Linux-Advocacy Digest #279, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (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)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (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)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (GreyCloud)
Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: where's the linux performance? ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:28 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 11:56:29 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >
>> >Saying this doesn't make it so. Until 1995, Microsoft
>> >sold a version of Windows separate from DOS.
>>
>> The question is not whether they sold it (had it available). The
>> question is how much people bought it. People weren't buying it, so MS
>> forced it on them: this is documented by Microsoft's internal documents.
>> Arguing against it just makes you look stupid.
>>
>This doesn't seem to gibe with the Caldera case theory for one thing. Their
>assertion was that Microsoft used Windows to leverage MS-DOS, not vice-versa
>as you seem to be saying.
The teleology is not what is important; only the resultant
anti-competitive effect. What leads you to believe that MS could not
both leverage DOS with Windows, and leverage Windows with DOS? You're
not one of those guys who denies the existence of the very concept of
monopolization, are you?
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:29 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 14:30:54 GMT;
>Do you have any authentication for that letter? That condition would be an
>explicit violation of the Consent Agreement and would be of extreme interest
>to the DOJ, at least the previous administration DOJ. I suspect that the
>story is bogus since there was such an extensive search made by the DOJ for
>any such agreements or documents from Microsoft to the extent of subpoenaing
>contracts from most of the OEMs over the objection of Microsoft but by order
>of the Jackson court.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Yes, the court record is replete with examples of
such behavior. They don't only have documents similar to the ones from
The Microsoft Files, (the contracts simply show what was done, not what
MS [or the OEM] refused to do, so they aren't incriminating in this way)
but internal emails from Microsoft which precisely explain the
anti-competitive intent behind such letters.
--
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.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:32 GMT
Said Bill Vermillion in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001
[...]
>I have some price sheets from 1984 showing the SCO price list for
>Xenix on a Lisa. [SCO was a porting house then and made a lot of
>cross-compilers].
So Xenix was SCO's port of Unix, right? This is what I thought all
along, but some sock puppet said that it Microsoft developed it
themselves.
>>>>B) To suck enough as a Unix on a PC that they didn't have to work
>>>>that hard and could get away with easy, crapware, DOS.
>
>>>We can't totally eliminate point A - Gates wanting to monopolize
>>>the OS - but at that point in time MS was primarly a language house
>>>and Xenix was the ONLY OS they produced. They did have the highly
>>>successful Z80 add-in card for the Apple so the Microsoft licensed
>>>version of CP/M was a big hit in the Apple world.
>
>>This time, it is the definition of "OS" which turns to sand,
>>historically. I know, the term itself is not variable, but the
>>ROM BASIC was 'an OS' to Gates; DOS itself only happened on IBM's
>>insistence. (I say happened because "created" would be overly
>>generous; it was plagiarized more than it was created, as was BASIC
>>and Xenix, of course.)
>
>And the OS part of DOS was stretching it a bit IMO. It was really
>more of a 'file-handler' than an operating system. The very first
>PC's [I got to try out DOS 1.0 on a PC about 6 weeks after they
>were introduced and I was quite un-impressed. 160K drives when
>everyone else had 360K. 64K memory limit. A warmed over CP/M and
>the screen display method made the sucker really creep compated to
>the memory mapped screen displays in most of the other CP/M
>systems].
It didn't really improve much from there, either. ;-)
>>>We can totally elminate point B - 'suck enough on a PC ..' because
>>>what we call the PC [the iNTEL based platform] had not been
>>>introduced at that time.
>
>>Are you sure we're talking the same Microsoft? BASIC was there
>>first product Microsoft? I didn't realize Xenix was that old. Just
>>where did it come from?
>
>BASIC from MS came out in 1975 with the Altair. The ROM'ed BASIC -
>based on MS's 4.5 BASIC as I recall - was what ran Radio Shack's
>Model One computer. {I bought the 4th one sold in Orlando}. The
>Apple variant was poorer in many respects. I have the original
>Apple Basic and OS ?? manuals. I bought those because I thought
>the color was really neat on the Apple. I paid $50 for the
>manuals. One of the better investments in computers, as I read
>them and saved myself from making [for me] a very expensive
>mistake.
Yes, but where did Xenix come from?
>>>I remember Gates ranting and raving and calling all hobbyiest
>>>thives for 'stealing' his $150 cassette basci [highly over-priced
>>>in the 1977 world] while the competition was in the $35 to $50
>>>range.
>
>>And Xenix already existed? Wow. [He wasn't even selling the same
>>thing as 'the competition', I'll bet, licensing where they actually
>>*sold*.]
>
>Xenix came along after his cassette BASIC. This was back when
>Micro Soft [the orignal name was two words] was still located
>in Alberqureque [sp?] New Mexico.
I think, actually, that it was hyphenated (but it probably wasn't always
printed, I guess). What kind of name is Micro Soft? IIRC, it was
"Micro-Soft", then "MicroSoft" (briefly) then "Microsoft".
>There are classic Gates quotes
>from that era such as "There is no way a company can make
>$10,000,000 selling software, and I have the figures to prove it".
>
>A year or so later he bumped the $10,000,000 to $100,000,000.
>That was about the time he re-wrote the contracts with he an Balmer
>and cut Balmer's share to a much smaller point. He's always been
>ruthless that way. Stories seem to indicate he made all his money
>in his short college career by playing poker.
I'd bet he cheated then, too. Kind of hard to bluff when you're rocking
back and forth in your chair. :-)
>I don't know the exact year MS introduced Xenix. The worst Xenix
>[buggiest] that I worked on was IBM Xenix 2.0. It was their first
>'supported' version and IBM Xenix 1.0 was released totally as is.
>2.0 was so buggy I'm surprised it was released as supported.
So I guess it was a Microsoft product. ;-)
SCO must have gotten it later. So Xenix isn't SCO; SCO is Xenix.
[...]
>>This was definitely not Microsoft's creation. MultiMate was
>>Ashton-Tate, IIRC. So I presume Xenix came from somewhere other than
>>MS, as well. Where?
>
>It may have been licensed. There were three "Multi" packages. I
>see an RS MultiPlan manual high on shelf over there - and too hard
>to get too - so I can't look further.
I think you might just be confusing the OS and the VAR's implementation.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were Xenix systems that ran Multimate
(multiplan, etc. were added to compete against 'integrated packages'
{not properly "office suites", really} of the time like Enable and
Eight-In-One {and Works}), but that doesn't indicate any real
relationship between Xenix and Multimate.
>Xenix was the MS license of Unix from AT&T. [See above comments].
>If it says Xenix on it, MS gets royalties.
Did MS port it, or did they just pay SCO to do it?
[...]
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:33 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
>> >
>> > No, they don't.
>>
>> Are you totally ignorant or what. If vendors under a per-processor
>> license shipped a competing license, the venodr had to pay for the 2
>> licenses. Those costs were passed to the consumer, which raised the cost
>> of the computer compared to the vendors competitors. What part of this
>> do you NOT understand?
>>
>> Thats what the whole consent decree was about.
>
>This doesn't exclude a second OS, for three reasons:
>
>The costs are small enough that they can be
>eaten if needed.
The real world proves you wrong.
>You can ship *two* OSes on a computer. This
>is actually a popular configuration with the
>techno-elite.
And conversely not popular with the vast majority of non-techno-elite.
>The vendor can go for a different license if
>their particular business is ill-served by the
>per-processor license.
So MS offered all OEMs the same licensing options at the same rates?
Just because you can quibble doesn't mean you have a point, Daniel.
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:34 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >> The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
>> >
>> >No, they don't.
>>
>> Yes, they did. Metaphorically, perhaps, but this is the jist of the
>> matter.
>
>"Metaphorically"?
>
>You just *want* them to have said that.
No, they said that; they just used slightly different words. They
repeated it several hundred times, and have been very clear on precisely
that point for years; they've used ALL SORTS of words to say that, so
that you should not be so ignorant of the fact.
Just because you can quibble doesn't mean you have a point, Daniel.
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:35 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >> That's because it is built into the phrase "restraint of trade".
>> >
>> >Oh. If so, Microsoft is clearly innocent by even hostile
>> >accounts.
>>
>> If only "restraint of trade" weren't illegal, you might have a point!
>> Doh!
>
>No, I mean that if "restraint of trade" necessarily implies
>excluding competitors through legal agreements, then
>even MS's accusers think MS is innocent *of restraint
>of trade*.
I did not say that restraint of trade necessarily implies excluding
competitors; I said the matter of exclusion is inherent in restraint of
trade. It is only a trivial category error that you are making, but it
is obviously you would sorely love to blow it up into a full-fledge pile
of bullshit. None of MS's accusers join you in your assumption that
they have not excluded competition, regardless.
Just because you can quibble doesn't mean you have a point, Daniel.
>This makes no sense. I don't think your definition of
>restraint of trade will fly.
Bullshit; you're just lying.
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:36 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
>> >
>> > They gave their customers what they wanted; that is what
>> > it takes to be a top-20 OEM.
>>
>> No, they didnt. You are plainly not worth any more time. You ignore
>> evidence, including quotes from M$ executive.
>
>If you've got a quote from an MS excutive who says that
>the customers did not want Windows, I'd like to see it.
Quotes from customers aren't enough?
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:37 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> >> They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
>> >
>> >They gave their customers what they wanted; that is what
>> >it takes to be a top-20 OEM.
>>
>> No, this is just begging the question. Go pretend to learn logic
>> somewhere else, troll. Or admit you're just a moron with Microsoft
>> stock, and get in line with the other sock puppets.
>
>It's not begging the question; it's not even an argument; It's
>a bald assertion.
It is a logical fallacy, not a bald assertion.
>Not unlike yours, that way.
Mine is a reasonable position of argument; your's is just the posturing
of a troll. Guffaw.
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:38 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > Then I suggest you are being sloppy with your accusations; you
>> > know full well that MS never excluded anyone. At their *worst*
>> > they want you to sell *their* product, whatever else you may sell.
>>
>> Then why were their OEM-licenses dependant upon NOT selling any
>> other vendor's OS?
>
>They weren't.
They were.
>Remember, not everything Max says is true. :D
Nothing is true because I say it is. Nothing is untrue because you say
it is. :-D
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:39 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>I'm sorry that the existance of some who appreciates
>Windows pisses you off.
You are happy your trolling is frustrating him, because you are an
immature child. The rest of your position and statements are just
posturing.
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:40 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> You are saying that Stac and DR and Go are out of line in complaining
>> about Microsoft's purposeful actions to exclude them from the market?
>> That's apologizing for criminal behavior, Daniel. Getting your jollies
>> trolling isn't worth destroying your character so completely.
>
>Stac may have a case; I've heard conflicting reports.
Stac had a case and won a judgement for several hundreds of millions of
dollars. They settled for less, knowing that relying on a dishonest
company to pay up is foolish to rely upon, and soon disappeared.
>DR and Go certainly do not.
DR had a case which MS ran from like a scared rabbit, when it came down
to the evidence. Go had a case, but it was never proven in court
because it wasn't recognized as prosecutable until anecdotal information
was provided in a book about it.
>They are just abusing the
>legal system. (Well Caldera was. Did Go ever do anything like
>that?)
Microsoft is breaking the law. Their victims are not "abusing the legal
system". Guffaw!
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:41 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>I am trying to discover whether you really
>don't understand the differences between facts and
>laws.
Nothing can be discovered by dishonest inquiry such as your posts
engender.
[...]
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:42 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 06 May 2001 08:25:06 GMT;
>On Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 15:10:51
>>>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>>>> [...]
>>>> >I won't argue that point!!!
>>>> >
>>>> >Flatfish
>>>>
>>>> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
>>>>
>>>> You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
>>>> know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
>>>> computers.
>>>
>>>Thanks a lot!
>>
>> You're welcome.
>>
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>Did I miss something Max ?
>
>I like Greybeard, hes got an adventurous spirit and a
>sense of humour, why the accusation of 'tired old man'
>????
He wasn't the one being "accused"; you'll notice I was responding to
flathead.
--
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: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:43 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
[...]
>When and if, Linux becomes the standard OS (a pipe dream at best), I
>will use it.
Linux already is the de facto standard OS, as far as I can tell, though
neither you or I are using it, because of the illegal monopolization.
>Chances are I will be long gone from this earth when that happens
>though.
You just think that when YOU use it, it becomes the standard. Just like
Windows. Guffaw.
--
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: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:43 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
[...]
>The difference is a Windows user doesn't have to touch win.ini to be
>able to have a legible display.
Not NOW, no. But when Windows was first penetrating the OEM base, as
Linux is now, there were just as many problems. More, because Microsoft
was trying to play anti-competitive games with TrueType.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 22:39:24 -0700
Charles Lyttle wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9d109q$g7c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Since when has the GNU project been supported by the taxpayer?
> >
> > Who said it was? I'm talking about code developed at JPL or the NSA (such
> > as Secure Linux, which is government funded, but GPL'd)
> >
> > > And you also seem to be saying that they are annoyed that they can't make
> > > money off other peoples work? Well so what? Do you think anyone cares
> > > about MS that much?
> >
> > Federal law prohibits work developed by the government from being
> > copyrighted. That means it can't be GPL'd by law, but it still is happening
> > because the GPL has infected the government.
> >
> Have you a citation for this law? I see lots of code developed by
> government contract with copywrite notices. However, if it is true, the
> government also cannot take the copywrite held by the original authors
> without just compensation. So the new code must be released GPL to the
> original authors, or the original authors must be contracted (real $$$)
> for a branch.
>
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Why not? The GPL doesn't license protocols. Companies would be quite free
> > > to develop a compatible implementation, using the GPL source as a
> > > reference.
> >
> > No, they're not. Using GPL'd source as a reference makes the work a derived
> > work, and subject to the GPL's license terms.
>
> --
> Russ Lyttle
> "World Domination through Penguin Power"
> The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
> <http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
Hmmmm.... does that mean my code that I wrote for DOD and then given to
GenRad Corp. for free means I should get just compensation for it?? I
didn't get a dime extra for it.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:05:35 GMT
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> I have found the software well written, the authors friendly
> and approachable, usually answering my emails about bugs or
> features, within ONE day.
And a lot of them actually try to recruit you into the project <g>
>
> Caveat:
> This doesn't mean that *all* authors are the same, or that
> you will have the same good fortune, this is just my
> experience.
The occasional prima-donna lurks 'round out there, yes...They're pretty
rare, though.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 06:09:14 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Welcome to the joy of Linux!!!!
> >
> > Flatfish
> >
> Ignorance must be bliss for you FlatFish.
No, I think abuse is....
Cheap thrills without the silly looking leather get-up.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
