Linux-Advocacy Digest #127, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 17:13:03 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: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (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: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:44 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:06:41
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the library
>> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or documentation
>> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
>> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
>> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense, of
>> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
>
>No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
>library's API are known, nothing more is required.
In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
[...]
--
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:45 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:51:57
+0200;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 11:58:39
>> +0200;
>> >
>> >"Isaac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Tue, 1 May 2001 05:51:57 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Qoutes:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> < quotes snipped >
>> >>
>> >> Man is that stuff funny when it's all collected together like that.
>> >> I note that you addressed the quotes point by point, but I'm not
>> >> sure that was necessary. You don't need a comedian when the
>> >> straight man is this good.
>> >
>> >I'd a similar discussion with him about the usefulness of following MS'
>> >recommendations about storing user info in the registry, as well as
>several
>> >other things related to this, several months ago.
>>
>> You're going for troll points here, Ayende, you realize that, don't you?
>>
>> >I'd wrote a program that he claimed was impossible, as well as explain
>him
>> >(several times) that putting user related stuff in HKLM is not good, he
>> >somehow managed to make every sentence into MS-makes-crapware arguement.
>> >At least this time he is only ignorant, and not biased.
>>
>> You utterly failed to write a usable program for managing file types,
>> mime types, and associations. You hacked together a couple of function
>> calls, and figured the matter done, which was a pathetic sham, as I
>> never said this was not exceptionally easy. Just pathetically useless.
>
>That wasn't the requirement, remember?
><Qoute url="http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&ic=1&selm=an_699310481";>
>How about you deliver a "simple
>application" that does *both* associate multiple extensions with an
>existing file type or a new file type, regardless of whether those
>extension are registered with another existing file type. We'll see how
>non-simple it is, eh?
></Qoute>
I presume that the word "application" means it is efficient, usable, and
worth the effort. You're little cobbled together piece of shit doesn't
count. Doh!
--
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:46 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:50:16
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 05:51:57
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>> >> [...]
>> >> >No, you claim that the implentation of API is important to developers
>who
>> >> >code against this API, right?
>> >>
>> >> No. What gave you that idea?
>> >
>> >Qoutes:
>> >
>> >"designing the API and writing the code to support it are not two
>> >independent things."
>>
>> An abstraction error on your part. Just because the designing and the
>> writing are two "independent" things doesn't mean the API and the code
>> are the same "thing". They are and they are not, depending on how you
>> are using the terms. Sorry; I didn't invent the rules of language, I
>> just try to understand and use them.
>
>API is about designing, you design your API according to your application's
>needs, when you've the API, *then* you start coding.
>
>You are currect about the language, though, you are misusing the
>programmers' dialect, you use incorrect terms constantly, which appears to
>be largely
No, YOU are misusing the "real words", presuming that, because it is a
'programmers terminology' (not a dialect; it shows more ignorance of the
discussion that you suggest the word) that the real words are somehow
degenerate forms of the technical terms, when the opposite is the case.
Again, I must remind you that we are discussing copyright here, not
software development. The concept of when you "start coding" is
analogous, but NOT the same, as when you "start writing" any other type
of IP. In truth, you are "designing" the library when you design its
API, like an author creating an outline for his book. Has he "started
writing" the book yet, when he creates an outline, or describes the plot
to someone? Note that, if someone were to use his plot, they may be
liable for 'copying' his IP.
>> "The API" is important to program developers, as is therefore "the code"
>> which implements it. How the code "works" doesn't matter, but then
>> again, neither does how the API "works". Just whether it does, THAT it
>> does.
>
>No, the API is the only thing that matters.
They why do you need a stub library to be replaced by a real library?
>The API in about *interface*, a way to communicate with other part of the
>the program, it has nothing to do with the code.
Other than that the code is everything in "the other part". It sounds
like a rather fragile abstraction, the way you describe it.
>Again, you seem to be confusing basic stuff here.
No, I am clear on all the concepts. I am not limited to your
understanding in how I use them, is all.
>API is a declaration, a way of stating something.
Or the documentation of it, or the end result of what a library
provides, depending on how you use the term. I don't bring up these
alternate connotations just to confuse you, merely to point out that you
are confusing others by randomly changing from one to the other
unannounced in your depiction of software as intellectual property.
>In this case, your application's interface.
>
>You say, "You'll give me money, I'll give you a book"
>
>Code is the action.
I understand the extraction, but please bear in mind this is an analogy,
not a definition.
>You accept the money, count it, go to where you can get the book, and give
>it to whomever gave you the money.
>The one who gave you the money doesn't know if you have a stock of copies of
>the book at home or if you went to a bookstore and bought it from there.
>One important point in API is to limit to a minimum the amount of data you
>disclouse.
What on earth does any of that imaginary stuff have to do with
copyright? Bear in mind, copyright is not imaginary. Its more like
"I'll give you money, you give me the book". This isn't imaginary; it
is called a transaction. Just like when you use a function call "give
me this" and it is given to you, as a program. Thus, you are *deriving*
your value from the library, thus the program is a *derivative* work,
according to the copyright law, even though no other part of copyright
law is involved in this type of 'transaction', and this 'transaction'
has no real relationship (save as potential analogy) with the monetary
transactions which are the bread and butter of copyright law.
[...]
>> In theory, maybe. In practice? The API/library/code has to "exist"
>> somehow for a programmer to "use" it. If you want to claim someone is
>> using something that doesn't exist, I can understand the idea
>> metaphorically. But analytically it is an empty concept.
>
>No, in practice, API calls that doesn't exist are used all the time.
For a meaning of "used" that is quite useless outside of software
development. One more time: we are discussing copyright, not software
development. If you "use" a library in this way, you need a license,
even if you are not distributing the library itself, because your
copyrighted work is derivative of the library owner's copyrighted work.
I don't think I can put it any clearer than that, and I'm not sure if
you even understand what that means, so I'll stop here, and you can ask
questions if you like.
[...]
--
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: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:47 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> No, you misunderstand what I meant if you believe this is the case. The
>> bulk of any big programming project is debugging. Granted, the bulk of
>> that is due to programmer error. If all you had was a draft of the API
>> documentation to write against, though, I'd suggest that there's going
>> to be a great deal of making up for this flaw in the design approach.
>> This is, of course, why standardized libraries like libc are so
>> valuable; their 'existence', both as documentation of the API and as
>> functioning widely supported code, is concrete enough that you don't
>> have as many problems creating derivative programs.
>
>No, Max, it is *you* who is wrong here.
It is quite possible I am mistaken. I would have to say that the
likelihood decreases, in my mind, the more you feel the need to insist I
am "wrong".
>I have done several large projects already and currently have a quite
>large project to administer (overseeing it, partly coding it, mainly
>designing it). This now is a windows-project, currently consisting of
>about 40 DLL´s. Several of those are called only if certain languages are
>used (it is a project available in several languages). There are, if a
>new language is startet (now quite often the case) often just stubs in an
>otherwise completely empty DLL (library) just to test the functionality
>of the much more important main-dll. The other one is written some time
>later, before it just existed as stubs, doing basically *nothing*
>That stub-library can *later* be done without knowing before how it does
>it´s work, only the API to it is already known.
And you'd start selling that program, expecting it to work once the real
library was available, having developed it on nothing but the stub?
That sounds like a good way to get a reputation for some really cruddy
software, and an invitation to go out of business, in practice.
I understand the confusion; I am not trying to insult anyone by my
description (though given the reaction that is either happening, or
programmers are just really defensive and insecure). I am not
denouncing the competency of any programmers, nor trying to reconstruct
how it is they do their tasks.
I'm just pointing out that how they do their tasks has NOTHING to do
with copyright, other than the fact that it needs to be lawful. I
didn't say nobody used stub libraries, nor that they are not useful and
functional. I said the use of them casts no illumination on copyright.
--
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: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:48 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 03:12:17
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> >
>> > I know enough about programming to know that you can't write a program
>> > that uses a library that doesn't yet exist and expect it to work just
>> > because it matched a draft of the API documentation.
>> >
>>
>> What gives you such an enormously false idea, Max?
>> If you had ever done any big programming project, you`d know that
>> this is blatantly false. It is done all the time
>
>Not only that, but if the calling code relies on knowing anything beyond
>the documented interface it is almost certain to fail when the library
>is updated.
So this seems to prove my point again, then. If no programs ever failed
when libraries are updated, I might believe the way you describe things
to be. But it requires a great deal of care and attention to ensure
this doesn't happen, and it is by no means automatic. A good programmer
will have little problem with it, a lousy programmer may have more; it
does not usually prevent a program from working altogether, but it is
possible it could do so.
I would be more than happy to declare that the amount which a program is
"derivative" of a library is the level of independence it has. Because,
of course, that is precisely the FSF's position; if there is only one
library and it is GPL, it can be presumed that the program is
derivative. If there are multiple libraries, it depends on whether the
program functions the same on all libraries. It is this, not some
metaphysical "special case", which allows use of things like glibc by
non-GPL code, though I will admit that this might be teleology, not the
standard historical explanation.
--
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:49 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>On Tue, 1 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>>> Well, one of my colleagues is writing an application to a Java
>>>>> .jar that's not yet implemented (I finished the spec, he started
>>>>> on his application after about the third draft, when we felt it
>>>>> was stable enough). I'll have the classes implemented when he'll
>>>>> start testing. Hint: writing a program != coding. There's a lot
>>>>> to do before the first line of code is written, or before the
>>>>> first test is run.
>>>> That's like saying "writing a book != authoring", and illustrates
>>>> clearly why everyone gets so confused by software copyright.
>>> Here is a perfectly legal API:
>> [...]
>> My consideration regards real APIs, not "legal" ones, or any other form
>> of thought experiment.
>
>You've been given some. Now either shut up and learn or FOAD.
Some what? There have been no examples which refute my logic presented.
I am not simply denying there have been examples presented; there have
been some, and I have pointed out how they were in error, not actually
relating to the point I am making.
You simply don't understand my point, and now you've gotten all insecure
and defensive to the point where you feel compelled by your rather frail
dignity to insist that I don't have one.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:51 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:51:00
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>> >
>> >> >Well, one of my colleagues is writing an application to a Java
>> >> >.jar that's not yet implemented (I finished the spec, he started
>> >> >on his application after about the third draft, when we felt it
>> >> >was stable enough). I'll have the classes implemented when he'll
>> >> >start testing. Hint: writing a program != coding. There's a lot
>> >> >to do before the first line of code is written, or before the
>> >> >first test is run.
>> >>
>> >> That's like saying "writing a book != authoring", and illustrates
>> >> clearly why everyone gets so confused by software copyright.
>> >
>> >Here is a perfectly legal API:
>> [...]
>>
>> My consideration regards real APIs, not "legal" ones, or any other form
>> of thought experiment.
>
>That is a real API.
>It's just expressed in a language neutral language.
I'm afraid you've opened up a can of worms with "language", there. Do
you consider ASN a 'language'?
--
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: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:52 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>On Tue, 1 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. (See below.)
>>>> Quit being a troll, goofball.
>>>> [...]
>>>>> It says that he wrote the specification. Perhaps the little bit of
>>>>> batch file putzing that you've done hasn't introduce you into the
>>>>> concept of a specification separate from the implementation. This is
>>>>> quite common in C++ and in various other languages (Ada, PL/SQL, etc.).
>>>>> Yes, you write some code; no, it isn't functional without a body (the
>>>>> implementation). It's an API to the functions within that package.
>>>> No, it is documentation for the API to the functions within that
>>>> package. Get over your abstraction error, and get back to me.
>>> No, that wasn't documentation, that was API. [...]
>> Please define the difference.
>
>An API is not an API if it doesn't have function specifications. There
>is usually documentation on the API that describes *what* (not *how*)
>things are done on data passed into the function. The documentation,
>however, is not the API.
Metaphorically, you might be correct, as I understand your point. But
when someone wants to know "what is the API?" the answer is
interchangeable with the documentation, is it not? So the documentation
is as much "the API" as any other concrete thing is. That an API is not
a concrete thing, but an interface, is understood. What seems
misunderstood is what, then, 'the API' really "is". What it "is" is the
sum total of how the *library* works. That there are some choices the
library programmer can make which do not cause changes in the API might
be true, but it might also be true that this is a measure of the
inefficiency of the code and the API.
--
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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:53 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 10:11:32 -0400;
>> >Since 1993, however, Compaq has not consistently loaded any
>> >alternatives to Windows on personal computers it markets to consumers.
>Our
>> >assessment of consumer preference is that our customers want Windows to
>be
>> >preinstalled on their computers.
>>
>> I don't think you understand how damning such testimony is to
>> Microsoft's case, JS PL.
>
>I don't understand, that's for sure. Sure seems like this Compaq
>testimony backs up what us MS-shills are saying: People aren't
>being "forced" to accept Windows; companies like Compaq
>are giving them what they want.
This is just word-games played on the assumption that all transactions
are voluntary and all contracts guarantee informed consent. This is
obviously a fallacy. People are routinely "forced" to accept Windows,
as is conclusively proven by the lack of available alternatives which
adequately substitute for Windows.
OF COURSE the testimony "seems like" it supports your apologists
position: this was Microsoft's intent in presenting this testimony. The
judge found it uncompelling, and so do I.
--
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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:54 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 10:50:53 -0400;
>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 10:11:32 -0400;
>>> > >Since 1993, however, Compaq has not consistently loaded any
>>> > >alternatives to Windows on personal computers it markets to consumers.
>>> Our
>>> > >assessment of consumer preference is that our customers want Windows
>to
>>> be
>>> > >preinstalled on their computers.
>>> >
>>> > I don't think you understand how damning such testimony is to
>>> > Microsoft's case, JS PL.
>>>
>>> I don't understand, that's for sure. Sure seems like this Compaq
>>> testimony backs up what us MS-shills are saying: People aren't
>>> being "forced" to accept Windows; companies like Compaq
>>> are giving them what they want.
>>
>>Then how come, if I call up Compaq, and ask for a desktop machine
>>with Linux pre-installed, the REFUSE to sell it to me, and when
>>it comes to servers, fi I ask for Linux pre-installed, they will
>>NOT give me a rebate on the Mafia$oft licenses which I am not
>>going to use.
>
>Because no one has the inherint "right" to buy whatever they want.
Yes we do. We live in a free country; we have the right to buy whatever
we want. There is no reason (save illegal actions known as
'monopolization') that a producer would not then attempt to profit by
selling us whatever we want.
What you would have LIKED to have meant is that no one has an inherent
right to buy whatever they want *at whatever cost they want*. This is
true, but it is also true that nobody has the right to SELL whatever
they want at whatever price they want.
>They can
>only buy what someone decides they mght like to sell.
Compare and contrast: restraint of trade, a felony under the Sherman
Act.
>It's the same reason
>you can't walk into McDonalds and demand a pizza.
You're saying McDonalds doesn't want to sell pizza for some reason other
than that they can't make enough money from it to show a profit? I
don't know of any honest businessman who would turn down honest profit
on principle.
>And the same reason no
>matter what *don't* get on your Whopper, it costs the same. You don't get a
>rebate just because they hold the mayo.
They don't refuse to sell it to you because they have a per-burger
license for special sauce, either.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:55 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> That's the confusing part for me. OEM price of only $40 for Win98? And
>> I had to pay $80 at Costco for the upgrade? Something doesn't jive up
>> here.
>
>What doesn't "jive up" is that you don't understand OEM licensing.
>
>For instance, when Matrox sells an OEM Video card, it doesn't contain the
>extra software (which is crap anyways, but is used for marketing purposes),
>or come in a pretty box. This saves them money, so they can sell the OEM
>version much cheaper than a retail version.
No, they sell it cheaper because they sell a larger volume. Not that
*Matrox* doesn't save money on packaging, but the cost of packaging is
hardly a large component of a bleeding-edge video card.
>Windows OEM licenses require the OEM to provide support to the end users,
>thus saving MS money on support calls,
Microsoft makes money on support calls. So why is it, again, that they
are limiting their revenues this way? Perhaps because the OEMs want to
handle support, and INSIST that MS allow them to do so?
You'd almost think you were stupid enough to consider a computer nothing
but packaging for Windows. But then we remind ourselves that you're
simply a sock puppet, and this is simply the official Microsoft
position.
[...remainder of the bullshit snipped, because I'm getting nauseous
just reading it...]
--
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
******************************
