Linux-Advocacy Digest #197, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech (Terry Porter)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (GreyCloud)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Stephen
Edwards")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (GreyCloud)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Terry Porter)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (Michael Vester)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linus responds... ("Paolo Ciambotti")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 May 2001 23:19:37 GMT
On Fri, 04 May 2001 20:39:20 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > They do sound a little desperate, don't they?
>> >
>>
>> Yeah. Desperate to shutdown GPL and *real* open source. Not the quasi open
>> source MS is talking about.
>>
>> That article made me sick! How greedy and rapacious can a company be.
>>
>> Don't you just love the statement "this viral aspect". Like MS just wants
> to
>> Grab as much as they can for FREE have all the benefits and NOT allow
> anyone
>> else access to their code. If GPL has so many *significant* drawbacks
> (they
>> go on to equate OSS with the recent .com bubble) why in the hell is MS
> even
>> worrying about it.
>
> Facts speak louder than the usual cola BS via its 'experts'. Someone who
> knows a tad more about what the GPL and Open source are, said this:
>
> "Open source is clearly a public benefit.
Perhaps.
> However, software licensed under
> the GNU General Public License, or GPL, is not truly open source.
Rather open source is not truly GPL.
> (The GPL
> violates the non-discrimination clause of the Open Software Definition --
> that's Clause 6 at opensource.org/docs/definition.html
Tough.
> -- because it allows use of code by end users but not by programmers. In
> fact, it is intended, specifically, to prevent programmers from being
> rewarded for their labors.)"
Thats a load of nonsense, the GPL has enabled me to make
money.
However the GPL prevents Microsoft from making a killing
of the backs of the GPL programmers, thats a certainty.
It also prevents Apple from doing the same.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 18:47:56 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "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).
>
> But imagine what it would look like if Microsoft developed it (or any
> other commercial softare company).
>
> You don't need to imagine; just remember the old MSN that Microsoft
> used before they went to TCP/IP. It was horrible.
You, and most other people are confusing GPL and Open Source. Mundies
comments are particularly against the GPL, not Open Source.
While MS made comments about Open Source having a difficult business model
to sustain, its primary beef was with the GPL. Notice that they are only
questioning the business model of Open Source, but are attacking the GPL's
effect on business directly.
Don't make the mistake of trying to claim MS is against Open Source. They
could care less if someone gives their code away. What they care about is
that the GPL prevents businesses from taking advantage of code paid for by
taxpayer dollars.
> > 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.
>
> What's your reasoning behind this? The only internet I remember is
> the one where everyone was trying to be BSD-compatible in their TCP
> stack.
The original internet wasn't even developed on Unix. My point is that, if
the government had released the original DARPANET code under a license like
the GPL, companies like DEC, IBM, and Sun would have never adopted it.
> > 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.
>
> The only problem with your point of view on those issues is that
> Microsoft will NEVER offically publish things like the Halloween
> document, so we must rely on the leaked versions of them. If we wait
> for it to be published by Microsoft, it never will be -- heck, they
> even retract many articles after the fact.
Since they'll never publish such documents, you must steal internal memos
and attribute them to corporate policy?
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, Since the defendant won't take the stand,
we must conclude that he is guilty and that everything we've said is fact".
> > 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).
>
> Here's the comment in question:
>
> "...with Microsoft you must pick a prepackaged fork and live with it
> - 98, ME, NT, 2000 (all three versions), CE ... They do at least
> have a fair range of forks to choose from."
>
> I don't see the exaggeration that you do. He's saying: You CAN'T
> fork Windows, so you're stuck with what Microsoft decides is a good
> fork. Why is NT 4 build 1391 (or whatever)? What's to say that build
> 1345 or 1452 wasn't better; we'll never know.
He's saying that 98, ME, NT, Three versions of 2000 and CE are all seperate
forks. If they are, then Red Hat 7 is a fork, so is 7.1, so is 6.2. That's
not the traditional definition of a fork.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 18:50:58 -0500
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "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
>
> Which one? There was more than one involved (Hint: check history of tcp
> - and yes the USA did not invent the Internet alone - sorry!)
Any of them. None of them was released under a license similar to the GPL.
All of them were released as either public domain or under extremely liberal
licensing.
> > 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.
>
> Memo's are two page briefs - this is a report.
A Memo can be any size.
> > 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.
>
> Erm, so I guess that millions of new lines of code is working to the
> original codebase (w2k)?
According to the GPL, a single line of code is enough to be a derived work.
Even if you count NT and Win2k to be a fork, 95/98/ME are not seperate
forks.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 19:00:54 -0500
4-19-2001
http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
"A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
arbitrary holes in the firewall."
4-25-2001
http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
"kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange authentication
information and delete it shortly after. This can be abused by a local
user to gain access to the X server and can result in a compromise of the
account kdesu accesses."
4-25-2001
http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
"If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux 7.1
(they were created during updates if the user requested it), they were
world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap file(s),
possibly including passwords."
4-20-2001
http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-053.html
"Previous gftp versions had a problem with format strings allowing malicious
ftp servers to potentially execute code on the gftp user's system. "
What exactly is your point?
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60173,00.html
>
> (May 03, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today renewed
> its offensive against open-source software
> development, a move that the software vendor
> said was made in response to repeated queries
> from corporate users about how it's
> responding to the open-source movement.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60163,00.html
>
> (May 03, 2001) Microsoft Corp. has sparked a
> new controversy by sending a letter to some
> PC makers offering them rewards in return for
> identifying corporate users who ask that computers
> be shipped "naked," without Windows installed.
>
> Users making such requests may have "misunderstood"
> their Windows licensing agreements, Microsoft claimed
> in the letter, which was issued last week to
> thousands of companies that assemble PCs to sell
> directly to businesses. The assembly companies,
> known as system builders, were offered prizes
> such as software packages, watches and cooking
> grills if they identified customers seeking
> Windows-less machines.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60115,00.html
>
> (May 01, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today disclosed
> that an "extremely serious" flaw in an
> extension included in Windows 2000 could
> allow a malicious hacker to gain complete control
> of any computer running the Internet
> Information Services (IIS) 5.0 software
> built into that operating system.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59982,00.html
>
> (April 26, 2001) A Microsoft Corp. technical
> support server that accidentally lacked
> antivirus software caused 26 of
> the company's largest support clients to be
> left vulnerable to the FunLove computer
> virus late last week.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59697,00.html
>
> (April 17, 2001) Microsoft Corp. yesterday
> warned users that a flaw in its new firewall
> and Web caching software -- billed as the
> company's first product aimed purely at IT
> security -- could lead to denial-of-service
> attacks blocking all Web traffic from passing
> through corporate firewalls.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59121,00.html
>
> (March 30, 2001) Microsoft Corp. is warning
> users about a security hole in Internet
> Explorer that could be used to force the Web
> browser to automatically open HTML e-mail
> attachments, potentially enabling attacks in which
> malicious hackers could delete data from
> PCs or cause other types of damage.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59065,00.html
>
> (March 29, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today said
> it has completed a promised software update
> for all of its Windows operating system releases
> dating back to 1995 as part of an effort to
> combat a pair of fraudulent digital
> certificates that were mistakenly issued
> by VeriSign Inc.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO58036,00.html
>
> (February 23, 2001) Microsoft Corp. has
> identified another security hole in its
> Outlook e-mail software and said a fix
> is available for the glitch.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Although almost omnipresent on the desktop, Microsoft
> seems to be thrashing just as much as their operating
> systems.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 17:14:03 -0700
"." wrote:
>
> Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9cuh7c$nr9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> Apparantly youre new to usenet. Advocacy groups ARE bashing groups,
> > slapnuts.
>
> >> Now go away.
>
> > Apparently you're a moron. Bashing groups are stuff like
> > alt.destroy.microsoft or alt.linux.sux.
>
> > Have a nice day.
>
> Having been an active participant in usenet for the past 13 years, I can
> say without a grain of doubt that you are absolutely incorrect.
>
> If you dont like the tone of this group, you are free to fuck off.
>
> -----.
>
> --
> "Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
> Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
> The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
You can always tell a Dane... just can't tell em' much.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 08:20:26 -0700
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cu0ku$3hi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stephen Edwards wrote in message ...
> >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Could you please expand on this? Exactly what is it that NT
> >cannot do from the VDM that it can do from the GUI? If the
> >VDM doesn't suit you, then what about CygWin32?
> >
>
> CygWin is an interesting system - in order to make NT command line work
like
> a real shell, you need to use ported utilites from Unix. One great
example
> is "ln" - NTFS has had support for hard links for years, yet the only way
to
> use them is either to pay for expensive third-party systems, or download a
> free port of a standard unix utility.
>
> >Also, as far as standard APIs go, what is Win32 exactly, if
> >it is not a standard API? From what I can tell, Microsoft
> >software is THE standard out there these days. Sometimes I
> >think that old-school UNIX users tend to live in the past,
> >thinking that POSIX has more presence than it really does.
> >
> >Microsoft's standards are proprietary, but they are standards
> >nonetheless. I simply don't understand why some people have
> >a "POSIX-compliance or die" attitude. I can't even count on
> >two hands anymore the amount of software that has been ported
> >back and forth between POSIX and Win32, so why does it even
> >matter much, if at all if an OS is POSIX.1-.3 compliant?
> >--
>
>
> There is simply no such thing as a "proprietry standard". As long as MS
> keeps its API to itself, it is not a standard. You can well argue that
the
> MS API is very commonly used, and may be more useful than POSIX, but it is
> still not a standard.
So, when AT&T UNIX(R) got a foothold, I guess that since
it was proprietary, that it wasn't a standard then, right?
Whether or not something is a standard is not dictated by
it's ownership status. It is dictated by the margin of
its use.
--
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: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 17:16:08 -0700
Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>
> "Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9cu8nu$8dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mikkel Elmholdt"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup reveals that the
> > >majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
> > >official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of Linux.
> >
> > I'm sure it would be, if there weren't so many people trolling Windows
> > advocacy through here.
>
> Actually, it seems to me that the number of posts bashing Windows vastly
> outnumbers the Linux bashers here. But even so, you do have the right to
> ignore such postings.
>
> > >It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
> > >arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on
> your
> > >opponents weaknesses. Is that the case here? If it is, then I find it
> rather
> > >lame.
> >
> > Most of it is in response to said trolling.
>
> Hmmmm ...... maybe. But if I look at the most recent postings, we have
> within 24 hours these:
>
> "If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested..."
> "The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT"
> "Windows NT: lost in space?"
> "Windos is *unfriendly*"
>
> All MS bashing to boot. I failed to find any initial Linux bashing threads
> in the same period, however. Totally non-scientific statistics, I know, but
> still ....
>
> > >Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
> case
> > >for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for the
> > >majority of posters here.
> >
> > So, are you going to do some Linux advocacy then?
>
> No. I don't see myself as a Linux advocate, so why should I advocate Linux?
>
> Mikkel
Then why are you trolling then??
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 May 2001 23:32:30 GMT
On Fri, 4 May 2001 10:51:25 +0200,
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> From a Motorcycle news group today
>> "glitch1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> > Linux and Unix geeks, stay away !! :)
>> > Been mucking around for months with w98se and w2k to get the 2 machines
>> > networked, also trying to rig both onto one internet connection. Tried
> all
>> > those "you beaut" apps like Winproxy, Wingate etc., trying to follow the
>> > EASY instal & forget stuff, resulting in more frustration than coffee at
>> > hand....
>> > W98 dropping the network constantly resulting in endless logon/logoffs,
> 98
>> > and 2k not talking on the same level, bugger it.
>>
>> Tell us again Wintrolls, how "easy" Windos is to set up ?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kind Regards
>> Terry
>
> Hmmm - according to the "Porter Principle" we obviously have:
>
> 1) When someone complains that Linux is hard to setup and use, then the
> following apply:
> - He is stupid and ought to stay away from computers
> - He is probably paid by Microsoft
> - He should RTFM, and Get A Life, and <whatever>
>
> 2) When someone complains that Windows is hard to setup and use, then the
> following apply:
> - He is making an educated and intelligent assessment
> - He is finally seeing the light
>
> Perhaps a bit unbalanced, don't you think Terry?
Definetly, you should try and refrain from making such unbalanced assertions.
> Ever occurred to you that
> this Motorcycle guy perhaps needed to RTFM on general PC setup and such?
> (using months to network two WinPCs - really impressive!)
Sure, why dont you tell him that, *your're* the Windos advocate.
He on the other hand doesnt sound too happy with Windos, so don't be
too supprised if he resents your attitude.
>
> Mikkel
>
Mikkel, you may be new to COLA, but your closed Windos mindset is sadly only
too obvious.
How did you come to the above conclusions, chicken innards, tea cup
leavings ?
Or just, the usual Wintroll active imagination?
Please post where I have said 1)a
I admit to 1)b, and the first half of 1)c.
Please feel free to paste actual posts of mine that show the above to be
incorrect.
As a Wintroll you have a lot to learn, best start straight away, because
atm you're not even entertaining.
The post I copied is a untouched rendition of a *typical* Windos user
trying to actually do something usefull. I make no comments on his
difficulty, its his Windos, and his problem.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 00:32:29 GMT
On Fri 04 May 2001 06:28, GreyCloud wrote:
[Snip]
>> >
>> > Yes, CULT! That's L. Ron Hubbard. Anytime a group wants money for its
>> > support as a religion is a cult!
>>
>> My big issue with the CoS is their "fair game" policy: according to the
>> Church, it is "ethical" to use any means necessary (including libel,
>> slander, destruction of property, and in extreme cases muder) to silence
>> a
>> former Scientologist or a vocal enemy of Scientology. The other big
>> issue I have with them is that they claim their "scriptures" are
>> copyrighted, and sue the hell out of anyone who tries to distribute them;
>> although they are almost certainly in the legal right here, what kind of
>> religion copyrights its scriptures?
>>
>> --
>> Chronos Tachyon
>> Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
>> Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
>> [Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
>
> That's why I call it a cult and not a religion.
> I feel that religious truths are free for the asking.
>
Oops, I must admit that I mis-parsed your response. I realized it about 15
minutes or so after hitting "Send" that you agreed with me, but I re-read
my paragraph and realized that it still made sense in that context. Whew
:-)
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 18:42:56 +0600
Adam Warner wrote:
> Doesn't look like Microsoft is a member though ;-)
Doesn't MS have its own rival organization, consisting of themselves and
some sock puppets?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 11:19:26 -0700
"." wrote:
>
> Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Flatfish is a girl.
>
> You think so?
>
> -----.
>
> --
> "Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
> Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
> The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
Just a hunch. Flatfish does write well. Also, in one posting, Flatfish
admits being a girl.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 00:55:36 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-053.html
>
> What exactly is your point?
Point 1. Microsoft, in spite of its immense revenues,
big teams, beta programs, and testing, still
produces some amazing problems at regular and
frequent intervals. (Against which the problems
you quote above are essentially trivial.)
Point 2. Microsoft exhibits arrogant grandstanding and a
contempt for the user's intelligence, honesty,
and freedom to choose.
Point 3. I wouldn't trust Microsoft for security or fair
behavior.
Point 4. Free software is a good answer to Microsoft.
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60173,00.html
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60163,00.html
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60115,00.html
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59982,00.html
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59697,00.html
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59121,00.html
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59065,00.html
> > http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO58036,00.html
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus responds...
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 18:01:47 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think both Linus and the MS dude, are both missing the real point.
>
> This is not about IPR or freedom of thought or free source code or the
> discovery of the electron, or any of that.
>
> The final test is this: Which OS/platform is the one that the masses
> find better and easier and help the people do their work?
>
> If you consider the computer a tool, which tool people find better for
> them?
>
> The answers to the above questions which should be debated, not if the
> code should be free or not. If free code means I'll get a better OS,
> then free code is better. If closed code will mean I'll get a better OS,
> then closed code is better.
>
> As a user, I only care about which system is better for me, and which
> will help me do my job better.
>
>
Don't overlook the financial considerations in the decision making
process. For established, successful businesses with cash to burn, a
high-dollar proprietary solution may make perfect sense. For a small
startup, or a cash-strapped home user, or a non-profit organization, or an
underfunded local government agency with an entirely different set of
requirements, open source may be a better fit.
For some of us, the initial acquisition cost matters a great deal,
especially if you're not in business to make money.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
