Linux-Advocacy Digest #874, Volume #34 Thu, 31 May 01 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Copying levy [WAS Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file?] ("Alan Murrell")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Kmart
Shopper)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
("Quantum Leaper")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("John Hoagland")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Michael Dunlap)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Shun Yan Cheung)
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Marcello Barboni)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe ("jet")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft Helps Turn Britain's E-Government Vision Into Reality
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:27:26 GMT
On Thu, 31 May 2001 15:08:06 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I assure you, I was not surprised- I've seen it before.
> GIMP for Win32 is much worse about this.
Never tried it on Win32. It is fine in it's native habitat.
> It appears to be the path of least resistance for
> Unix apps- they implement their controls internally,
> anyway,
Really? They don't use Motif or Qt or GTK or Athena? Interesting, I
didn't know that all Unix GUI apps were written directly on xlib.
> But it's a quality issue. These apps aren't
> as good as those which do use the local widget
> set.
Depends on how you define "good". They may not implement the native
look and feel as much as you would like. They may function perfectly
fine.
> It is the Macintosh and Unix that make life
> interesting for portable apps.
What else are "desktop" apps going to be ported to? Besides all the
variants of Win32 I mean.
> "Integrate with each of (WPS, Finder, Explorer) if
> present" is much easier than implementing any
> one of those three.
So just add "konqueror" to the list.
> I think part of the problem is that some of
> the functionality that these apps would like
> to use is just not there in Unix.
I know, you said that already. My contention is that you can't say
much about the quality of Unix apps running on Unix by looking at
Windows versions of a couple of them. By that logic, I ought to base my
opinions about Win32 on an evaluation of MSIE on Solaris.
> > Modern toolkits like those underlying Gnome and
> > KDE are really quite good,
>
> Gnome is not ready to be deployed from
> what I've seen.
Neither was Win95, but it got deployed anyway. I suspect that what
you've seen of Gnome is fairly limited as well.
> I do wonder why they did not use
> KDE for what it can do, though.
Maybe because it was written before KDE became popular. I guess
OpenOffice is going with the Gnome libraries.
> MS Office, on the other hand, uses the native widgets
> on every platform it runs on. (both of them! :D )
My understanding is that MS Office for Windows and Mac are almost two
separate products.
> > So it is very similar to Word's feature set. It is no doubt "good
> > enough" for the majority of users then.
>
> It does not seem to have a lot to recommend
> it over MS Office, except the price tag.
Well, that adds up pretty fast so it isn't something you can dismiss
out of hand. The other thing it will offer, when OpenOffice becomes
more mature, is an open file format with a reference implementation that
you can borrow from. That is far more important in the long run.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: "Alan Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Copying levy [WAS Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file?]
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:40:55 -0700
> How do they actually apply this levy? I mean, how do they know Mr Joe
> Blow is making copies of linda ronstadt or ugly kid joe?
It gets applied directly at the time of purchase.
> Where does the levy taxes exactly go?
Who knows? :-)
--
Alan Murrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.zoolink.com/alan/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kmart Shopper)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:14:40 GMT
On Thu, 31 May 2001 18:19:17 +1000, "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
hurled this gem ...
|> Did the geniuses who wrote X consider Trackballs of varying designs when
|> they chose the 'middle button' cut & paste?? Probably not, because it's
|> very unwieldy for me and my Logitech trackball.
|
|
|
|Did Logiteck take in to account X when they designed your trackball Probably
|not,
|because they had windows in mind.
Same folks who must have put "microsoft natural" under the keyboard
selection. Choose that puppy and then try your normal virtual terminal
keys. Ha! <hint> try the windows and windows-context keys>
===============================================
Vs nffubyrf unq jvatf, P.B.Y.N. jbhyq or na nvecbeg.
===============================================
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 17:49:26 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b1656ec$0$94312$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dan Pidcock wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 May 2001 06:27:12 GMT, Rex Ballard
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >JS \\ PL wrote:
> > > >> and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as
opposed to
> the
> > > >> hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
> > > >
> > > >Linux uses the X11 "center button" (or two buttons down at same time)
> > > >to
> > > >paste. It works very well, and you can cut/paste between different
> > > >applications
> > > >without having to load the binaries of multiple executables for each
> > > >pasted document.
> > >
> > > The centre button to paste selection does not always work so great.
> > > If I have some text in a document that is a URL and I want to paste it
> > > into the address field of my browser window, I have to select the
> > > current address in the browser to delete it so that becomes the
> > > selection when I try to paste. So I have to delete it then go back to
> > > the document select the browser and finally past. A real PITA.
> > >
> > > How well does X selection work with images, e.g. in GIMP & xv? I've
> > > never really tried that.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > remove .hatespam to reply
> >
> > Did the geniuses who wrote X consider Trackballs of varying designs when
> > they chose the 'middle button' cut & paste?? Probably not, because it's
> > very unwieldy for me and my Logitech trackball.
>
> Since when has usability ever been a consideration in X?
>
Why change the software to make a trackball easy to use, that would be too
hard for them...
------------------------------
From: "John Hoagland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:01:36 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The effect of share dilution through
>> the effect of exercisable stock options
>> is well documented in the SEC filings.
>>
>> There's really nothing really "fraudulent"
>> about it. It's pretty much standard practice
>> with all companies.
>>
>> Companies usually do stock buybacks to offset
>> the dilutive effect of incentive stock options.
>
>Indeed. In fact, the recent stock market slump allowed MS to buy back
stock
>at a profit (at much lower rates than they optioned and sold the stock to
>their employees in the first place)
Not yours, I hope.
Didn't Microsoft also reissue duplicate stock options when it was about 40?
2 + 2
------------------------------
From: Michael Dunlap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:15:18 +0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Greg Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9f480f$86k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > > Regardless of the minimum requirements, it's a pain to use Win2K on a
> > > machine with ~ 64MB.
> > > There was a list of services that are needed, and all else you can
> close, (I
> > > think it was 4 or 5 that you need to keep on going, but I lost it,
> anyone
> > > can point it out to me?) but even then, it would still take 32MB or so.
> > > Swapping is not fun.
> > >
> > >
> > For god's sake, you can buy 128MB of memory for $45. Splurge a
> > little...
>
> I'm not arguing with *this*, mind you.
> I'm just pointing out that it's not... ideal to run Win2K/XP on low memory
> machines.
Just as an interesting point...I installed Win2k on a DEC P133 with
about 96mb of RAM. It ran like a dog...Solitaire took half a minute to
load up. Any time Windows suggests that their OS will run on something
lower than 200mhz and 64mb RAM I am *extremely* leery.
--
Michael Dunlap
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 13:29:01 -0500
"Michael Dunlap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Greg Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <9f480f$86k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> >
> > > > Regardless of the minimum requirements, it's a pain to use Win2K on
a
> > > > machine with ~ 64MB.
> > > > There was a list of services that are needed, and all else you can
> > close, (I
> > > > think it was 4 or 5 that you need to keep on going, but I lost it,
> > anyone
> > > > can point it out to me?) but even then, it would still take 32MB or
so.
> > > > Swapping is not fun.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > For god's sake, you can buy 128MB of memory for $45. Splurge a
> > > little...
> >
> > I'm not arguing with *this*, mind you.
> > I'm just pointing out that it's not... ideal to run Win2K/XP on low
memory
> > machines.
>
> Just as an interesting point...I installed Win2k on a DEC P133 with
> about 96mb of RAM. It ran like a dog...Solitaire took half a minute to
> load up. Any time Windows suggests that their OS will run on something
> lower than 200mhz and 64mb RAM I am *extremely* leery.
There was likely something going on in the background, such as the index
server. I assure you, Win2k runs fine in 64MB, much less 96MB. Oh sure,
it's nice to add more, but it's very useable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shun Yan Cheung)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: 31 May 2001 14:37:45 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Ah, and BTW: Installing Linux with current distribution doesn't even
>give the slightest kick of "hacker achievement" as it did in Slackware's
>time.
Yeah, they have made it too darn easy to install Linux now...
For that matter, even Solaris installation has become too easy...
I used to dread OS upgrades, now I just pop in a CD and let it rip...
--
``Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly''
------------------------------
From: Marcello Barboni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:40:51 GMT
Zsolt wrote:
> I've seen some rather good, although 'unofficial' explanations about the
> XP abbreviation in Windows XP. Let's try to collect them in this thread.
> Anybody, who has other good idead, please post them here!
>
> To kick-off the collection, some idea's I've seen so far on this
> newsgroup:
>
> eXPerimental
> eXtra Problems included
> eXtremely Pathetic
>
>
>
eXpect Problems
--
antispam
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 20:53:40 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
snip
>
> Disgust =/= phobia.
>
snip
>
I know. And you know what I mean.
--
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.1
------------------------------
From: "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: aaron kulkis steals his brother ian turdboy's crack pipe
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 12:15:05 -0700
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> jet wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > chrisv wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >chrisv wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >chrisv wrote:
> > > > >> At least if I'm ignorant about something, I don't shoot my mouth
off
> > > > >> about it, unlike you, who likes to play "wannabe expert" on
every
> > > > >> subject imaginable....
> > > > >
> > > > >Wrong. I claim no expertise in numerous fields.
> > > >
> > > > Okay, change "on every subject imaginable" to "on nearly every
subject
> > > > which arises in this newsgroup, and in which most of, you are very
> > > > much out of your depth."
> > > >
> > > > >For example hindi, farsi, chinese, and a multitude of other foreign
> > languages.
> > > >
> > > > Wow, I'm really impressed. I'm surprised that you haven't claimed
> > > > fluency in Chinese, then refused to provide proof (you'd just say
> > > > "jump"), just like many of your other claims.
> > > >
> > > > >Hope that helps.
> > > >
> > > > It didn't. Your anal, literal interpretation of what I wrote just
> > > > made you look like an idiot bent on ignoring my point.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that I should interpret your words in some way
> > > other than what you wrote?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Do what you say. Say what you mean. One thing leads to another.
> >
> > You mean like you are going to take Steve Chaney to court like you said
you
> > would?
>
> There's no point in a libel suit against a man who no longer has any
credibility.
>
> do the fucking math.
So, we should have interpreted your words in some way other than what you
wrote.
And when you said "Do what you say, say what you mean" you didn't mean what
you said.Got it. :)
J
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:31:19 -0500
"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GuvR6.9892$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3b1656ec$0$94312$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Dan Pidcock wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 29 May 2001 06:27:12 GMT, Rex Ballard
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >JS \\ PL wrote:
> > > > >> and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as
> opposed to
> > the
> > > > >> hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > >Linux uses the X11 "center button" (or two buttons down at same time)
> > > > >to
> > > > >paste. It works very well, and you can cut/paste between different
> > > > >applications
> > > > >without having to load the binaries of multiple executables for each
> > > > >pasted document.
> > > >
> > > > The centre button to paste selection does not always work so great.
> > > > If I have some text in a document that is a URL and I want to paste it
> > > > into the address field of my browser window, I have to select the
> > > > current address in the browser to delete it so that becomes the
> > > > selection when I try to paste. So I have to delete it then go back to
> > > > the document select the browser and finally past. A real PITA.
> > > >
> > > > How well does X selection work with images, e.g. in GIMP & xv? I've
> > > > never really tried that.
> > > >
> > > > Dan
> > > > remove .hatespam to reply
> > >
> > > Did the geniuses who wrote X consider Trackballs of varying designs when
> > > they chose the 'middle button' cut & paste?? Probably not, because it's
> > > very unwieldy for me and my Logitech trackball.
> >
> > Since when has usability ever been a consideration in X?
> >
> Why change the software to make a trackball easy to use, that would be too
> hard for them...
Every device now needs to conform to X's ass-backwards way of doing things.
You have a disability and can't hit the middle mouse button? Too friggin'
bad! You have to conform!
No, the software should be flexible to allow devices to function in
their own form for whatever purpose they serve. Defaults are fine,
but there should be no assumption anywhere that "middle button = copy/paste".
For being customizability hounds and bashing on MS, you guys really
have no concept of accessibility. Not everyone is a white male that
can walk, talk, hear, see, has 10 fingers and toes, and can speak
English.
-c
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:42:52 GMT
In article <9f4a4e$2r7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > The Intel one is dedicated to Cancer research. It only works on Windows
> > last time I looked. You did look didn't you, before you opened your
> > mouth and inserted both feet in it? Didn't you?
>
> Pete wake up and read, the seti client, is not the cancer research client,
> and the seti client for x86 is available for many OS, not just windows.
Yes I know the seti one is, but the Intel is dedicated to cancer research
and is only available on Windows, last time I looked.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:43:45 GMT
In article <9f5092$cds$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> You asked that last time, I did it and you ignored me. I'm not going to
> waste my time. If you want, you can follow the link I will provide and
> look for yourself.
>
> Here is the link:
>
> http://www.google.com
Oh please! That link is no good. Can't you even provide one measly
example?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:45:31 GMT
In article <9f50cj$cg4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Could it be that they were posetd but ignored and I'm simply not going to
> waste my time searching for them again.
So you're relying on your memory!?!
> > Go on! Prove me wrong!
>
> I did, you ignored me. If I do it again, you'll ignore me again and we'll
> have the same thread in 6 months.
You haven't proved a thing!
> > Otherwise, you're nothing but a liar!
>
> Mabey your inability to remember means that you're nothing but an idiot.
You expect me to remember something out of hundreds of posts? Puh-lease!
Why is it you can't even post one simple lil' example?
You can't because they don't exist! The fact that you haven't been able
to post a _single_ example convinces me of that!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft Helps Turn Britain's E-Government Vision Into Reality
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 20:49:11 +0100
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/press/2001/Mar01/03-27BritainPR.asp
>
> Funny that we didn't hear people like Jan Johanson and Chad Myers tooting
> their horns in here about this rollout. It does appear to be one of the
> first MS rollouts based on .NET, and especially Jan is always ready to
> remind us how great MS is.
> Could it possibly be that this rollout had the effect of locking out a
> segment of the UK population from communicating electronically with their
> government? See also:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19239.html
>
> So, aside from being a monopolist, MS is actually being anti-democratic.
> Welcome to the MS future people.
>
> Mart
>
> --
> Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
> Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
> For that icy feel when you start to swerve
> John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
Actually, MS locking people out of communicating with our government
(that is, when we have had an election so we have a government again)
won't have too much effect. They don't pay any attention anyway
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:46:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Pete, you've become a stuck record, alternating between asking for info
> previously supplied, and accusing me of being a liar.
>
> Get a grip.
You get a grip. Post an example or SHUT UP!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:49:03 GMT
In article <9f5460$es2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > My server no longer has the Oopsie threads, so how am I supposed to
> > follow it? I could go and look it up on Google but that means trawling
> > through quite a large number of replies.
>
> Same here.
So how the hell can you say I snipped inappropriately without a shred of
evidence?
> > All I'm asking you to do is post _one_ example. You seem singularly
> > unable to do that, so I conclude they don't exist.
>
> No, I am quite able and did so on numerous occasions in the Oopsie
> thread. Since you ignored them then, I'm not going to wastye time
> trawling through google to prove you wrong again, just for you to ignore
> me and claim I'm lying in another 6 months whan I make the same assertion.
I don't believe you.
I'm calling you a liar.
You're doing nothing to prove me wrong!
LIAR!
> > It can't be that hard for you to prove me wrong, so why not try?
>
> I've done it before, and you ignored me. Why should I waste my time again?
Because you didn't did it before, LIAR!
> > You have only provided a name of a thread that no longer exists on my
> > server.
>
> That's where plenty of prime examples lie.
POST ONE!
> > Then why can't you post an example of where I went wrong? Seems simple
> > enough. I can't get at the post, so why can't you post it?
>
> I don't have the oopsie thread either. Besides, I *did* post examples
> _then_ and you ignored them. You'll do the same again.
POST ONE!!!
> > I think I would find no such thing. I think you're lying.
>
> Well, you think wrong (for a change).
POST ONE THEN!
> > C'mon just one example of what you're talking about.
>
> You'll only ignore them again.
POST ONE THEN!!!
OK that's enough.
You're a liar, plain and simple.
You can't post one because none exist.
End of story.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:48:26 +1200
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> >
> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
> >> one
> >must
> >> ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
> >>
> >Wrong question, the real question is why shouldn't an OS cost money?
> >
> >An OS should cost money, because it is derived from effort, which most
> >humans expect to be paid for. Total up the amount of time that Linux
> >has taken to develop, and then try and recover that cost. Linux of
> >course is a special example, as it is allegedly developed by people on
> >their "free" time. Of course, this doesn't include people who are paid
> >to develop it (Linus by Transmeta, Alan Cox by Redhat). I don't see too
> >many Linux companies actually making money - because they can't recover
> >the costs of their effort.
>
> Very little of the world's software is developed for resale. Most -
perhaps
> 95% - of the world's software is developed in-house for it's use-value and
> licensing is non-issue. Don't believe me? Take a look any publication that
> advertises vacancies for developers. How many of them are software houses?
> Maybe 1 in 20. Most of them are financial institutions.
I wasn't talking about software in general - I was talking about an OS, and
why that should cost money. I agree, most software is developed for
internal use, but an OS is one that is intended to be used everywhere.
>
> >It's simple economics as to why an OS costs money.
>
> Your description is not "simple economics", but "simplistic".
>
And yet it still describes the Linux model adequately. I still don't see
any sign of VA or Redhat making money
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:51:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> If Windows had a native process display, then you would know.
Windows 2000 certainly does, Windows has if you get hold of the process
viewer.
> With Linux if an app hangs and its window is unusable, one can easily find
> the process and kill it.
How do you do that? How can you tell what process is unusable and
corresponds to a window (if you're not familiar with that app)?
> > No need to rebuild the kernel.
>
> Thats not an example of advanced, its an example of limitation.
I'd hardly call the ability to build a kernel a great feature.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 07:51:33 +1200
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Donn Miller wrote:
>
> >mlw wrote:
> >>
> >> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
> >> one must ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
> >
> >Tech support and media costs.
>
> Tech support does and should cost money, so does media. However, the
> question is why should an *OS* cost money? You can get an OS without
> incurring media or tech support costs. They are three seperate things.
Why should a corporation give away the time they've spent developing their
OS for free? Developing an OS takes time, lots of of it, and that time
needs to be paid for. Whether you've got sponsors paying for it (ala
Redhat, VA et al), or you just your free time, or you work for an employer.
When you have sponsors willing to pay for it and make a loss, and people
willing to work on their own time, then you can give your OS away. If you
are expecting to make a return on your development effort, then you need to
recover your costs (and hopefully for your sharedholders turn a profit).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
