Linux-Advocacy Digest #41, Volume #35 Fri, 8 Jun 01 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: IBM Goes Gay (.)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("JS \\
PL")
Re: OS Shock (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: sorry NT... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I propose a GPL change... (Jim Richardson)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Terry Porter)
Re: IBM Goes Gay (Rotten168)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: 8 Jun 2001 04:17:49 GMT
Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > On 8 Jun 2001 01:42:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:37:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>I think it's lousy when employers take a stand on this sort of thing,
>> >> >>>>one way or the other. Where I work we have annual "sensivity
>> >> >>>>training." They tell us that what we mean when we speak is irrelavant;
>> >> >>>>it's how our words make people feel that determines whether the
>> >> >>>>words are punishable.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I agree.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> I have several friends who work for IBM and they are quite upset about
>> >> >>> all of this.
>> >> >>> To quote one male friend of mine:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> "I'd love to se their (IBM's) faces if I showed up wearing a mini
>> >> >>> skirt and pumps one day"
>> >> >>
>> >> >>They wouldnt bat an eye, and if you actually did have a friend who worked
>> >> >>for IBM (which you dont, this is more than confirmable, as is your gender;
>> >> >>which is male, as is your age, which is older than you probably wish you
>> >> >>were, as is your identity, etc, etc, etc)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>IBM has the same policy about transsexuals. Dipshit.
>> >>
>> >> > Call Renee Brown at 212-745-3626 and ask HER about IBM's gay and
>> >> > lesbian policy.
>> >>
>> >> What ill do instead is call her and let her know that you just posted her
>> >> real name and phone number to usenet, accessable to the entire planet.
>> >>
>> >> I cant wait to see what she says.
>> >>
>> >> -----.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> "George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
>> >>
>> >> ---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
>>
>> > Make sure you keep that .sig when if you email her.
>> > --
>> > - Brent
>>
>> It is useful to keep in mind that my sig file is *satire*.
>>
>> And the person whom I am quoting is quite brilliant, and not homophobic
>> in the least.
> Didn't you call someone a limey in a recent post? I suppose that's not
> as bad as being a homophobe, although I'm not sure why.
I might have. I hate the english.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 00:18:49 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:55:11 -0400;
> [...]
> >Then do it. Due to the fact that no one company has ever and can never
> >possess a monopoly on operating systems your perfectly free to NOT use
> >Windows XP.
>
> Please explain this "fact" again. Is this like the *fact* that you,
> JS/PL, cannot tell the difference between a hardware and a software
> failure? Or the *fact* that you are a sock puppet for the monopoly you
> pretend 'can never' exist?
I havent had a software failure, I'm running the same software I've had for
years. Not so for my hardware though.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Shock
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:52:59 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 30 May 2001
>What I find the most telling about your article is that you didn't provide a
>single reason as to why you came to your conclusions.
What I find most telling about your response is that you didn't provide
a single indication of where specifically you thought some reason,
beyond those cited ("opaque FUD", for instance), was necessary for the
conclusions he provided.
>You simply waved your
>hands and mumbled a bunch of stuff without any supporting evidence to back
>it up.
What "supporting evidence" of "opaque FUD" would you find convincing,
Erik? You seem to be just waving your arms and babbling a bunch of
stuff without any real discussion to back it up.
>I don't know of any MS software that has advertising in it (other than
>demo's and stuff like that).
It is a metaphoric "commercial" Erik. As if the point of the graphic
user interface were to celebrate itself, rather than provide an
operational functionality.
>Your friend must have been using some third
>party software such as CuteFTP which uses that inane adversing scheme.
No, it was the "opaque FUD" which made it seem a "two-dimenstional
commercial". Think harder.
>"David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> After 19 months running Linux exclusively, I installed Windows 2000
>> on my test box over the weekend, residing on a small drive I had
>> kicking around.
>>
>> It strikes me, Windows is like someone took several pictures of the
>> concept of computing, and idiot-windowed them into an arbitrary, two
>> dimensional commercial. If you try to stray off the happy-click path,
>> you find not the intrigue of the system, but subtle, opaque FUD
>> packaged for the lowest denominator.
>>
>> MS is like the theme park of computing. You can shake Micky Mouse hand
>> but never ever get to know him or take up residence in that 'happy'
>> place. Keep clicking through please. MS brain wash/waste program
>> requires you move through the FUD like tape through a recorder.
>> Experience it. Get it on your shoes and in your dreams. More happy
>> dribble is but a click away.
>>
>> Yesterday at an MS using friend of mines, I was not really all that
>> surprised to see advertising coming up on his screen in the programs.
>> I was horrified, but not surprised.
>>
>> If I couldn't run Linux, I'd sell all my computer equipment and get
>> into something else, like flower arrangements or basket weaving.
>> I would not use that other unconfigurable, dysfunctional mess OS.
>>
>> I just had to turn the test box off. Spoiled rotten by the depth and
>> scope of Linux.
>>
>> I'll keep the install around mostly for the occasional test or just as
>> a curiosity.
>>
>> David S. Hamilton
>
--
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: Why should an OS cost money?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:53:00 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 31 May 2001
>"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.
>
>In a model where you can download the OS for free and only recieve support
>if you pay per incident or boxed set you get people that buy one copy, then
>install 100, then use the single paid-for copies support for the other
>issues they run into in the other copies. People simply aren't honest
>enough for such a model to work.
Believe it or not, Erik, you are WAY wrong. People are very honest,
when you give them no reason to be otherwise. If YOU are the one
installing the 100 copies, then you aren't, in fact, doing anything
dishonest calling for support. Which is why Linux vendors generally
make it a time-limited thing, rather than the kind of "per incident" or
"per user" or "per install" or "per copy" or "per our fancy" way like
Microsoft.
It is MS that isn't honest enough to work with such a model. And it is
you, a sock puppet for a criminal monopoly, that isn't honest enough to
represent it correctly. YOU might be dishonest enough to try to rip off
an honest businessman, but I am not.
--
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: Why should an OS cost money?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:53:01 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 4 Jun 2001
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >> >No, retail boxed sets also include installation support.
>> >>
>> >> Hmm ... knee-jerk responses to key phrases ... no understanding of
>> >> context ... no understanding of argument. Has someone replaced Erik
>> >> with an Eliza program?
>> >>
>> >> Hello, Erik, how are you feeling?
>> >
>> >I'm not sure I understand what you are implying. You suggest that the
>> >cost of the boxed set only covers cost of media and manual, which it
>> >does not.
>>
>> You're confusing cost with price. The retail price of a boxed set may
>> include installation support, but cost of a boxed set only includes the
>> media and the manual. The difference between the price and the cost is the
>> gross margin.
>
>Oh, bullshit. We're talking about the cost to the consumer, not the cost to
>the manufacturer.
IIRC, the cost to the consumer has to cover the manufacturer, or the
manufacturer doesn't stay in business and the consumer has nothing to
purchase.
--
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: sorry NT...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:53:02 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 30 May 2001
>This article was posted and commented on in here almost 3 weeks ago. You're
>behind the times.
>
>Several people in the industry stated specifically that Linux was not
>replacing NT, but was supplementing it, mostly in render farms.
Which people, and what is their relationship to the monopolist?
"Several people in the industry" might well be wrong; is there some
reason you weren't more specific about who they were? What were their
arguments; was it just conjecture?
--
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.arch
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:53:03 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001
>"KSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:cKUR6.846$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Michael Vester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Ben Franchuk wrote:
>>
>> > I find a network card install in Linux quite simple. It has been over 4
>> > years since I used a dial-up ISP. A Linux install with a network card
>with
>> > my ISP requires setting the IP address, gateway and name servers. I
>never
>> > experienced a Linux install that did not identify the NIC and load the
>> > correct drivers.
>>
>> Maybe I could get you to install Linux on my computer. I've tried Debian
>> and Red Hat, neither found my NIC, and I could never get networking to
>work.
>> Win2k came up just fine with networking and all.
>
>This is a big problem with Linux. Many cards use a common chipset, which is
>fine if Linux can detect it, but if it can't,
Do you have some reason to think it couldn't?
>you may not know what chipset
>it's using, and the companies web site usually doesn't say.
Why would that be a "big problem"? My brother can't get Win98 (which
came on the system with no choice of alternative) to find or recognize
(or boot with!) his NIC, which we've already swapped and found perfectly
good. He also had a problem last week with getting Windows to work with
his sound card because his motherboard had a 'new chipset'. Common, but
new. We don't know if Linux would have a problem with either, but I
suspect not.
Although he got networking to work previously, the Network Neighborhood
(file-sharing SMB between two 98 boxes) was very unreliable, as well.
And it doesn't seem to matter much which chipset is being used.
--
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.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:53:04 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 30 May 2001
>"Morten Bjoernsvik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> But back to Rocket Rick:
>> He got a lot of whiz around the farenheit agreement, which actually
>> meant
>> SGI giving up all its intellectual property in hardware graphics to get
>> a uniform openGL api. DirectX started as a rip off of openGL. and like
>> everything M$ puts their hands on they introduce incompatibilities and
>> propiretary functionality.
>
>Uhh.. not true. As usual, people like you confuse DirectX with Direct3D.
Who but MS claims there is a difference? Why should anybody care?
>DirectX includes a ton of stuff not related to 3D at all.
Yea, so? They're both just fancy names for a proprietary and indefinite
hunk of code stuffed into an indeterminate amount of Windows software,
right?
>Direct3D was bought by MS, and was not created as an OpenGL ripoff (in fact,
>they are nothing alike).
Yea, right. We believe that. Direct3D has nothing to do with trying to
do 3D graphics. Uh-huh.
--
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: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:53:05 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 30 May 2001
>"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message
>
>> That said, I think the release of Windows XP will be the biggest flop
>> since Bob. It won't be the end of Microsoft, not by a long shot, but
>> Microsoft is setting up itself the bomb. The hype coming from
>> Microsoft and its various mouthpieces is that XP is the greatest
>> thing since W95, yet I have seen nothing concrete that would make me
>> want to upgrade.
>
>That depends on your perspective. Are you telling me that having a consumer
>OS based on NT isn't a huge upgrade for people coming from the Win9x line?
Depends on what you mean by "huge", and "upgrade". It is a big change.
Are you *sure* the benefits outweigh the problems, for *all* of them?
>Linux users are always bitching about Win9x's stability and how they prefer
>Linux because of it, now you're going to say that this stability isn't worth
>upgrading?
They bitch about NT's stability too, believe it or not.
>> Win95 was a quantum leap over Win 3.1. Win98 wasn't such a big deal,
>> but if you were stuck with Win95A then Win98 at least offered FAT32.
>> WinXP seems to offer nothing but fluff and spyware, and require scads
>> of hardware upgrades for the privilege. I for one will stick with
>> Win98 First Edition. And Linux, of course, long live the Penguin.
>
>Consumer XP will not require huge amounts of upgrades. It will likely
>require 32MB (64 to be useable) just like 98, and it will run fine on a P133
>and up.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
64MB of RAM, for *XP*? Are you on drugs? Only a moron would run W2K
with less than 128MB. Seriously. XP isn't slated to be any better, in
this regard, and in keeping with the trend of monopoly crapware, the
conventional system for XP will have 128MB, with an often-preferred
option to upgrade to 256MB.
"Consumer XP" also gets a laugh, just because you pretend it would make
a difference.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: I propose a GPL change...
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:24:31 -0000
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 05:52:21 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> like in the vorbis case you mentioned above? You said that there is much
>> GPL'd S/W that violates patents, can you give an example of some ?
>
> GIMP and the GIF algoritm, IIRC.
Only if it includes the lzw compression algorithm. If you read the gimp
manual, you will find that it doesn't include support for writing that
gif format. Please try again.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 08 Jun 2001 05:38:58 GMT
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:26:18 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> Max could easily be running Agent under Wine for Linux, and you wouldnt
>> know. He could have modified his headers.
>>
>> But hes using Windows, and Agent, so what ?
>
> I recall him bragging about getting Linux with a new machine some time ago.
> What happened to it?
>
>
How would I know ?
Why would I care, a Linux advocate is a Linux advocate to me, whatever OS
they use. Some Linux advocates don't use Linux, and they don't have to.
On the other hand, Some Wintrolls use Linux. Am I supposed to have so
little ability to discern, that I can't tell the difference ?
Wintrolls have often accused Linuxers of attacking anyone who uses
Windows, because we *hate* Windows, but this has never been true.
And this post is my proof.
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:49:07 GMT
"." wrote:
>
> Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
> >>
> >> Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > "." wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > On 8 Jun 2001 01:42:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >>> On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 00:37:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>I think it's lousy when employers take a stand on this sort of thing,
> >> >> >>>>one way or the other. Where I work we have annual "sensivity
> >> >> >>>>training." They tell us that what we mean when we speak is irrelavant;
> >> >> >>>>it's how our words make people feel that determines whether the
> >> >> >>>>words are punishable.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> I agree.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> I have several friends who work for IBM and they are quite upset about
> >> >> >>> all of this.
> >> >> >>> To quote one male friend of mine:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> "I'd love to se their (IBM's) faces if I showed up wearing a mini
> >> >> >>> skirt and pumps one day"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>They wouldnt bat an eye, and if you actually did have a friend who worked
> >> >> >>for IBM (which you dont, this is more than confirmable, as is your gender;
> >> >> >>which is male, as is your age, which is older than you probably wish you
> >> >> >>were, as is your identity, etc, etc, etc)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>IBM has the same policy about transsexuals. Dipshit.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Call Renee Brown at 212-745-3626 and ask HER about IBM's gay and
> >> >> > lesbian policy.
> >> >>
> >> >> What ill do instead is call her and let her know that you just posted her
> >> >> real name and phone number to usenet, accessable to the entire planet.
> >> >>
> >> >> I cant wait to see what she says.
> >> >>
> >> >> -----.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> "George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
> >> >>
> >> >> ---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
> >>
> >> > Make sure you keep that .sig when if you email her.
> >> > --
> >> > - Brent
> >>
> >> It is useful to keep in mind that my sig file is *satire*.
> >>
> >> And the person whom I am quoting is quite brilliant, and not homophobic
> >> in the least.
>
> > Didn't you call someone a limey in a recent post? I suppose that's not
> > as bad as being a homophobe, although I'm not sure why.
>
> I might have. I hate the english.
Bah, the Brits aren't that bad, they just come off bad online.
--
- Brent
"General Veer, prepare your underpants for ground assault."
- Darth Vader
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:55:36 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001
>"Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Hj_S6.1976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I've made this point before on news groups a couple of years ago but I'll
>> make it again because you obviosly are new to the Linux movement. Microsoft
>> signifies everything that is wrong with the industry. They are a big
>> monopoly that eats up smaller companies and doesn't contribute to the
>> public good. Most of their so called inovation is really a result of raping
>> an pilliging of smaller companies. For example take Microsoft Access, they
>> wouldn't have had the technology to create that program if they hadn't
>> purchased Fox pro and stripped it for its technology and this isn't even
>> the first example. More recently the company that put out Visio was
>> purchased and even soft L'Image.
>
>Microsoft had Access before they bough Fox Software. Access and FoxPro use
>entirely different technologies. FoxPro uses the Rushmore engine, while
>Access uses the JET engine, which are radically different in their
>structures and how they access data.
Yea, and Access sucked, and was universally denigrated. Then they
bought FoxBase, gutted Access, and tried to bolt the thing onto
SQL-Server. Still largely recognized as the worst possible combination
of crap ever conceived, largely responsible for deterring the use of
desktop databases altogether. Most databases, even small ones of only
local significance, are still run on Unix servers on remote systems.
>FoxPro still exists, and there will be a FoxPro version 7, though it is no
>longer part of the Visual Studio suite.
Interesting. Trivial and meaningless, but interesting.
>Finally, Visio was only purchased about a year ago, and had been a
>successful product for almost a decade. Most companies *WANT* to be bought
>out. The employees want to move on to do something else, and their business
>plan calls for them to be bought out by someone larger.
*THAT* is an awesomely stupid statement.
>> In the eighties Apple computers sued Microsoft for taking Apples software
>> and passing it off as thier own. They would have got away with it if it
>> wasn't for the fact that Apple hadn't embeded their copywrite notice into
>> the software itself.
>
>This is patently untrue.
It is slightly mistaken. It was actually a contract that Apple agreed
to with MS to get them to write applications for the Mac platform, not
any 'embedded copyright notice', that allowed MS to get away with
ripping off the Mac.
>Please provide some kind of reference. I've never
>heard of it, and this is the sort of thing that would have made the rounds
>on newsgroups like the Stac and Citrix BS has for years.
That isn't BS, either. Stac and Citrix did both get screwed by MS, just
like Apple. Phillip's comments get skewed because he seems to believe
that Apple won their suite (they lost) and that it had to do with some
'embedded copyright', rather than the 'look and feel copyright' that the
case actually pertained to.
>> Even MS DOS wasn't their own creation but a creation
>> that Mr Gates payed $50,000 for. So you see they do put out good software
>> but it is the good software that other people have worked hard and slaved
>> over only to have Microsoft turn around and take their hard work.
>
>You act as if this is stolen work.
That's what happens when companies like Microsoft act dishonestly.
Since there is no law against business acting dishonestly (only
defrauding or monopolizing, etc.) you start seeing honest people attack
the corporation mistakenly. They know they've done something wrong,
even if they don't quite understand what it is.
>> I imagine
>> that there will be a day when Microsoft will try to do the same with Linux
>> and pass it off as their own work. This is not good for the industry. For a
>> long time before the big anti-trust law suite I noticed that companies
>> hadn't been inovating as much as they used to.
>
>You "noticed". Right. The fact is that the software industry is saturated,
>and few truly new ideas are born because of the industries maturity.
What index is "saturated" measured on? It seems to me that the fact
that the software industry is monopolized has a lot more to do with any
mythical "maturity" issues. It isn't a crime to be mature, you know,
but believe it or not it is a crime to monopolize.
>It's
>simply difficult to come up with a truly new idea these days. The same
>happened in the automobile industry in the late 70's and through most of the
>80's.
Huh? What do you mean? There was an *outrageous* amount of innovation
in the automobile industry throughout the 70s and 80s. What makes you
think otherwise?
>> The reason for this was
>> obvios. Microsoft had scared all these companies so much they were affrad
>> to put something new out. In fact It was said that when Microsoft comes
>> knocking on your door you sell because if you didn't in a couple of years
>> your business wouldn't be worth anything.
>
>Yes, like Intuit. They're not worth anything today, right? right? Wait,
>they're still the king of their market years after MS came knocking.
Yea; years after they made a deal with MS. Then they're OK. Go figure.
Shocker. Big surprise. Of course their product has declined
drastically in all respects, but, hey, they're still in business, they
oughta be thankful, huh?
>> When Linux first began to be popular about five years ago Microsoft
>> attempted a FUD (Fear, Undermining and Doubt) campain to get people to
>stop
>> using the system.
>
>No they didn't. MS ignored Linux completely, not even mentioning it.
>
>> In fact I've personaly replied to messages of people
>> comming on to this news group and spreading fear about the Linux system.
>
>That's not MS.
>
>> Thier FUD campaign still continues to this day. Steve Balmer just did an
>> interview a few days ago where he said that Linux is a Cancer and that
>
>No, he called the GPL a cancer. Get your facts straight.
>
>> commercial companies can't use the system to develop their own projects.
>> This couldn't be further from the truth because although it is true that
>> the GPL doesn't allow people to take code and incrementally make it your
>> own. You can use libraries to create commercial software under the LGPL.
>
>The LGPL is not the GPL. They are incompatible and the FSF discourages it's
>use. Further, there are very few LGPL'd libraries.
>
>> When you stand back and look at all the facts and see what has happend
>over
>> the last 10 - 15 years you begin to realize something. We the open source
>> community didn't begin this fight they did. We didn't throw the first
>punch
>> they did. They are a big bully that needs to be kicked around a bit and
>the
>> free software community is the only group that is equiped to do that!
>
>Bullshit. The Linux camp has been targeting MS for much longer than MS has
>even acknowledge Linux's existance.
>
>
>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
