Linux-Advocacy Digest #402, Volume #33 Thu, 5 Apr 01 20:13:06 EDT
Contents:
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: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Chad Everett)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: XP = eXPerimental (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:32 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Apr 2001 15:10:06
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 04:08:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Apr 2001 19:10:39
>>>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:10:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 Apr 2001 12:01:40
>>>> [...]
>>>>>It is technically simple, and it is done all the time.
>>>>>It can't be ludicrous, because it's happening, and will continue to happen.
>>>>>Technical ignorance is not a defense against reality.
>>>>Please provide a couple examples of programs which were written to use
>>>>libraries which did not yet exist. I do not believe "it" is done all
>>>>the time, though I do know for a fact that you and other's have
>>>>misconstrued what "it" is.
>>>
>>>FTE. Text editor. With no modification to the original sources, just
>>>a little dynamic linking magic (could be done at runtime if you want)
>>>it now uses Qt or KDElibs (2.0b5 or later).
>>
>>It was written before Qt or KDElibs were?
>
>Yes.
So there were no libraries which existed at the time that did what Qt
and KDElibs now do, but this program somehow was written to be able to
use such a library, though it didn't exist?
>> Perhaps you misunderstand (as
>>I seem to have suspected) what "it" is. A program that was written that
>>*requires* a library that has never been written.
>
>Mind you, this "requires" stuff is new. We have been saying "uses".
Most of the time it is quibbling to make the point, but "uses" is a
rather generic term, like "use", and its expected you need to be able to
change it into some other word, in theory, simply for it to make any
sense at all. But, yes, I had always assumed that when you said a
program "uses" a library, it means it is required for some function of
that software to be operational.
>> If any *other*
>>libraries are already available, the case is flawed; the GPL library
>>linking stipulation already indicates that the situation involves
>>libraries which are only available GPL.
>
>Where?
A priori. If there are multiple libraries a program can use
interchangeably and only one is GPL, the FSF does not claim protection.
[...]
>Well, you seem to be the one who made the stupid mistake that using is
>requiring.
When a builder tells me he's using wood to build my house, it would seem
reasonable to presume that means if the concrete disappears, the house
would, too. Whether that makes wood "required" is a potential category
error.
>>"Libraries which did not yet exist" means there were no libraries that
>>performed that function before the existence of that library.
>
>There was no library performing the task of the gimp charcolize plugin
>before the gimp charcolize plugin was written. So it matches your
>new requirements.
And the software was not later modified to add the function which this
new library now supports and provides? What makes you think this
particular program is infringing, anyway?
[...]
>>>In what sense were you using derivative 11 lines above?
>>
>>The legal sense, obviously (since I was talking about copyright
>>licenses). This is software, not literature. The relationship between
>>an original and a derivative work need not be the same in any
>>metaphysical way.
>
>Ok, so was I. Why bring the other definition, then?
Because I disagree with whether you were. Something in your statements
would not make sense, if I presume you were using that term in the legal
sense at that point where I had pointed it out. You were, therefore,
using it in the literate sense without realizing it. I don't recall
precisely what tipped me off to the issue, but now that its been
explained, we can move on.
[...]
>>If it works, your case is absolutely waterproof. Go get 'em.
>
>What case?
Intellectual property is not a metaphysical substance. It does not
exist until its existence is proven in court, nor does it lack any
properties until those properties are disproven in court.
As soon as you write a program that uses a GPL library and you start
distributing in contradiction to the FSF's interpretation of the GPL,
then you will have a case. If your considerations are correct, you will
be successful in court, thus proving that copyright does not have the
putative property of allowing "derivation by essential API use". Until
you do so, since we know that the GPL has not been disproven in court,
the software copyrighted by authors who use the GPL precisely matches
the properties that the GPL ascribes to it.
>>I've been told by several programmers that this is a preposterous
>>expectation for a program of any complexity or size.
>
>It is a preposterous expectation for a program with a complex
>API. That's not the same as "any program", and not even "any
>complex program"
I have no idea what you're chattering about, or why.
[...]
>>>Writing and documenting an API is not the same as implementing it.
>>
>>I don't understand what you mean by "implementing" it. How can you
>>document what you haven't implemented?
>
>It's called a specification for an undeveloped product.
>Those are often the best specs.
If those are the best specs, how is the product undeveloped, now that
you have them?
>> Are you guessing, or is the real
>>work the development, and the implementation just the engineering scut
>>work?
>
>Both are work.
"Work" doesn't qualify for copyright protection.
>>>> I'm not suggesting its not easier,
>>>>but is the artistry in the API, or in the code?
>>>
>>>I'd say they are two works.
>>
>>You defend API copyright?
>
>No. Do you?
I don't understand how you can say they are two works, then. I realize
that the text of the description of the API is a copyrightable work.
That's text, its readable; anything like that is a work. But that isn't
the work we're talking about. We're talking about the "spec" you
mentioned, and the source code that implements it. If they are two
different works, and the "spec" is analytically identical to "the API",
then isn't that API copyright, if the spec is a work covered by
copyright?
>>>>A programmer, always
>>>>anxious to get defensive, will usually say "both", I would expect. But
>>>>then we've got two different works, and we know an API cannot be covered
>>>>by copyright.
>>>
>>>Actually, the specific document describing the API, can.
>>
>>Meaningless quibbling. We know that case and it is entirely and
>>completely unrelated. Why do you bother bringing it up?
>
>Just a remark.
Minimizing that kind of thing will maximize the amount of discussion.
I'm all for being casual and sociable, but somehow I can see this as an
"idle" remark, which makes it seem much more like simply a flawed
argument.
>> [...]
>>>>>c) It's common practice. If that's infringing on a license, then every
>>>>> programmer has infringed on everyone's license.
>>>>
>>>>As I've said what I thought was often enough before. 'Yea, so?'
>>>
>>>So, we would all be in jail already.
>>
>>You can't go to jail for infringement, it's a civil offense.
>
>You can if you don't pay the fine. Noone could pay a fine that
>covered everything he ever produced.
There are no "fines". There are typically monetary settlements, but
that's one company paying another company. Kind of like a licensing
agreement, in fact.
Copyright is book-keeping, not metaphysics. There are no fines, no jail
time, no public prosecution of a pirate. They are all entirely matters
between private individuals, to sort out monetary responsibilities, and
THAT IS ALL. Compare and contrast the fact that *in theory* (though not
in practice, I'd guess) the government can put a petty thief in jail for
stealing $5, even if the victim doesn't "press charges" because stealing
physical property is a *crime*. Infringing on intellectual property is
merely "against the law". If the author (the only one empowered by that
law to do so) doesn't indict you, being knowledgable of your
infringement, it isn't the same as "you just got away with it but it was
still wrong." It is, instead, a matter of, "then its perfectly fine to
do so."
--
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:34 GMT
Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 5 Apr 2001
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>How can source code that doesn't contain a single line of
>a library be a derivative work of the library, unless you
>accept API copyrights (which no-one, including the FSF,
>accepts)?
There is a difference between infringement and plagiarism. A
"derivative work" could be derivative through either means. You speak
of plagiarism, not infringement, in your example.
>Software is sufficiently different from litterature and music
>to cause friction when treated under laws that were drafted with
>books, plays and music in mind.
The metaphoric argument is that copyright transcends books, plays, and
music, and therefore if the intellectual construct of software is to be
covered, it must be appropriate to be considered only trivially
different from these things. The fact that software is now covered by
EULAs indicates this is decidedly not the case.
>I've argued that assimilating a
>running program in memory with a "copy" isn't sensible, but the
>law says it is. The law also clearly stipulates what a derivative
>work is, and by that definition, the source code of a program
>is not a derivative work of anything it might call, refer to,
>or be combined with when it is executing.
According to the definition of derivative in copyright, whether it is
derivative doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with any "executing",
whatever that might be. A program is derivative because of its origins,
not its use.
>The binary form of a
>program (which is a derivative work of the source code) that
>dynamically links to a shared library does not contain any code
>from the shared library, and hence it doesn't seem to match
>the definition of a derivative work.
I do not know what definition you are using, but it is definitely
flawed, even apart from your application of it here. It is very
possible for a work to be derivative but not literally include any of
the original.
>To put it in litterary terms:
>
>"<character> ran into a wall."
>
>is not a derivative work, whereas
>
>"Donald Duck ran into a wall."
>
>is a derivative work of IP owned by Disney, even when
>"<character>" is clearly designed to be replaced by
>something more specific.
I think that would depend on just how clearly designed and how specific
the character, wouldn't you? If there is only one character that could
possibly be substituted, it makes it pretty clear you're just trying to
out-wit the copyright protection someone else's work, doesn't it?
>> So far, that specific issue has not be tested at all in court. But the
>> copyright cases involving video game consoles seems to support it in
>> some ways but not in others. Yes, to say that a console maker cannot
>> prevent someone from "writing to their platform" seems to contradict the
>> open use of whatever code is lying around. But the more subtle points
>> in these decisions seem to indicate that it is *not* the metaphysics of
>> intellectual property which decide such things, but the commercial
>> implications and arrangements which result from them. Copyright law may
>> teleologically exist in order to protect our natural right to property,
>> but in the real world it exists so that science and technology are not
>> subservient to capitalism. Copyright is book-keeping, not metaphysics.
>
>Please don't stand too close to a dictionary ;-)
>
>You are wrong on all counts.
Look, putz. Either of the above sentences I would completely forgive
and ignore as playful levity. Both in a row, and I'd say you're trying
to slip an ad hominem attack in here. Make your case and shut your
trap, if you don't mind.
>The Sega decision doesn't allow you to use "whatever code is
>lying around".
How not? I presume you understand the metaphoric description I gave
sufficiently enough that you can critique it. I would really appreciate
it if you would do so. Otherwise, I'm forced to suspect that you simply
didn't understand the metaphoric description, and wish to disagree with
my general position but are at a loss for a valid argument.
>Copyright law does _not_ exist to "protect our natural right
[...]
Hey Stefaan! Do you know what "teleologically" means?
>Please go away.
Take a pill.
--
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:35 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:20:23
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 Apr 2001 05:03:51
>> >On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:13:35 GMT, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> >>
>> >>restriction claim. More modern environments allow dynamic
>> >>linking so in many cases there is in fact no copyrighted material
>> >>distributed - and in some instances dynamic loading where the
>> >>libraries are not even known prior to execution time. How can
>> >>you reconcile that with your statement that the code is or isn't
>> >>derived when it is written?
>> >
>> >The dynamic loading one is a very interesting issue indeed, one I hadn't
>> >considered. It would certainly appear not to be a "derived work" if the
>> >library isn't required for execution (eg an image viewer that dlopen()s
>> >various graphics libraries)
>>
>> Is the term "execution" here used in a way which is not entirely
>> synonymous with "operation"?
>
>> Any program that "uses" a library (regardless of the mechanism or
>> semantics) but does not require that library in order to be "useful" in
>> operation does not infringe, IMHO.
>
>What part of copyright law says anything about being "useful"? Or
>that the covered program must work at all?
The one that makes it part of the laws of the United States of America,
where epistemological arguments are not allowed to make an individuals
rights disappear in a puff of smoke.
If it isn't useful or doesn't work, it is not valuable to anybody, hence
cannot be bought and sold, hence cannot be intellectual property.
>> The library has to be "part of the
>> program" from the perspective of "use" of that program: operation. By
>> "part of the program", I don't mean as a metaphysical substance, (which
>> means it doesn't matter what labels, relationships, or technical
>> mechanisms are at work) but simply as a required component: something
>> the operator must have for operation to continue.
>
>Aside from this fantasy having nothing to do with the law, if the
>operator must 'have' this component, then it becomes a use issue.
>That is, you have a copy of the library under its own terms and
>anything dynamically linking to it does not make a copy but uses
>the existing copy which you have the right to use.
Fuck that. Metaphysical hogwash.
To be specific:
Aside from this fantasy of yours having nothing to do with the law, the
operator doesn't give a rat's ass about what "dynamical linking" is. If
the program doesn't work if the operator doesn't have that library, the
program is derivative of the library, regardless of how many copies
there are anywhere of anything. Saying the operator already had a
library, so the program doesn't "need" it even though it "uses" it, is
just more of the loop-hole oriented thinking you seem to bring to
copyright law. You sound like a lawyer, Les, who's honesty is entirely
dubious, trying to defend a client. I am not telling you that your
client is wrong, Les. Copyright may work the way you think. But your
arguments are metaphysical hogwash and have nothing to do with the real
world, though they defend your client admirably if we blind ourselves to
the ethics of the situation.
[...]
>The case the FSF claims does infringe is where there is no known
>alternative to a GPL'd library and it is required for operation of
>the program. Aside from having no real basis for such a claim,
>whether a program infringed or not could change after it was
>written,
Only using a gedanken experiment which results in a need for a time
machine.
>or could be incorrectly decided based on not knowing
>about the existence of an alternative library that might be used.
That's what courts of law are for. They examine this thing called
"evidence". Your a priori consideration of the issues seems to me to be
little more than justification for your lack of a posteriori support for
your position, not a serious legal argument.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 Apr 2001 18:15:38 -0500
On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:06:25 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 21:17:48 GMT, fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > [-SNIP-]
>> >
>> >To clear up any confusion, you should take Chuck Mead's advice and "Go
>read
>> >it and see for yourself." There's a section that deals with "MICROSOFT'S
>> >RIGHT TO USE FEEDBACK OR SUGGESTIONS YOU SUBMIT", but that's a far cry
>from
>> >giving them carte blanche as the Mead article suggests.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Oh, I read it all right. This discussion and Mead's article was
>> based on the license that existed until just last night (April 4th,
>> 2001).
>>
>> You seem to have trouble understanding that Microsoft just changed
>> their license under pressure from privacy rights groups, users, and the
>> press. This just happened today (or last night). See:
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
>>
>>
>> Notice the "Revised April 4, 2001" notice at the bottom of:
>>
>> http://www.passport.com/Consumer/TermsOfUse.asp?PPlcid=1033
>
>Now that's interesting. All that happened on April 4, yet on April 5 you
>posted the following:
>
>"I think you are either confused or stupid. Possibly both. I don't know
>what
>you read, but it wasn't this: --- LICENSE TO MICROSOFT..."
>
>Of course you never mentioned that the license had been changed, so what you
>said on April 5 was incorrect and misleading. Al least Mead can claim that
>what he posted was accurate at some point in the past.
>
Most of the postings in this thread were done while the old license
was still in place. Press reports that Microsoft was going to
change the license didn't come out until yesterday afternoon.
What I posted was absolutely correct. You had not read the same
"LICENSE TO MICROSOFT", the text of which I included in my post
and you snipped out above and that had been included in multiple
previous postings and that was the topic of this thread.
You come along today and state that the license that was the topic
of discussion here didn't say any of the things that we were claiming,
when in fact it did and you had only bothered to read the revised
license that Microsoft didn't post until this morning.
I was correct in stating that you were either confused or stupid.
You were obviously confused.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:38 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 06:03:39
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:13:35
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >You still don't understand the concept of using two or more
>> >*pre-existing* libraries in a new work.
>>
>> I'm sorry, Les, but that simply isn't true. You're still hooked on what
>> happens when the program is run, which I don't think can have anything
>> at all to do with copyright protection of any libraries or programs.
>
>No, I am simply disputing your claim that code that references some
>other library becomes a derivative of it and thus under control
>of the library author.
You're trying to, or you think you are, maybe. Your refutation is
flawed; repeating it doesn't improve the situation.
>If that were true, Microsoft would be able
>to control distribution of all their competitors' products that use
>any Windows library routines.
Thus making your theory unfalsifiable, as well. WHY, "if that were
true", would Microsoft do this? DO YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THEY WOULD?
What would be the benefit, in reality?
>Only the FSF makes this bizarre
>claim and there is nothing to back it up other than the fact that
>in general the GPL'd code has not been worth a court battle and
>the threats prevented people from sharing their work.
Should be easy to show in court, then. Probably a lot easier a case
that trying to prove Microsoft violates the Sherman Act.
>> Copyright is book-keeping, not metaphysics.
>
>Yes, and it involves making copies of something, not references
>to your own copy that you already have the right to use.
Copyright is book-keeping, not metaphysics. It does not need to involve
copying anything at all (and despite your contention, it often doesn't);
that's just a convenient way to keep track of making sure authors get
paid. There is nothing magical about copying things, Les.
--
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: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:39 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 05 Apr 2001 03:31:03
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:40:18
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Said nuxx in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 15:32:59 +0800;
>> >> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The iPaq has two things over Palm, really. One is that it can play
>> >> >> MP3's, the other is that it can speak wireless ethernet (by virtue of a
>> >> >> PC Card slot). Color is a minor thing I think compared to those, and I
>> >> >> don't think that Palm will let them keep the advantage forever.
>> >> >
>> >> >The third is that it has a Citrix ICA client available, rather important for
>> >> >some people,
>> >>
>> >> <*sniff*> <*sniff*>
>> >>
>> >> What's that I smell? It smells like... <*sniff*>...
>> >>
>> >> A monopoly?
>> >>
>> >> >also very nice when combined with wireless ethernet. Why
>> >> >wouldn't Citrix produce a client for the Palm OS if it's technically
>> >> >feasible (screen resolution)? Makes no sense given their support for other
>> >> >platforms (Win32, CE, Unix, Linux, Epoc, OS/2 etc) and also Palms strong
>> >> >market position ... I'm a Palm user myself & this is the only thing it
>> >> >lacks.
>> >>
>> >> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Citrix is an MS sock puppet. There's no *way*
>> >> they're going to even *touch* the Palm.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Ok... I've got Citrix in Caldera Linux... what the hell do I do with it?
>> >:-))
>>
>> If you don't already know, there's no reason to ask. :-)
>>
>
>I don't know... that's why I'm asking.
>What is it?
Its a program that allows you to connect to a central server and have
the server run an application which is displayed on your client. Sounds
a lot like X, right? Well, it's not. Its a lot like Windows Terminal
Server or PC Anywhere.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2001 23:24:40 GMT
Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:23:14 -0400;
>XP = eXPerimental
>
>It integrates the NT kernal.
>
>But it also integrates a part of .NET.
>
>And that involves some "Java" clone technology.
>
>At least in the hardware abstraction layer, they are starting with a JIT
>compiler, instead of a pure emulated VM.
>
>You heard of Java? That's the "DOT-COM PLATFORM. It runs on HYPE. Usually
>slowly.
>
>So naturally Microsoft XP has to have some of that. :)
>
>The industry is beginning to go through a major restructuring, the first of
>the post dot-com internet era.
>
>And where is petilon? Has he been restructured?
>
>But of course, we have the people with a cause. I guess the whole point of
>having the cause in the first place is so reality does not intrude. Until
>the old pink slip comes.
>
>Or the discontinued project. Of course, the Java projects will all be saved.
>These are the PRODUCTIVE ones, no?
>
>Well, in a future parallel university, where 100% pure Java reigns. There's
>just no more money for these future projects in the CURRENT economy.
>
>By the time, the whole mess is over, all these things that took big teams
>will be done with some shrink-wrapped software PACKAGED AS A SERVICE.
>
>This is the only way the functionality provided will be affordable. Or else
>it won't be done at all.
>
>Wasn't that the whole point of the PC revolution? Allowing users to point
>and click where programmers were required before?
>
>"yes," the dot-com promoters would tell the eager investors, "everything is
>done in state-of-the-art Java."
>
>"We use nothing but million dollar Sun servers. It takes a lot of power to
>properly run Java."
>
>By the time the restructuring is over, the same capability will run on Linux
>for $59.95 monthly.
>
>Broke investor: "You mean, this BILLION DOLLAR WEB SITE is now one of 20 on
>the same hard disk on server # 273, the 37th box up on the rack?"
>
>Web Farm Admin: "Well, that's all they could afford after the bankruptcy."
>
>"I think the web site was sold at the bankruptcy auction for $1800. It was
>just a catalog, a shopping cart and some transaction processing. That's all
>included in our monthly ecommerce package for $30 extra montly."
>
>Broke investor: "I put my whole life savings in that company."
Suddenly, without warning, a million capitalist's heads explode, as they
finally realize what 'frictionless economy' really means to their
personal situation.
--
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
******************************
