Linux-Advocacy Digest #200, Volume #33 Fri, 30 Mar 01 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Microsoft has gone insane (Chad Everett)
Re: Communism (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and
lies about free software) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Rob S. Wolfram)
Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? ("2 + 2")
Re: Linux dying (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models (Chad Everett)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft has gone insane
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:16:16 GMT
Hey! Just another indication that Microsoft wants to charge
you for every bit that goes in or out of your computer,
PDA, cell phone, satellite dish, toaster, and on and on.
Can you say "HailStorm"?
Don't believe me? Read this:
See http://www.internetweek.com/newslead01/lead032901.htm
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:21:24 GMT
Non-relevant (IMO!) groups removed from followups.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:21:42 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>>Mathew wrote:
> [...]
>>Having a monopoly is not illegal.
>>
>>Engaging in a pattern of anti-competitive behavior to gain and hold
>>the monopoly *is*.
>
>And since there *is no other way to have a monopoly* in a free-market
>capitalist economy, having a monopoly is evidence of monopolization, and
>is therefore unlawful, if not illegal. This is the reason Congress did
>not outlaw "patterns of anti-competitive behavior to gain or hold a
>monopoly", but simply "monopolization *and attempts to monopolize*"
>(emphasis added).
A couple of dumb questions:
[1] If one assumes that diseconomies of scale don't exist (yes, I know
that's a bit far-fetched), then one can easily show that one will
eventually get a monopoly, as it's the cheapest method to make
the product with no diseconomies of scale. This is not to say
that Microsoft is in this situation, though, especially considering
the breadth of their product offerings, which include the almost-
useless "BOB" to the consumer-level WinME/WinXP to the
industrial-grade Win2000 server platforms and Microsoft Office.
(At least, they'd like us to believe it's industrial-grade.... :-) )
[2] What's the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful"? Perhaps I'm
of a naive, non-lawyerly mindset, but I'm curious. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 53d:16h:50m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Has Linux anything to offer ?
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:42:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Brent R
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:59:39 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
><snip>
>> The results are mixed. AFAIK, Quake runs faster, for example.
>
>Errr... what? Almost all the evidence I've seen points towards the
>opposite. Please explain.
The factors are many; the biggest one being the card drivers.
Sorry I couldn't be more specific. I haven't played Quake in
quite a while, myself. :-)
One issue with Win9x versus Linux: Win9x can talk directly to
card hardware, which allows for a good performance boost [*]
(at the cost of various OS-imposed protections). This may be
why Windows wins on the desktop, for gamers. (However,
Linux is more crash-resistant.)
>
>--
>- Brent
>
>http://rotten168.home.att.net
[*] It's not clear to me that this is guaranteed, however.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 53d:16h:01m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ" <[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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:17:25 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> ><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> >> >Why not ? You want me to assume "Remarkably pathetic, as I suggested,
> >> >considering how bad WinDOS does in this department." without offering
no
> >> >back up whatsoever. <shrug>
> >>
> >> No, I want you to *recognize* "remarkably pathetic [et. al,]"; no
> >
> >Just because *you* said so ? Get real.
>
> Because it was said. Who said it is not the relevant issue. Get real.
Sure does. You said it. Therefore you have to provide evidence and "state
your case accurately and moderately" .So far you failed miserably. Your
attempt at empty rhetoric don't cut it sorry.
> >> assumption is necessary. Just open your eyes and put away your
> >> prejudices, and compare the products.
> >
> >What prejudices ? Are you not the one crapping on some products here ?
And
No answer ? Boy, am I disappointed. :)
> >engage in rants with have little to see with the issue at hand and who
even
> >acknowledges this.
>
> >"Other than my natural instinct to rant, I can't really disagree with
> >anything you've said" in this very thread..
> >
> >It's indeed a straw-beam-eye situation.
> >
> >> >> rather than MS's crappy design which allows such putative "hardware"
> >> >> dependencies to exist, is at fault?
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope, sorry, can't blame hardware. Not unless you can point to
> >> >
> >> >I can't. Watch me: I've seen different behaviours on various systems
> >with
> >> >different versions of
> >>
> >> And made assumptions about the variables that are entirely unsupported,
> >> and in fact ridiculous, no doubt. Like my old buddy Roger, who had to
> >
> >Go there: news://comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips and find the "Formatting
a
> >floppy while multitasking" thread. Apparently, what i claimed doesn't
seem
> >so silly to hardware junkies.
>
> Model numbers?
They and I don't have them. However, their testimony/explanations seem to
corroborate my "entirely and in fact udoubtedly ridiculous claims."
Your evidence that NT's multitaking is crap ? Why, no where to be seen ! You
still have to provide evidence and "state your case accurately and
moderately".
> >> replace his video *hardware* to get *IE* to work, and acted as if it
was
> >> a hardware failure.
> >
> >Shows how far you think. When you replace the video card [assuming you
> >change brands], you are very likely to
>
> Prove yourself a sucker?
Nice snipping and invective. You nevertheless didn't contradict the fact
that flaky video drivers can induce abberant behaviour. See an ATi Rage Pro
inder NT, and see how it works.
> [...]
> >> >yours. <roll eyes>.
> >>
> >> Shrugs, rolling of eyes; no doubt next you'll <sigh>.
> >
> >What I do next is point out that you *still* haven't put forward the
> >evidence that NT multitasking is crap. you lose.
>
> That doesn't make NT's multitasking any more acceptable, though, does
> it?
I'm not making that claim. You are making the claim that it's crap. The
burden is right on your shoulders, and You have yet to back it up and
according to your sig "state your case accurately and moderately" and do
away with the ranting and handwaving.
> >> So you can't name any such hardware, is that right?
> >
> >That's right. I won't run around opening PCs to check the Floppy disk
> >controller/drive to see the brand and model. I just posted my observation
> >that floppy disk formatting wasn't MS OSes dependant. On some systems it
> >worked on some it didn't, regardless of the OS. So I blame the hardware.
>
> Yea, kind of like Roger's video card. Did you not get the point?
Which one ? It's a rhetorical question, no answer really expected here.
> >Rant away, you are even allowed to use tghe infamous
> >
> ><MAX> Because I say so </MAX>
> >
> >I'm out.
> >
> >> T. Max Devlin
> >> *** The best way to convince another is
> >> to state your case moderately and
> >> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
> >
> >How ironic.
>
> How original.
It's not. I'm sure that plenty of people already pointed that to you.
You know what ? I'm tired. You win. Enjoy.
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 30 Mar 2001 16:22:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >The GPL ADDS restrictions, and the BSDL removes most of them.
>> Please name *one* restriction that has been ADDED by the GPL.
>
>The restriction against distributing a work containing any components
>that have either more or less restrictive licenses along with the
>restricted GPL component even if these components and licenses
>existed before the GPL'd component (and thus cannot logically
>be a derived work).
Wrong, you should have paid notice to my emphasis. The restriction was
there to begin with by means of copyright law. No restrictions have been
added by the GPL, just not all removed.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
So I have to ask. Is there a spreadsheet hidden in Microsoft Flight
Simulator?
-- Jim Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in a.f.c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: My take on GPLed code as free software (was: Richard Stallman what a
tosser, and lies about free software)
Date: 30 Mar 2001 22:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
>> >> >You'd be just as at their mercy
>> >> >if it were a reimplementation, and it would have more bugs.
>> >
>> >No, the second part is a historical fact.
>> Tell me, where can I get a copy op W2K with a tcp stack that is not
>> based on BSD code so I can compare them too?
>
>Just read the W2K label: 'Based on NT technology' If you want
>(for some insane reason) W2K without BSD code, you can
>still run NT.
Next time I'll include </sarcasm>. It seems necessary.
>> How is that relevant to my point?
>
>I thought your point was that bugs didn't get fixed in the closed-vendor
>branches, or that they didn't get merged back to the open version.
No, my point was that even though the bug may have been fixed in the
versions of the code as included with free systems, I am still at the
mercy of the closed software vendor to fix the bug in the version I'm
using. This instantiation of free code can not be used freely.
>> I have never had the need to violate the BSDL. But let's suppose that
>> you have released some piece of software BSD licensed. Now if I would
>> replace your license file with a readme stating "Hi, this software is
>> copyrighted by some other dewd but he released it as free software, so
>> use and distribute to your hearts content", thus not retaining your
>> non-liability clause, would I or would I not violate your BSD license?
>
>I don't understand the circumstances where this would be necessary
>to provide needed or desirable functionality in the program. Please
>contrive such a scenario if you want to make a serious argument that
>the BSDL prevents useful programs from being distributed in the same
>way that the GPL does.
Practically nobody objects against the restrictions. I don't either, but
they are still formal restrictions. That's the whole point I'm making.
These restrictions clearly do not itch you so you call the software
free. The GPL restrictions allow less so you are not able to create a
proprietary product based on it or allow someone else to do so.
Apparently that does itch.
Still, the purpose of the GPL (i.e. unencumbered/free *use* of every
copy of the software) is clearly met. You can consider the software
non-free because you are restricted in distributing it, but don't call
me a lyer or deceiver because I have a different point of view. The
*use* *is* free so I have every right to call it free software.
>> Where have I ever stated that it is? BTW, I view BDSLed software as
>> free. Can *you* give examples of how the GPL has ever prevented a user
>> from using a program the way he pleases?
>
>Yes, and I've mentioned it here before.
[ networked tar for DOS example ]
> Combined
>in a working program, the GPL prevented giving it away to all the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>other users who might have had DOS machines on a network.
I asked for an example where the GPL has prevented *using*, not
*sharing* the software.
>> >Of course you can. Count the real examples where the respective licenses
>> >have prevented actual programs from being distributed and used.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Rehashed topic. You can freely distribute BSDLed software but not freely
>> use every instantiation of the software. You can freely use every
>> instantiation of GPLed software but not freely distribute it.
>
>If something can't be distributed to you, how do you manage to use it?
You can't. Does that make distributing and using the same thing? Does
that mean that GPLed software cannot be distributed at all?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all
learned.
-- Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 30 Mar 2001 22:50:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 21 Mar 2001 16:52:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
>wrote:
>>John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Neither of us is obliged to further share this with anyone else.
>>>>=20
>>>In fact, if someone has paid Cygnus for support (that is BIG bucks), =
>>>then they
>>>are probably not very likely to give the source code away to the 'little =
>>>guy' who
>>>cannot afford the cost of access.
>>So now we have a confirmation where the itch is...
>>
[snip]
>First, I have no 'itch'. Second, my statement was true. Third,
>please clarify your statement so that the context makes sense?!?!?!?
Free beer, not free speech. Clear enough?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all
learned.
-- Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:54:54 -0500
As we see the dot-com meltdown, how do we access all the money wasted on
overpriced software projects that promise the world but deliver very little?
Sun is, no doubt, taking a big hit to its bottom line.
Perhaps Dell, which has be same profit level as Sun BEFORE the downturn,
will buy Sun for it's midline server hardware business, which it would
promptly convert to Linux, an OS that delivers on its promises.
Dell could become a dominent Linux server vendor.
Dell would sell off the Sunsoft division that include Java, etc. Then that
division could concentrate on becoming a software company in competition
with Microsoft.
That would be good for the industry. Java wouldn't be captive to the mission
of selling overpriced Sun servers.
McNealy could be farmed out to a separate spin off of the chip business. Of
course, Scott could still be heard railing against the elements like Captain
Ahab, except the White Whale would be Intel.
We wouldn't want an industry without the Scott to badmouth the competition.
2 + 2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:00:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:32:56 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 29 Mar
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, WesTralia
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>>on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:59:50 -0600
>><[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!
>>
>><Windows_advocate>
>>
>>Exactly, because .NET is being deployed even as we speak. :-)
>>
>></Windows_advocate>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Sheesh... next you'll be jumping up and down with excitement over the
>>>combustion engine.
>>
>>That's going to run .NET, too. It'll have to; the credit card company
>>will undoubtedly want to know what kinds of fuel are compatible with
>>it so that the gas pump will automatically select the correct one,
>>a form of just-in-time fuel refinement. If the credit is low,
>>one won't get gas. :-)
>>
>>The police will also be interested, should the car be reported stolen.
>>The .NET server on the engine will immediately disable the vehicle and
>>the built-in GPS system will of course report the car's location for
>>rescue and/or apprehension.
>>
>>.NET will be useful in a lot of other places, as well. For example,
>>Nielsen will want to know what TV shows are being watched, for proper
>>compensation of advertisers. Or perhaps advertisers can be immediately
>>notified that person A is watching TV show B, and target their pitches
>>automatically. .NET-aware cameras can be fed into automatic computers
>>which can detect whether a person is authorized to perform a certain
>>action, such as entering a building or a vehicle. (Yes, people will
>>be wearing .NET-aware cell phones.)
>>
>>.NET. Building Tomorrow's Big Brother Today.
>>
>>[.sigsnip]
>
>Awe. Admiration, and awe.
Well, admittedly, all of this is extremely fanciful, :-)
and not dependent on .NET technology specifically. But judging
from some of Microsoft's other attempts at various things related
to observation and/or monopolization, I worry.
The first scenario might be taken care of by replacing a sensor.
Presumably, after-market sensors testing the fuel will be readily
available -- some of them legit. :-) There's not much one can
do with bad credit, though -- although one could try switching
credit cards.
The second one might be dealt with by replacing the GPS receiver
with a dummy. The police will then be looking for the stolen car
in Timbuktu instead of Alberquerque. (One warning: they might get
suspicious if it refers to the middle of the South Pacific, so some
care may have to be taken to ensure the ersatz location makes sense.)
The third one may be anachronistic, as people will most likely click
on a Web browser to watch TV, as opposed to simply hitting the "ON"
button and sitting in the old easy chair. Presumably, anonymous
watcher/filter proxy services can be set up, something like anon.penet.fi
and soda.berkeley.edu, except with far higher bandwidth and
encryption. The user would log in through these and the networks
would be none the wiser.
I'm not sure what to do about NET-aware cell phones, but a small jammer
unit could be used; of course, this might make the police suspicious
as well (and inconvenience just about everyone in a quarter-mile radius,
as cell phones can switch "channels" within a cell, presumably, as well
as switching channels when moving through cells).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 53d:17h:18m actually running Linux.
The Usenet channel. All messages, all the time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 23:00:41 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:43:32 -0000, Andy Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>A few companies are experimenting with organic memory. The theory is that
>the organic system has considerably greater capacity than semiconductors for
>said size.
>This could be the dawn of a new era of organic computers and you may find
>that biological and electronic evolution have a great deal in common in the
>future!
>
Well since it's been designed by an intelligent designer, it wouldn't be
evolution, now would it.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[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: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:04:38 +0200
Barry Manilow wrote:
>
> "T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
>
> NT is
> > certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
>
> I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20% slower
> than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
> be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend has
> it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
> using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
> lumbering beast.
There's a number of factors to take into account which may prove you
both right (or wrong).
The only real life application I've met where speed was really an issue,
has been our first attempt to replace our home-made process control
supervisor (CPU 80186 @ 32 MHz with home-made real-time OS) with a PC.
We used an industrial PC with a Pentium II @ 266 Mhz, and in that case
Win 95b proved to be significantly faster than Win NT4 sp4. The
application was demanding both for I/O and for graphics. Some
measurements taken did show that the different performance was coming
mainly from display updating, so as to make I/O performance and task
switching not relevant.
In our case my conclusion was that the Win 95 display drivers for the
particular chip set were significantly faster than the NT display
drivers. I didn't have the opportunity to test on a different hardware,
but it's quite possible that the situation could have been reversed.
Bundling everything together makes it almost impossible to tell apart
kernel performance from window management performance, and from video
driver performance.
As a side issue, our home-made system (with a ten times slower CPU) was
two to three times faster. But then, we had a dedicated communication
controller, and a video board with a NEC controller intended for CAD
workstations: in other words, a setup optimized for the job. Had the
application been more computation intensive, the story would have been
completely different. Which once more tells how difficult it is to
compare performance if you can't take apart the different elements.
The single user evaluates the speed from how long he must wait for the
screen to be updated, and in many cases he's only evaluating the graphic
chipset or the video driver.
--
Giuliano Colla
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
