Linux-Advocacy Digest #178, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 04:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Boot Disk ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Stephen Edwards")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy (GreyCloud)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (GreyCloud)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Ray Chason)
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) (Dave Martel)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 02:14:49 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>> > 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.
>>
>>Compaq seems to think that people like you- you know, anti-MS
>>zealots- are not a big enough a big enough market to be worth servicing.
>
>Is that why MS has those ppl lock-in contracts?
>
>>It's my opinion that Compaq is probably right about that.
>
>So you wouldn't know, is that what you're saying?
>
>>But even if they are wrong, their testimony was that they
>>believed consumers wanted Windows. No?
>
>No, "his" testimony was that they couldn't make money unless they sold
>Windows. That's what happens with monopolization, and why its so
>closely related to restraint of trade.
No, his testimony was that Compaq sold systems with many different operating
systems installed, but their home consumer grade customers mostly bought the
systems with Windows installed.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:40:39 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3af1f28f$0$12226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp
> >
> > An interesting read.
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Slashdot is trying desperately to make this sound bad cause it cuts deep:
> >
> > From Slashdot:
> > "For example, Mundie says forking code is bad. Here's the same thought
> > translated into manager-speak: 'Having multiple vendors competing to offer
> > us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor
> > who can sell the product to us at monopoly prices.'"
Until they begin abusing it that is.
> > Now - I don't know about you but up until this moment I've heard
> > that forking code is bad. In fact, I have heard linux believers defend
> > STRONGLY against claims that the linux kernel is forking. And now,
> > just because MS says forking is bad - suddenly forking is good?? It's
> > this sort of childish desperate behaviour that is why enterprises don't
> > even consider linux.
Maybe you should reread the comment, he says vendors, not forks. I've
never believed that some forking is a bad thing, this sounds like FSF
rubbish. For example, take the NetBSD/FreeBSD fork, the NetBSD project
focuses on porting NetBSD to as many architectures as possible and
FreeBSD just concentrates on making a highly tuned x86 and Alpha OS. I
don't see why this is a bad thing. Perhaps Linux will benefit from a
RTLinux/Linux code fork.
> What I found particularly interesting was this bit:
>
> ---
> The Internet, for example, was full of sites producing content for free,
> in the hope that somehow they?d generate revenue from sources that never
> materialized, whether it was advertising, subscriptions, or a wing and a
> prayer. As we?ve learned - or really re-learned - one can?t build a
> business or our economic future on that type of flimsy foundation.
> ---
Back to reality now the hype has died down, but what do webzine
dot.bombs have to do with OSS?
> I'm certain Microsoft knew this for quite some time.
>
> A lot of companies/corporations, such as Caldera, S.u.S.E., IBM, SGI,
> RedHat, and a host of others are seemingly clinging onto GNU/Linux like
> a life-preserver. SGI's IRIX has lost ground... so has IBM's AIX. Why
> they decided to abandon the very commercial nature of their businesses
> is beyond me. Why didn't they simply focus on making products for what
> WAS and still IS selling?... Windows.
IBM likes Linux because it can use it to sell hardware. I get the
feeling that they are quietly sniggering to themselves: "So long and
thanks for the free OS". They say they are investing lots of money in
Linux but what for? To run it on OS/390 machines? Who can afford one
of these except larger businesses? Suddenly they have thousands of free
(as in beer) applications and tools trivially available. By the way,
windows doesn't run well on OS/390s and IBM still makes windoze software
too.
>
> The sad fact is, that free software was never meant to be commercialized...
> it was meant to be shared. Companies basing their existence on a free
> product, in the hopes that they will draw revenue from support contracts
> simply doesn't work in the long run. That is what I and others said a while
> ago. That is what we are seeing now. I have a feeling that there are going
> to be a lot more dusty has-been cubicles being repossessed/liquidated in
> the next year or two.
True GPLed software was never meant to be commercialised, other licences
do allow for commercial spinoffs, cf. Mac OS X.
>
> Because software such as GNU/Linux, NetBSD, Samba, Apache, etc. are free,
> they will always be around. They won't ever go away, because they are so
> accessible.
>
> "Free software never dies... it simply changes maintainers."
>
> However, they also close the gap for what kind of software is needed.
> They close a lot of possible avenues for commercial opportunity. This
> isn't a bad thing, as businesses which are interested in marketing other
> kinds of software/services benefit greatly. However, companies that are
> trying to market GNU/Linux, which can be obtained without any cost, defy
> logic on all levels. And eventually, commercial all GNU/Linux distributors
> will fail... miserably. And GNU/Linux will simply remain as a free product.
Actually the great bulk of GNU tools just duplicate the functionality of
already existing proprietary tools. It is a good thing that we no
longer need to pay money for them and can customise them. But there are
still large areas that aren't adequately covered by OSS software yet and
perhaps commercial software will always old an edge in those areas
because it can afford the investment.
>
> Has anyone wondered at all why nobody has tried to market, say, NetBSD?
> It's because anyone who knows enough about it to do so already knows
> that doing so is, to say the least, stupid. It is, to say the most,
> corporate suicide.
> --
Well for starters the NetBSD project markets NetBSD. You wouldn't
market NetBSD with the aim of making huge profits but you might sell it
with, for example, embedded hardware as a complete package. Just like
IBM is doing with Linux on their servers. However, I agree on one
point, the Linux commercial distributors are struggling to make profits.
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rakmount/
IanP
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 02:54:11 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message
>>A fine server OS (well, bunch of OSes), but it simply
>>doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
Agreed. After spending about four days being amused by Mandrake 8, it STILL
doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop. I would almost venture to say
that just about ALL of the included apps that I use crash regularly on
Linux. The newsreaders especially suck. Half the no-name browsers are
somehow or for some stupid reason configured by default to display web text
at about 2 pixels in height, this is especially a pain in the ass because I
have to go in and configure larger font display for every damn user. File
downloads regularly "stall" for minutes on end. Did I say regularly? I meant
ALWAYS! And I think it ruined my favorite monitor but have no proof, but now
the monitor flickers into half brightness all the time, since the install.
It makes a descent platform for running Apache though.
>
>The distinction is a myth created by Microsoft to explain why their
>products sucked so much.
No Max, the distinction is proven by personal experience.
"Its only a desktop; if you need
>[performance|reliability|stability|capabilities|scalability|compatibility|i
nteroperability]
>then get a server!"
If you want all of the above including well developed aplications just get
WINNT.
>>> Linux is not second rate.
>>
>>It's just like Unix.
>
>Thus, it is a powerful, professional-level OS, in comparison to Windows,
>which is just monopoly crapware.
Too bad you wouldn't know, since the only OS your smart enough to run is
Windows95. Real professional there Max. Your too fucking poor to ugrade from
Windows 95 to Linux. Yeah - your a real fricking genius.
In your situation I'd probably be pissed and dimented too.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Boot Disk
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 08:58:07 +0100
> I just bought an old school machine that I wanted to install mandrake
> on, the problem is the machine won't boot from the floppy drive! How do
How so? Is it that it has no drive, the drive is busted, or the drive
works, but it won't boot?
For either of the fisrt two, I'd pick up a refurbished floppy from your
nearest small dealer [1]. For the last, try playing with the BIOS to get
it to boot.
> I get linux to install? All it has on the hard drive is command.com That
> sucks! Any suggestions....
-Ed
[1] Refurbished for floppy drives means usually, if it works, they'll
blow the dust out and sell it on cheaply.
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:05:06 +0100
OK, Aaron answre this...
If homosexuality is such a sead end, how come it keeps cropping up n
many, many formes of life, after hunderds of million years have, by your
argument tried to get rid of it.
If it's still here, there is probably a very god reason.
-ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 00:12:02 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stephen Edwards wrote:
8<SNIP>8
> > A lot of companies/corporations, such as Caldera, S.u.S.E., IBM, SGI,
> > RedHat,
> > and a host of others are seemingly clinging onto GNU/Linux like a life-
> > preserver. SGI's IRIX has lost ground... so has IBM's AIX. Why they
> > decided
> > to abandon the very commercial nature of their businesses is beyond me.
Why
> > didn't they simply focus on making products for what WAS and still IS
> > selling?... Windows.
>
> Because LoseDOS is a sinking ship.
And exactly which bodily oriface did you
pull this nonsense from? On what do you
base this claim?
> And the BSA shakedown is making it quite clear how much you LOSE when you
> foolishly convert your business to Mafia$oft products.
Jesus Christ, Aaron. Is there ever a time
when you actually understand what you're
talking about?
First of all, Microsoft is a member of the
BSA. Secondly, the "shakedown" as you put
it is targeted towards software pirates and
people who have been using unlicensed software.
Of course, I wouldn't have any doubts if someone
were to liken you to a typical warez kiddie, so
perhaps you're just whining from behind the other
side of the moral fence.
--
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rakmount/
.------. "The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean.
|[_] :| From it we have learned most of what we know. Recently, we
| = -| have waded a little out to sea, enough to dampen our toes,
| | or at most, wet our ankles. The water seems inviting. The
| | ocean calls. Some part of our being knows this is from
|_...._| where we came. We long to return." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:06:53 +0100
> Really?
>
> When we were in the hunter-gatherer stage, there was no science to speak
> of. Certainly not the level needed to determine the direct linkage
> between sex and the birth of a baby 9 months later.
1 People were no more stupid then than they were now
2 Information was probably passed on by word of mouth
3 It doesn't take 9 months before you know.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:10:13 +0100
>> >> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical.
>> >> If a hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have
>> >> homosexual leanings.
>> >
>> > Proof?
>>
>> I shall use you, Aaron as proof. Would you ever have sex with a man?
>>
>
> So, then, you maintain that homosexuality is NOT a choice, and is
> therefore genetically determined.
Yes, ie you can't be converted as you asserted.
> I.e., it's a genetic defect.
Non-sqeuiteur. For it to have been persistent for so long in so many
forms of life, having not been eliminated in over 2 billion years, it
probably has a purpose. I don't know what it is, but it's still here and
there's a good reason for it.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:11:35 +0100
> So, then, you maintain that homosexuality is NOT a choice, and is
> therefore genetically determined.
>
> I.e., it's a genetic defect.
You probably thing Cerebral-Paulsy is a genetic defect too? How do you
know that homosexuality is caused by non genetic facrots?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 09:15:00 +0100
> By the same token, merely having homosexual attractions does NOT make
> homosexuality...
I'll quote Ritchard Ritchard (from `Bottom' here)
I _AM_ hetrosexual. Well, I'm hetrosexual with intent.
ie, you can be homosexual without doing anything about it.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 02:23:59 -0500
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www2.usermagnet.com/cox/index.html
>
> 'nuff said.
Not really. I think Alan made a critical error in mentioning the internet.
The Internet was funded by the government, and all of it's development and
code was made available as either public domain or business friendly
licensing (such as the BSDL).
In fact, most of the Internet pioneers only did so because they could make
money off selling their proprietary implemenations (DEC, Sun, IBM, etc..).
If the original Internet code had been released GPL, we'd probably all be
running DECNET or something similar today.
I think Alan is also making a critical mistake mentioning major FUD items
like the NSAKEY debacle. He's also making a critical mistake referring to
the Halloween memo as "their" Halloween memo, as if it were an intentially
published document expressing corporate opinion, versus the work of a single
author as a memo to his bosses.
And he's CERTAINLY making a critical error when over exagerates the forking
of Windows (claiming that 98 and ME are seperate forks, rather than simply
next versions) and claiming that NT, 2000 and the different editions are
seperate forks as well. If that were the case, then there are literally
thousands of Linux forks, maybe millions. There are three forks in Windows.
3.x/9x based systems, NT based systems, and CE based systems. 3.x/9x based
OS's are going away this year, REDUCING the amount of forking in Windows
(this is something MS has been working to do for quite some time).
While I respect Alan's technical ability, I am greatly disturbed by his lack
of understanding of even basic issues and lack of common sense. Perhaps he
was just too mad that someone had nailed the critical issues in business
oriented free software to think clearly, I don't know.
If Alan wants Linux and the GPL to be taken more seriously, he has to think
his arguments through more clearly and not make such exagerated and
incorrect statements. After all, he is a spokesman for the movement.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:32:24 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:aEeI6.310$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > > Hmm, a default Windows install is pretty functional for me.
> > > >
> > > > What specifically are you talking about?
> > >
> > > Lack of a decent command-line interface and a standard API like unix
> > > has.
>
> (for some reason I didn't get Donn's post, so I'll reply through you
> Stephen, I hope you don't mind)
>
> Donn:
> Several of the guys I work with are Bash and Emacs lovers. I tried
> using Bash for two days straight. I had only used it whenever I had
> to configure something on a Linux or Solaris box, but was never forced
> to use it as my primary shell. I had to say, I was quite disappointed
> with it after hearing so many good things about it from so many people.
>
> Sure, the scripting is good, I'll give it that. But as far as just a
> basic shell, it's really not that great. Simple editing on the command
> line for long commands isn't terribly easy. HOME and END don't work, you
> have to use CTRL+A and CTRL+E (IIRC) which is much less intuitive.
> It doesn't have a pop-up command history like cmd.exe (the F7 key), it
> doesn't have very good TAB completion (in cmd, subsequent hits of TAB
> cause cycling of files in the dir that meet the search criteria).
>
Hmmm... that's odd... the HOME and END keys work for me on the command
line in bash.
I'm using Solaris 8 x86. Possible that the termcap isn't set up
correctly.
> I find the best combination of everything is the GNU Utils on Win32 and/or
> the Cygwin32 dir + cmd.exe. Having bash around when I need to run a script
> for something is handy, but having to use it day-to-day is rather limiting.
>
> -c
--
V
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 17:15:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max
Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said jim in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 00:27:03
>+1200; [...]
>
>>I think VI and all the useless other editors are an excuse for sad
>>little 40-50 yr old UNIX fat tards like yourself to keep whatever
>>"knowledge" you have and NOT share it with anyone - problem is,
>>with a click of a mouse your Gramma can send an email to her
>>friend - and guess what - UNIX didn't do it! A smelly Finn didn't
>>do it! It took a man that is richer than your dreams - it took
>>a man that would tell you who was BOSS! Oh, and btw I use plain
>>text, html and the next best thing!
>It seems you are more envious of Unix user's knowledge than you are
>Gates' fortune. At least that indicates a healthy personality. Now if
>you work on your mental maturity, you won't be so stupid, either.
>Hint: VI and all those other editors are not "useless", once you know
>how to use them. And, yes, Unix that can be set up by anyone (no Finn
>or rich megalomaniac necessary) to automate common tasks.
Anyone here remember [as I do] when Gates thought the future of
computing was in Unix. He then licensed Unix from AT&T and at that
time only AT&T could call it Unix, so Microsoft's implementation
was named Xenix.
Then he had an 'office suite'. Multimate, Multiplan, and Multi???
Then IBM knocked on the door and things changed.
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 00:41:16 -0700
Ed Allen wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Hehe... Microsoft uses large version numbers as a marketing gimmick...
> >the bigger the number implying that it is much better. Sort of along
> >the same vein as "NEW AND IMPROVED!" I ask what was wrong with the
> >older one?
> >
> But it must not go above 4 because then it might be perceived as
> "just more of the same old crap" and that makes "NEW AND IMPROVED!"
> harder to sell.
>
> I was surprised they let Word get so high before the rename. They
> were probably stressing "incremental improvement" while slipping in
> some drastic changes and they hoped to keep people from staying away
> from code which would break most of their old stuff.
>
> They seem to have decided that if they use the year in the name then
> they can have high numbers and the implied incremental improvement
> yet always be "current".
>
> Marketdroids are creaming themselves at the "genius" of it.
>
> Auto manufacturers have been using this "new MS innovation" for at
> least eighty years.
>
> --
> Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
Hmmm... maybe we should say VIM2002 or XEMACS2001??
--
V
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 07:45:29 -0000
George Peter Staplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Not everybody benefits from the GPL. Some large corporations have
>strict rules that guard against the use of any GPL'd software.
Alas, FUD reigns supreme in the feeble minds of PHBs.
>Static
>executables are a wonderful way to make software installation easier on
>the user, but linking with a GPL'd or LGPL'd library causes your the
>executable to have GPL or LGPL restrictions. So, the end result is that
>the GPL will retard progress for some people, because installation will
>become more of a hell with shared libraries.
There are essentially two ways to comply with the LGPL without opening
the source of a program that uses an LGPL'd library:
* provide the library as a DLL or shared library, with source;
or
* provide a partial executable that can be statically linked to
a modified and recompiled library. The easiest way to do this
in a Unix-like environment is with "ld -r"; there may be an
equivalent under Visual Studio, but I don't know what it is
offhand.
Rules similar to the regular GPL apply if you lift a piece of the
library and use it in a new program. For such use, one can take a
copy of an LGPL'd source and relicense it under the GPL; the LGPL has
a section that explicitly permits this.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:34:22 -0600
On Thu, 3 May 2001 22:03:46 -0700, "Stephen Edwards"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3af1f28f$0$12226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp
>>
>> An interesting read.
>>
>> ===
>>
>> Slashdot is trying desperately to make this sound bad cause it cuts deep:
>>
>> From Slashdot:
>> "For example, Mundie says forking code is bad. Here's the same thought
>> translated into manager-speak: 'Having multiple vendors competing to offer
>> us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor
>who
>> can sell the product to us at monopoly prices.'"
>>
>> Now - I don't know about you but up until this moment I've heard that
>> forking code is bad. In fact, I have heard linux believers defend STRONGLY
>> against claims that the linux kernel is forking. And now, just because MS
>> says forking is bad - suddenly forking is good?? It's this sort of
>childish
>> desperate behaviour that is why enterprises don't even consider linux.
>
>What I found particularly interesting was this bit:
>
>---
>The Internet, for example, was full of sites producing content for free,
>in the hope that somehow they’d generate revenue from sources that never
>materialized, whether it was advertising, subscriptions, or a wing and a
>prayer. As we’ve learned – or really re-learned – one can’t build a business
>or our economic future on that type of flimsy foundation.
>---
>
>I'm certain Microsoft knew this for quite some time.
>
>A lot of companies/corporations, such as Caldera, S.u.S.E., IBM, SGI,
>RedHat,
>and a host of others are seemingly clinging onto GNU/Linux like a life-
>preserver.
Especially the ones that are primarily linux distros. Funny about
that. <g>
>SGI's IRIX has lost ground... so has IBM's AIX. Why they
>decided
>to abandon the very commercial nature of their businesses is beyond me. Why
>didn't they simply focus on making products for what WAS and still IS
>selling?... Windows.
Maybe because they saw that the future belongs to OSS?
>The sad fact is, that free software was never meant to be commercialized...
>it was meant to be shared. Companies basing their existence on a free product,
>in the hopes that they will draw revenue from support contracts simply
>doesn't work in the long run. That is what I and others said a while ago. That is
>what we are seeing now. I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more
>dusty has-been cubicles being repossessed/liquidated in the next year or
>two.
Fortunately the future of the OSS movement doesn't depend on the
survival of those companies.
>Because software such as GNU/Linux, NetBSD, Samba, Apache, etc. are free,
>they will always be around. They won't ever go away, because they are so
>accessible.
>
>"Free software never dies... it simply changes maintainers."
>
>However, they also close the gap for what kind of software is needed.
>They close a lot of possible avenues for commercial opportunity.
And open a lot, too. There's much to be gained by consumers and
businesses by getting out from under Microsoft's oppressive thumb.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
