Linux-Advocacy Digest #228, Volume #33 Sat, 31 Mar 01 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? ("2 + 2")
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:06:35 -0500
GreyCloud wrote in message ...
>From what I'm seeing of Sun the last two weeks they've held pretty solid
>on the market.
>Sun hasn't been resting on their laurels. They have introduced the sun
>blade 100. 64-bit processing for $950. 500 Mhz sparc IIe with 128Mb ram
>upto 2Gb.
The problem with this analysis is that it is strictly in OEM territory where
Dell has invested in state-of-the-art factories in the last few years. There
have been articles written on this in various business publications.
Dell builds only upon order. Also all the parts must be available. They have
required that their main suppliers locate near their plants with JIT
delivery. Misc. supplies have been consolidated in one supplier with a
factory nearby.
A few years ago, there was much ado about OEM processes. Dell has been the
one to follow through.
Dell has no problem when a component become price or design obsolete, since
they keep minimal inventory.
When you look at the total picture, Sun is offering loss leaders with less
overall value since its costs are higher and its control is less. This is
what Dell's OEM technology does for it.
Dell is a PC industry player who is used to competing on price. Sun is a
player in the high end market, who long ago was a Unix low end workstation
vendor at $10,000 a pop. Look at SGI. They were felled by the low end
competition.
Also, Dell has made good use of the internet due to its mail order roots.
Dell has special pages for big customers that contain the approved models
for purchase based on deals struck.
Sun trying to compete with Dell in the low end server market is foolish.
For Dell the downturn is a chance to prove its cost control technology while
improving share at the cost of some of its profit margin, which it can
afford to take a fall on. Dell has no great investment needs.
Sun is in a struggle for survival in terms of its goals to be a major player
in the high end market against IBM, in chips against Intel (especially when
a crucial chip transition is in process), and software against Microsoft.
This takes great resources. The combined profits of these companies in BAD
TIMES will be in the range of 30 BILLION to something in the range of one
billion for Sun.
Microsoft has made a multi-billion investment in .NET technologies, based on
the very successful MTS technology that is the model for its web services
offering.
While the ground is shifting under the industry due to the failture of the
first generation dot-com era of the internet, the survivors must produce
software that works NOW in a very competitive environment.
The first cost cutting is software projects based on dot-com era
projections. Because the web bubble inflated so greatly, the shakeout will
be especially brutal.
>I highly doubt Sun will disappear from the market place, but
>will instead keep growing. It'll be awhile before MS comes out with
>their 64-bit O/S, which isn't available now. Also the itantium
>processor from intel is still having problems. It was supposed to be
>out last August, but its still in very limited quantities. Linux has
>IA-64 version ready for it, and HP has reportedly developed a UNIX
>version for it. The bad part of the Pentium IV right now is its heat
>dissipation... 54 watts. Yet the sparc chip doesn't dissipate that much
>power. With the rolling black outs and the political push to conserve
>power, intels going to have a temporary image problem.
Intel has countless billions in profits to invest in making it work. No one
in the computer industry has the profit margins and profits of Intel. In an
historic downturn like this, the name of the game is available resources.
Once it does work, then Intel has the resources to create fabrication plants
to build in economical quatities.
As far as the CA power situation, Intel was the only one to drop out of
those who advocated the power deregulation fiasco.
2 + 2
>
>--
>V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:10:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Karel Jansens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:26:32 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> One person I would really hate to see in charge of the US is Steve Jobs.
>> Could you imagine the havoc that would be unlessed! some finds out a
>> secret, and Steve (who is renound for is "quick to fire" response, esp.
>> the case of the ATI Randeon debarkle) would nuke the person. Personally,
>> I would like to see Magarate Thature in charge of the US, balls of
>> steel, ruling with an iron fist.
>>
>Who is/was Margarate Thature?
Most likely Margaret Thatcher, who was in 10 Downing Street in England
(Great Britain?) back during (part of? all of?)
Reagan's tenure as US president. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 54d:20h:39m actually running Linux.
Linux. The choice of a GNU generation.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:15:52 GMT
Said Michael Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 05:08:38
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Michael Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 04:53:50
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Michael Allen in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 29 Mar 2001
>03:48:51
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Said HIM in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 28 Mar 2001
>12:51:40 -0500;
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Looks like MS is betting the farm on content protection. Good.
>The
>> >> >> >> more they bet, the more they lose. :-)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >MS never bet the farm on anything. And probably never will.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Other than the monopoly, we presume you mean. Watch what happens
>when
>> >> >> the stock hits $30.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >And as far as
>> >> >> >content protection goes they could care less.Why would they?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because Bill Gates has always dreamed of being able to charge people
>> >for
>> >> >> using intellectual property.
>> >> >
>> >> >It is not a dream, it happens every day across multiple industries.
>> >Books,
>> >> >movies, music, software, etc. etc.
>> >>
>> >> BZZZZ. Sorry, only software belongs in that category, and then only
>> >> speculatively. You obviously misunderstood the concept. You pay for a
>> >> *book* or a *performance* or what have you, not any "use of
>intellectual
>> >> property". Only producers do that. As for software, we're not talking
>> >> about charging for "licenses to use" (which aren't, by the way,
>licenses
>> >> to use, but trade secret agreements pretending to be licenses to copy),
>> >> we're talking about charging for actual use.
>> >
>> >IP encompasses patents, trademarks and copyrights. Individuals and
>> >corporations charge millions of dollars every day for the use of their
>> >patented, trademarked and copyrighted IP. You are demonstrating your
>> >ignorance of this topic and the law.
>>
>> You are misunderstanding the argument, which has nothing to do with
>> whether anyone "makes money" from intellectual property, but *how* they
>> make money from owning intellectual property.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >The owner of intellectual property has
>> >> >every right, supported by existing law on the books today, to charge
>people
>> >> >for the use of their property.
>> >>
>> >> BZZZZ. This is, again, a misconception. The *only* right the owner of
>> >> intellectual property has is the ability to determine (and charge for
>> >> such consideration) who can *produce* his works. Copyright gives no
>> >> power whatsoever to charge for use of IP. You have been duped by the
>> >> trade secret licenses, and you are not alone.
>> >
>> >Here's the code (you are wrong again). Note that the copyright owner has
>> >the "exclusinve rights to do and to authorize any of the following", and
>> >note the words "sale", "rental", "lease" and "lending" in subsection 3.
>> >(and this is only one small piece of Title 17).
>>
>> You're again simply misconstruing the argument.
>
>Geez - look at your *own* words two paragraphs above!!! Quote Max:
>"Copyright gives no power whatsoever to charge for use of IP." My reply: I
>show you US Code, Title 17 that *expressly* grants copyright owners the
>rights to do *exactly* what you said it did not grant. Max, can't you just
>admit you are wrong about something?
Certainly I can, when it happens, which it hasn't in this case. You
must, unfortunately, be able to grasp the abstraction "use" in a
consistent fashion. That which is authorized (sale, rental, lease,
lending) is not "use". Copyright gives no power whatsoever to charge
for *use* of IP. It provides the power to charge for *use in
production* of IP. To say this is "use" [alone] is grammatically
correct, but it is epistemologically self-refuting.
>> >> >Max, do you believe people have the right to download
>> >> >music (IP) they have not paid for without the artist's (owner's)
>> >> >approval?
>> >> >I'd like to know where you stand on this.
>> >>
>> >> Who's "they"?
>> >
>> >"they" can be anyone, you or me. And I'll ask the question again: Do you
>> >believe an individual has the right to download a copy of a song they have
>> >not paid for? Yes or No. I say No.
>>
>> Shocker. Let me ask you something: how much can an author ethically
>> charge for something that costs him nothing, and has no functional
>> value?
>
>Once again, you refuse to answer the question. It shouldn't be too hard to
>draw on your own value system to determine whether you support an illegal
>act or not.
I am not so naive as to suppose that having a value system makes all
ethical questions easy to answer. Quite the opposite, in fact; you can
only produce such a categorical answer if you are willing to ignore all
values which are not absolutely pre-eminent.
>Unlike you, I will crisply answer your question: an author can ethically
>charge whatever he wants for his IP. $1 or $Millions of dollars. Even
>though it wouldn't impact my answer, I do have a couple of questions for
>you. 1) What do you mean when you say "costs him nothing"? The blood,
>sweat and tears to produce a novel may not have an invoice or bill of
>material attached to it, but I can assure you those costs are high to the
>author.
High in comparison to capital investment? I think not.
>Are you talking about production and distribution costs again?
>Repeat after me: those costs have nothing to do with the value of IP and
>have no bearing on what the author can charge for his IP.
Why should I repeat what I know to be false? Are you honestly saying
the value of a book is simply the words on the page, and the much larger
capital cost involved in getting them there and distributing them is
somehow non-existent?
>2) And what do
>you mean by "no functional value"? A book, a symphony, a play, a painting -
>all of those have value. Those are examples of IP which inspire, entertain,
>motivate, communicate ideas. Are you saying those things don't have what
>you call "functional value"? Please explain.
Functional value. I really don't see what needs explaining. Have some
effect other than on the human mind; how's that?
>> >> I believe copyright law (and, more importantly, popular
>> >> misconceptions about copyright law) needs to be modified to become
>> >> reasonable. It may have been rational before, when it could be assumed
>> >> that distribution required production. But since the costs of these
>> >> things have dropped, and the prices haven't, there is every reason to
>> >> believe that rather than exercising any "right to profit", corporate
>> >> media owners are under the impression they have a right to profiteer.
>> >
>> >Production and distribution *costs* do not impact rights granted under
>> >copyright law.
>>
>> No, but they do impact what is a "fair profit". I realize there are
>> some people who blithely insist there is no such thing, and it seems
>> obvious to me that such people are immoral. Are you immoral?
>
>No, I am not immoral. I am the one who has stated my opinion that it is
>wrong to steal an artist's music (based on my moral beliefs btw). You are
>the one who keeps avoiding taking a stance on this issue.
So morality to you is the ability to state a per se rule? It seems to
me that to be moral, you need to know the reason for that rule, or
you're just arbitrarily following rules, not acting morally.
>> >Just becasue those costs have tended to zero when the
>> >Internet is the distribution channel does not mean the value of the IP has
>> >changed in any way, shape or form.
>>
>> BZZZZ. Let's try this again: intellectual property *is not* a
>> metaphysical substance. "It" *has no value*, by nature. And, yes, OF
>> COURSE driving the cost of reproduction and distribution to zero means
>> the value of the IP tends towards zero. Why on earth wouldn't it?
>
>Repeat after me: Because they are NOT related!!!!!
Why should I repeat what I know to be untrue? The cost of something is
the cost of something; if something drives it down, it drives it down.
What metaphysical existence are you imagining, that something can have
value when it costs nothing and is unlimited in supply?
>Which ticket (each
>printed on the exact same size of paper at the exact same cost) has more
>value - a ticket to the Louvre or a ticket to my basement to see my drawings
>from elementary school?
That depends. If the ticket to the Louvre doesn't get you into the
Louvre (note the importance of functional value), then it is far more
worthless than the ticket to anywhere else which does, indeed, provide a
function.
>Now let's assume the cost of that paper ticket to
>the Louvre went to zero. By your logic you are saying the value of entering
>the Louvre is zero?
How could the cost of the paper ticket be zero, if there is value in
entering the Louvre?
>Again, absurd. The value of entering the Louvre
>relates to the value of the IP in the Louvre.
I see no reference to the "value of the IP in the Louvre". The value of
entering the Louvre relates solely and entirely to how much an
individual person values entering the Louvre, and has no bearing in this
sense of how much the ticket costs. You confuse "do I value entering
the Louvre?" with "can I afford to enter the Louvre?". Charging more
for the ticket doesn't increase the value of the paintings, does it? So
how can these be related, as you claim they are?
>It has nothing to do with the
>physical costs of the ticket to get in, the costs to maintain the physical
>buildings in the complex, the salaries of the employess, etc. etc. It has
>everything to do with the inherent value of the IP inside the Louvre.
You're kidding, right? I'll bet the museum would disagree with you.
And is a painting that is donated counted as zero value, because it has
zero cost?
>God I wish I could stop replying to your stupid
>posts..........................I'm going to try real hard not to anymore.
It would serve you better to try harder to actually answer, rather than
merely reply. I can't imagine that following through the logic of your
examples would not make the contradictions as plain to you as they are
to me.
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:27:58 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:06:37
>"Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > This is the biggest problem with most linvocates or Unixvocates.
>> > They have never used anything but Win3.x or Win9x which all are DOS
>> > based crap.
>> >
>> Weren't you in the crowd back then, shouting that Windows 95 did not
>> have DOS underneath? That it was an operating system on its own?
>
>Nope. [...]
Another lie, copyright Chad Myers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:31:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Karel Jansens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 13:34:01 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Angst, actually.
Yeah, mostly that. :-) Perhaps a bit of fanciful imagination,
too much reading of things such as _Neuromancer_ (which is
curiously outdated now) [*], _1984_, and _Fahrenheit 451_, an
appreciation of Java, and disdain for anything Microsoft.
(I use it. I can't say I like it, though.)
[.sigsnip]
[*] If one wants *really* outdated, though, try _Octagon_.
At least _Foundation_ has held up, although I'm not sure
Trantor's Internet was explicitly mentioned, and the spy-beam
would now be replaced by the spy-cam. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random Asimovia here
EAC code #191 54d:21h:01m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:33:05 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
>Close, but not quite.
>
>Anybody who is the sole supplier of an item manufactured with, or
>incorporating, a patent which he holds, is a LEGAL monopolist for
>the duration of the patent.
This statement has been specifically, absolutely, and clearly refuted by
the Supreme Court. No, a patent is not a "license to monopolize". It
is simple ownership of "intellectual property". You cannot prevent
others from competing, merely from using your patent. And predatory or
anti-competitive licensing or royalty arrangements are quite actionable,
under the Sherman Act.
The reason your point seems valid is that you misconstrue what
"monopoly" is. A common problem, because hundreds of years ago, it
meant something different (exclusive right to sell granted by the
sovereign.) A couple decades ago, AT&T tried to argue they had been
"given a monopoly" in phone service, and the Supreme Court again agreed
that this was not the case. There is no such thing as a "legal
monopoly", as both monopolization *and attempted monopolization* are
both illegal.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 31 Mar 2001 19:36:47 GMT
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 12:03:12 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Mathew wrote:
>>
>> What about Capitalist dictatorships like the Philippines under Marcos?
>
>It's a perfect exampe of what I was saying: Economic freedom leads to
>political freedom...because it destabilizes the dictatorship.
Singapore ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 14:42:44 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Rick wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Rick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > WesTralia wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Warren Bell wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows XP and the WPA, that will
> > > > > > > require you to have MS activate your PC after makeing any hardware
> > > > > > > changes, makes me wish there was somthing out there to compete with
> > > > > > > Windows. I mean really compete.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but the average
> > > > > > > computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs is a
> > > > > > > light, user freindly version that anyone can use. Somthing that's
> > > > > > > stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a single or
> > > > > > > multi user home system. Somthing that even the untechnical user can use
> > > > > > > without too many problems. Here are some things that I think would be
> > > > > > > needed to make this work:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> > > > > > > - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> > > > > > > - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> > > > > > > click.
> > > > > > > - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> > > > > > > distros are similar.
> > > > > > > - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really compete
> > > > > > > with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> > > > > > > thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS like
> > > > > > > this?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sounds to me that you are describing the Mac OSX. I haven't used it or
> > > > > > even seen it in "person" but I like the idea of the Aqua GUI, Unix kernel,
> > > > > > and the fact that you can use either the command line or the GUI for real
> > > > > > work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just wish the Mac people would port OSX to the PC and sell the OSX
>separately.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact, that's my quiestion for the day: why don't they?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Apple can't get out of the obsolete Hardware <--> OS permanently tied
>together
>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > mode of thinking.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As usual, you are wrong about Apple.
> > >
> > > Then I suppose you can name a long list of Apple software products that aren't
> > > tied to Apple hardware....
> > >
> >
> > Um, MacOS runs on Macintosh. It is a hardware/software combo, at least
>
> That's what I said. See the line I underlined with "^^^^^^^^" above.
>
You STILL dont get it. It is a combo. A combo. Like buying a Ford with a
Ford engine, or a Motorola radio with motorola chips/software, or any
vendors cell phone with that models particular features. I hardly think
it is an obsolete product since it is now using a large amount of BSD
for its software engine, AND not too long ago one of its models was the
best single selling mode in the world. If you dont want the product dont
buy it, but quit bitching about it.
> > for now. When will you recognize that and quit bitching about it? Apps
> > for Macintosh run on, um Macintosh.
>
> See above.
>
> >
> > Now tell me what non x86 or x86 clone amchines Windows runs on. Or
> > Solaris.
>
> Solaris runs on Sparc and on x86. Maybe more.
>
> Besides, Solaris is merely ONE member of the Unix family.
> If you want, you can go to Sun's website and download Solaris for x86.
>
> http://www.sun.com/solaris/downloads.html
>
You forgot to tell me what non-x86 or non-x86 clones WIndows works on.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
