Have you guys and gals read about the lawsuit after some Boston(?) jerk
submitted perjured documents for
a U.S. Copyright(?) on LINUX in 1994? Just about every one who is anyone was
ready to put up the money to prosecute, but some of the big guys in software
actually joined the suit, as the under
On Mon, 4 May 1998, Dominique Cormann wrote:
> If for example MS did decide to put out a version of perl, but
> didn't release the code as per GPL, who would sue them?
Stallman could, and he probably would. So could Larry Wall, the actual
author of perl. I imagine that the FSF would put up the
> I was just wondering who enforces things like GPL?
>
> If for example MS did decide to put out a version of perl, but
> didn't release the code as per GPL, who would sue them?
Larry Wall (the author of perl). In other cases it would be the author of
whatever software package it was. I'm sur
On Fri, 1 May 1998 10:40:11 -0600 (MDT)
Kirk Rafferty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would.
>
> As someone else pointed out, MS supporting free software would be a good
> thing, not a bad thing (although it will probably never happen). MS could
> indeed make MS Perl (Camels in Redmond, oh
> prevent the inclusion of a small 1.44 MB or such DOS partition on the hard
> drive, with an AUTOEXEC.BAT file written to automatically dump the user
> into the NIC config utility? Tell Lilo about it and, should the customer
> ever have to reconfigure, it's not _that_ arcane (no more so than, s
Not sure about 3Com cards (have never been able to afford 'em!), but
isapnp tools works wonders with most cards, and PCI should work without
running the DOS utilities. Additionally, here's a thought - what would
prevent the inclusion of a small 1.44 MB or such DOS partition on the hard
drive, wit
On Fri, 1 May 1998, Donald Greer wrote:
> What if Microsoft simply did not distribute drivers for those hardware
> products (e.g. network cards, scsi controllers, isdn cards, video cards,
> etc.) which did not require NDA's and such in the interest of "Quality
> Control".
Microsoft cannot do t
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Don't underestimate the power of that. Microsoft is *THE* biggest
> software company in the world. IBM is a close second, but doesn't make
> an emulator.
In 1997, MS was the second (or third, I don't remember) biggest
software company behind
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, William T Wilson wrote:
> Alternatively, they could stipulate in their licensing that sites may
> not use MS products concurrently with non-MS operating systems within
> the same organization (network, building, computer, whatever). This
> would probably be almost as much fu
-Original Message-
From: Donald Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, May 01, 1998 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: Micro$oft "declaring war"?
> Simply the inconvenience of having to insert a disk, manually locate
&g
Sorry guys, but there's one thing left out here that MS could use as a
"weapon" and which Linux has no defense against (well, not much of one).
What if Microsoft simply did not distribute drivers for those hardware
products (e.g. network cards, scsi controllers, isdn cards, video cards,
etc.)
On Fri, 1 May 1998, Bradley Kieser wrote:
> I would say that the worst thing that M$ could to to Linux is to start
> attaching the MS logo to the freeware products! MS Tex? MS Gnome? MS
> Perl? MS Apache? MS fvwm? or, worse of all MS Linux?
>
> MS might decide to publically "embrace" the freeware
[...]
>
> Few people who need to make money from selling software or hardware are
> willing to risk upsetting M$, and no court of government in the world can
> change that because M$ doesn'[t actually have to DO anything, the fear of
> losing your competitive edge is enough.
>
We don't openly s
M$'s weapon is fear and there are endless possibilities for this to be
propogated: "If you have freeware in your organisation, you could have
viruses", "We won't support any infrestructure that mixes operating
systems not from a recognised vendor", etc, as well as playing on
ignorance about "cost
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 04/30/98
at 11:00 PM, Steve Curry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>How about a Win32-Linux Project? There is already a Win32-OS2 Project and
>>it is producing a PE to LX converter (pe2lx.exe) that converts Win32
>>programs into native OS/2 programs...no recompile nece
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about a Win32-Linux Project? There is already a Win32-OS2 Project and
> it is producing a PE to LX converter (pe2lx.exe) that converts Win32
> programs into native OS/2 programs...no recompile necessary...and
> performance is essentially equivale
> Someone posted a message today about how Linux was the only OS to gain
> market share in 1997. Here's an article talking about that, as well as how
> M$ is bullying companies, like Caldera, and preventing them from shipping
> an OS other than windows:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com:80/news/161590.asp
> Do you think there are M$ spies on this list?
Spies? Nothing so intentionally underhanded. But I'll bet you there are
MS employed developers who are also Red Hat Linux users, some of which are
bound to read this list for many of the same reasons we do. (Probably not
the MS attacks, but...)
Br
>How about a Win32-Linux Project? There is already a Win32-OS2 Project and
>it is producing a PE to LX converter (pe2lx.exe) that converts Win32
>programs into native OS/2 programs...no recompile necessary...and
>performance is essentially equivalent. This is rather easily possible
>with OS/2
Bruce Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Anyways, I had heard Plug and Play isn't much help to Linux but it hadn't
>managed to affect me until now. We went through a number of cards before
>we found one we could use. (Yes, I was using the compatibility sheets
>posted at Red Hat.) I suppose if MS ca
Someone posted a message today about how Linux was the only OS to gain
market share in 1997. Here's an article talking about that, as well as how
M$ is bullying companies, like Caldera, and preventing them from shipping
an OS other than windows:
http://www.msnbc.com:80/news/161590.asp
At MSNBC,
There's also a good article on Linux and M$, and why M$ would perhaps
release their source one day, and how they are working on combating free
software:
http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/rose/1998/04/22straight.html
what the hell is salon magazine?
Dave
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Ti
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
04/30/98
at 03:09 PM, Kirk Rafferty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
>> Well, true, but without the emulators, Linux isn't a threat on the desktop.
>> At least, not yet.
>>
>> If Microsoft could squash them, it'd pretty much rest
> What if M$ decided to fight the battle on our turf? Couldn't they go out
> and package their own version of Linux (MS-Linux98)? I'm sure a few
> million of the 95 million or so users of Win95, would go out and buy it
> beacuse they've heard about the Linux thingy on the web or because they
>
On 30 Apr 98, at 15:09, Kirk Rafferty wrote:
> But what do you do if you're Microsoft? The first thing that comes to my
> mind is to drastically lower prices on NT server. In fact it's not out of
> the realm of possibility that eventually NT workstation would be free.
> That would be enough to c
> What if MS does this and announces that you gave them the idea?
_
|@ @|
_ooo_\ /_ooo_
Shhh
Do you think there are M$ spies on this list?
--Anonymous :)
Linux is user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errat
At 03:47 PM 4/30/98 -0500, Chris Frost wrote:
> For what it's worth, The current version of NT does not support pnp...
>
Technically that's true, but it doesn't quite fully describe the situation.
NT 4.0 does ship with a driver that adds "limited"
I'm using an el-cheapo D-Link DE220 ($29 ISA PnP ethernet card from
CompUSA) with Linux, no problem. ISAPNP configured it correctly, then it
was a simple matter to modprobe in the ne.o module (the card's a NE2000
clone) in with the i/o port and irq values specified by ISAPNP. Works
flawlessly.
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Well, true, but without the emulators, Linux isn't a threat on the desktop.
> At least, not yet.
>
> If Microsoft could squash them, it'd pretty much restrict Linux's growth
> enough to do the damage.
I don't think emulators will put Linux on the deskt
> What if M$ decided to fight the battle on our turf? Couldn't they go out
> and package their own version of Linux (MS-Linux98)? I'm sure a few
> million of the 95 million or so users of Win95, would go out and buy it
> beacuse they've heard about the Linux thingy on the web or because they
> w
>Bruce Tong wrote:
>
>> I know zilch about PnP as you can probably tell. What does it take for
>> Linux to work with that stuff?
>
>Like a lot of other common Micro$oft usages, PnP is essentially meaningless.
>All it really means is that the manufacturer has registered with M$ and
>supplied them w
> What if M$ decided to fight the battle on our turf? Couldn't they go out
> and package their own version of Linux (MS-Linux98)?
That one rings the bell as the most interesting strategy in my eyes,
depending on how they play it.
It sort of goes along with the old joke about Microsoft buying A
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 2:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Micro$oft "declaring war"?
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Brian wrote:
> What if M$ decided to fight the battle on our turf? Couldn't they go out
> and package their own version of Linux (MS-Linux98)? I'm sure a few
That would probably be the greatest thing in the history of the world, but
of course, it will never happen.
First,
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Drachen wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, The current version of NT does not support pnp...
Also, the next version "Which will support pnp," will only do so if you
have a computer w/ the new power management stuff (no procducts even use
it yet!), fwiw.
Chris
<- Visit Me At ht
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Michael Jinks wrote:
> Like a lot of other common Micro$oft usages, PnP is essentially
> meaningless. All it really means is that the manufacturer has
> registered with M$ and supplied them with a driver for the device, which
That isn't really true. PnP is a real specifica
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Drachen wrote:
> > I know zilch about PnP as you can probably tell. What does it take for
> > Linux to work with that stuff?
>
> in my experience, taking it out of PnP mode and hand configuring it. You
> can't do this with all cards, though..
The isapnptools (on sunsite, I
-Original Message-
From: William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft "declaring war"?
>and the like. Very few people currently install Linux in order to run
&g
> > Naturally, I thumped my chest and said "Let 'em try," but I do wonder,
> > if M$ did decide to go after the Linux community in force, what might
> > they be able to do to us? Anything? They couldn't come to my office
>
What if M$ decided to fight the battle on our turf? Couldn't they go o
Bruce Tong wrote:
> I know zilch about PnP as you can probably tell. What does it take for
> Linux to work with that stuff?
Like a lot of other common Micro$oft usages, PnP is essentially meaningless.
All it really means is that the manufacturer has registered with M$ and
supplied them with a dr
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Bruce Tong wrote:
>
> I know zilch about PnP as you can probably tell. What does it take for
> Linux to work with that stuff?
>
I know that the 2.1.92 kernel suports PnP. It's an experimental
version, but in the near future
> Bruce Tong
> Systems Pro
> Anyways, I had heard Plug and Play isn't much help to Linux but it hadn't
> managed to affect me until now. We went through a number of cards before
> we found one we could use. (Yes, I was using the compatibility sheets
> posted at Red Hat.) I suppose if MS can encourage hardware developers to
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Shawn McMahon wrote:
> Well, true, but without the emulators, Linux isn't a threat on the desktop.
> At least, not yet.
I disagree. Most of the current installations of Linux are either home
installations for "coolness," programming, learning or simply because the
user is t
> They have already done this as much as they can. I expect that MS will
> find the Linux community a bit difficult to grapple with. Linux is
> obviously 100% free of anything ever done by MS. Unless MS pulls a Wang
> and claims a patent on the concept of "operating system" (Wang, a MS
Unix wa
> Naturally, I thumped my chest and said "Let 'em try," but I do wonder,
> if M$ did decide to go after the Linux community in force, what might
> they be able to do to us? Anything? They couldn't come to my office
I don't know if this fits your criteria or not, so I'll try it...
We're getting
-Original Message-
From: William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft "declaring war"?
>free. That combined with the lack of a single target to sue would
>pr
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Michael Jinks wrote:
> Naturally, I thumped my chest and said "Let 'em try," but I do wonder,
> if M$ did decide to go after the Linux community in force, what might
> they be able to do to us? Anything? They couldn't come to my office
Unless they hire a couple of 300 poun
My boss told me yesterday about an article (he didn't say where he saw
it) which said that Linux was the only non-M$ operating system to gain
market share last year. The same article said that this fact hasn't
been wasted on our good friends at M$, and that a whole new round of
nastiness is expec
48 matches
Mail list logo
