you to paint
>> your face. But your presumption at authority is very disturbing. Don't
>> forget about how badly you've already been spanked by the real soldiers.
>
>As if a year in a war doesn't count....
Just curious, what war has the US been involved in that lasted a year?
In your post-kinder lifetime, I mean.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:20:02 +1100
Is that you Steve/Claire/flatfish????? How's the iMac?
It's nice to see a Mactroll for a change, anyway.
They seem rare in these parts ;-)
SamanthaJoy wrote:
>
> Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Why does opensource exist...
>
> > The only thing I am asking for is an answer to above question. *What* way
> > is
> > Open Source developing?
>
> It's pretty clear that OSX is where the UNIX community will gravitate as
> we go forward. Even the use of the word "Darwin" was well planned by
> Apple.
>
> All linux/unix code now has a stable base of hardware on which to write
> for... Before OSX, it was a poor mixture of intel hardware so it never
PA-RISC, SPARC, POWER, Alpha, VAXen, m680x0, PDP, m88k, Intel RISC.
Yep, what a motley assortment of x86 hardware
> took off to any large degree... Now programmers don't have to worry
> about the hardware present or the GUI. Everything just works, which will
> be a real boon to linux/unix developers.
>
> All the elements are here:
>
> http://dryden.biol.yorku.ca/darwin.html
>
> > And is there a connection between Darwins theory and the way Open Source
> > is developing??
>
> Yes, as we move from a "hobbyist" os (linux) to a more commercial
> application (OSX) we'll see Darwin's ideas apply to the software world
OS X isn't open, even though it's based on Mach/BSD (more's the pity).
A more legitimate comparison might be Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, Irix, ...
or even NextStep ;-)
> just like it does in the hardware/software/mixture world. OSX is the
> first large scale distrubution of UNIX so it packs the "biggest animal
> in the land" punch... SAMI
It isn't distributed yet :-)
It should be interesting, though. What a pity I'm still on a 604 :-(
Maybe a G3 or G4 daughterboard and another 64MB of RAM and....
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:17:24 -0500
On 29 Mar 2001, Nick Condon wrote:
> Jay Maynard wrote:
>> On 28 Mar 2001 09:43:05 GMT, Nick Condon
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Jay Maynard wrote:
>>>> If it means making people's intellectual work worthless, then you will
>>>> never succeed in that endeavor.
>>> What a mercenary mindset you have.
>>> zero cost != worthless
>> However, it takes money to keep food in the pantry and the rent paid and
>> Lexus Financial Services from coming to repossess my car. None of those
>> can be done without it. If I can't make money from doing software, then
>> I'll have to do something else that does bring in real dollars.
> I've worked in the computer industry my whole career. I've *never* been
> paid a penny of royalties on the work I've done; I've never even met anyone
> who has been paid that way. I get paid by the hour, just like everyone else
> who works in service industry.
Faulty logic, at best. You are doing a work for hire -- you are getting
paid a wage just like a widget maker. This has nothing to do with a
service industry model -- it's an employer/employee model. If you were
to independently write software and then set up an agreement with a
publisher, you're going to get royalties -- unless you sell the rights
completely. Just because you're not doing your work that way doesn't
mean that it can't be done that way. Don't confuse the two cases.
>> *NOTHING* is truly zero cost. Trying, as you advocate, to distort the
>> equation by removing any possibility of meaningful monetary compensation
>> for someone's intellectual work will simply drive people out of fields
>> to which that applies, thus a) impoverishing large numbers of people,
>> and b) drastically reducing the amount of intellectual work being done.
> Rubbish. You are labouring under a number of flawed assumptions. You think
> that software needs to have a resale value, or companies won't pay for it
> to be written. I work in the industry; you want to work in the industry.
> Let me tell you how it works in the real world. 95% of all software is
> developed in house and never offered for sale, so all that work will still
> get done even if it can't be copyrighted. Because it's value is *use* value
> and the developers that wrote it will still get paid; it'll be generous
> hourly rate rather than royalties.
This is an irrelevancy, and I doubt your 95% figure, to be quite
honest. It's high, definitely, but there still a lot of software that
is sold because it would never have "in-house" value. Discounting that
10%+ of software just because you think it's not worth selling is
silliness (at best).
> Secondly, software that is in use gradually falls out of step with real
> world conditions, so it needs to be maintained. Software maintenance, that
> is, making changes to software that already exists, makes up the vast
> majority of what real programmers do. Maintenance will still need to be
> done, those developers will still get paid.
In part. See an article I wrote earlier examining this. Yes, it assumes
that you're selling the software, but NOT ALL SOFTWARE IS "in-house".
You're making faulty assumptions.
> You think that people are mainly motivated by money. Not even the
> economists believe that anymore. You think that without royalty payments,
> people won't write software. The four most critical pieces of
> infrastructure that make the Internet work are The four most critical
> pieces of infrastructure that make the Internet work are BIND [Berkeley
> Internet Name Daemon], Perl, Sendmail, and Apache. Everyone of them is free
> software.
And not one of these are "end-user" software. Without the client
software, there's nothing there.
-f
--
-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: Alumne FIB - MARC COLL CARRILLO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 15:20:14 +0200
The compressed file is about 20 Mb. Once uncompressed, it can grow up to
100 Mb.
Alan Po wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Would you tell me the size of Linux 2.4.1 kernel? Is it very large?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Alan PO
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:22:52 -0500
On 29 Mar 2001, Nick Condon wrote:
> Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
>> Nick Condon wrote:
>>> The four most critical
>>> pieces of infrastructure that make the Internet work are BIND
>>> [Berkeley Internet Name Daemon], Perl, Sendmail, and Apache. Everyone
>>> of them is free software.
>> You overstate your case here. Browsers and mail clients are also
>> infrastructure critical to the Internet (indeed, without browsers and
>> mail clients, Apache and Sendmail are useless), and virtually none of
>> them, as measured by usage, are free software.
> With out cars, highways are useless. But cars ain't infrastructure and nor
> are web browsers.
Web browsers are, in fact, part of the infrastructure -- since they
(allegedly) conform to the display standards for HTML, JavaScript, etc.
Mail clients have standards to which they conform for performance
against the mail servers out there.
Without the automobiles (not just cars), the highways wouldn't have
been built. Without the web browsers, the web wouldn't be what it is.
Nice try, though.
-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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Software registration
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:27:37 -0500
With Microsoft's new required licensing, I have some thoughts...
There are many laws, in the U.S., which govern warrantees and support. I know
of none which require "registration" they allow for "proof of purchase" and
specifically exclude many conditional requirements, i.e. they may say you need
to register, but legally they may not be allowed to require it.
So if everyone registers Microsoft software as:
USER: William Gates
Company: Screw-you.com
I would think there is nothing Microsoft can do about it. This will accomplish
a couple things.
(1) You can remain anonymous.
(2) If a sufficiently large number of people use bogus names and companies, it
will render the database useless for marketing purposes, and keep Microshaft
from exploiting its customers in yet another way by selling their information.
I can not understand why one of the most profitable software companies ever, is
so paranoid about loosing money. Requiring registration would never work on any
product, unless you had no other choice. Microsoft proves, once again, they
enjoy a monopoly position and must be broken up as a company, perhaps even
eliminated.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: What is the size of Linux 2.4.1 Kernel
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 08:35:51 -0500
Alan Po wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> Would you tell me the size of Linux 2.4.1 kernel? Is it very large?
>
> Thanks a lot
>
> Alan PO
Do you mean built, source, or for download?
It is between 20 and 30 meg to download.
It extracts to a very large source tree, over 100 meg.
When building, the object files take a lot of space.
A bootable kernel file can be less than a 1meg. A full blown working kernel
with all the modules compiled, can be about 15-20 meg in the
/lib/modules/2.4.xxx.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 06:34:54 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > Anonymous wrote:
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) eeped:
> > > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >Barry Manilow wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Craig Kelley wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > GreyCloud wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I have freedom to make as much money as I know how.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > The problem with this freedom is that this right ends up killing a lot
> > > > >> > > of hard-working, decent human beings. That is why capitalism is a
> > > > >> > > murdering system. It kills millions of people every year in the
> > > > >> > > world.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > As opposed to *what*, exactly.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Cuba, North Korea and China are not paragons of virtue.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> China is practically a capitalist country right now.
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >Yes, they are beginning to see the light.
> > > > >
> > > > >However, the brutal ways of their Communist Revolution and
> > > > >subsequent Cultural Revolution are still with them.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > comp.os.linux.advocacy.and.debate.on.communism.vs.capitalism
> > >
> > > yay capitalism!
> > > speaking of which, microsoft has done rather well under the free market
> > > system don't you think?
> >
> > Actually, Microsoft has practiced a deliberate campaign of subverting
> > the free market.
> >
> > That's why their always in court.
>
> Its called monopoly.
you mean linux isn't really a viable alternative to windows after all?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
shocked i tel u
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 13:27:07 GMT
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >WesTralia wrote:
> >>
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Will .NET benefit users: no.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Let's see, getting real time flight information, being able to notify
> >> > > > my loved ones 30 minutes before I land so that they can come pick me
up,
> >> > > > being instant messaged when I'm outbid on an auction, getting
real-time
> >> > > > customer support chat with an American Express customer support
> >> > > > representative...
> >> > > > nah, that doesn't benefit the consumers at all!
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Psssssssst... Mr Myers... all that technology is already in place and
> >> > > available, today!
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, you have sort of reworded your original, but here goes.
> >>
> >> > Psst: no it isn't.
> >> >
> >> > Please show me where I can have my relatives instant messaged when my
> >> > plane is nearing landing.
> >> >
> >>
> >> telephone
> >>
> >> > Please show me where I can get real time chat with a customer support
> >> > rep from a major company from MY messenger, not their chumpy web site
> >> > chat.
> >> >
> >>
> >> telephone
> >>
>
> Microsoft's UK e-govt service unveiled
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/17934.html
>
> In the last e-gov announcement in January, the claim was that 40
> per cent of government services were already online. We rooted about
> a bit and found out that the "target" had been met with some handy
> reclassification of Whitehall equipment - such as telephones being
> rebranded as "online media".
>
> We expect even more creative statistics throughout the year.
>
> ===================
> They fail to comment that it took Redmond, Gates was promoting it
> himself, fifteen *weeks* to get four agencies online and they hope
> to eventually have 682 online.
>
> Just in time for the next millenium I figure, right before the
> Hotmail.com conversion.
Hotmail has already been converted. But you don't care about the
facts do you? Of course not. This makes the rest of your statements
probably false as well, especially considering they came from the
Register which is about as close to the definition of F.U.D. as you
can get.
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
