Can the Linux business model survive?
john_...@my-dejanews.com
entitled "Linux: Making a profit from a free product?", and it
detailed the strategies Red Hat is using to push Linux, and somehow
make a profit from it. If you want to read the article, just go to
CNN, it should be easy enough to find. Anyway, it seems that Red Hat
has angered some in the Linux community for (gasp?) daring to think of
making money off of Linux. Ok, here's where my opinion begins. First
of all, I think that these people who are angry at Red Hat should step
back, and look at the big picture. The bigger thing at stake is
Linux's viability as a competitor to Microsoft. And if there is
infighting amongst the Linux community over actually making money from
Linux, then Microsoft will surely win, and Linux will go the way of
Macintosh. Face it, the profit motive drives our economy, and getting
mad at Red Hat just because they want to make money is ludicrous. The
following quote from the article disturbed me the most:
The big challenge, he says, is convincing large corporations that
installing Linux software isn't risky. Red Hat's deals with companies
such as IBM, Oracle and Dell are solving that problem. ``A big company
doesn't want to buy from a small company like Red Hat. But they don't
mind buying from Dell,'' Young says. But the more Young associates
with ``the suits'' and talks of making profit off Linux, the more he
generates resentment in the Linux community. Some have even started
accusing Red Hat of being the Microsoft of the Linux world.
Face it, dealing with "the suits" is the best way to ensure Linux
remains a healthy competitor to MS. And if they want to make a
profit, let them! There is a name for the school of thought that
holds that everyone works for no profit, just for the greater good of
the community. It's called Communism. And we all know the
disadvantages of that. If there is infighting in the Linux community
because of this, then all is lost. Remember who is the real opponent
here. If we have to slowly move towards a for profit business model,
then so be it. The importance of having a viable competitor to
Microsoft should outweigh any of these socialistic ideals.
Jeff Szarka
<snip>
:Face it, dealing with "the suits" is the best way to ensure Linux
:remains a healthy competitor to MS. And if they want to make a
:profit, let them! There is a name for the school of thought that
:holds that everyone works for no profit, just for the greater good of
:the community. It's called Communism. And we all know the
:disadvantages of that. If there is infighting in the Linux community
:because of this, then all is lost. Remember who is the real opponent
:here. If we have to slowly move towards a for profit business model,
:then so be it. The importance of having a viable competitor to
:Microsoft should outweigh any of these socialistic ideals.
I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
Paul Flinders
Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
> I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
But you can buy it from CheapBytes at $1.99 so people will only buy it
from RedHat if they believe the extras (the Applications CD, book and
installation support) are worth the asking price.
If RedHat have mis-judged things and are percieved as greedy people
will simply vote with their feet.
Pan
and chip manufacturers have been taking advantage of for many years. The
public's desire to own the newest available distribution. I'd be shocked
if we didn't see the price of Redhat 6.x at $49 within the next 2-3 months
and $30-$35 before the year is out.
If that is not the case, then I believe that this strategy will backfire
on them. RedHat has done a great deal to publicize the product in the
last 12 months, but an overly mercenary pricing strategy will open the
door for strong, less expensive competitors like Caldera, SuSe, et al to
gain share in the U.S. market. The fact of the matter is that Redhat's
branding is strong, but their support really isn't that great when
compared to the information that is freely available, and as you point
out, there are as good, or better, distributions available.
The net result, however, will be an overall increased share for linux as
the grass roots movement has started to develop a branded corporate face,
has made inroads into the mainstream press, and is becoming more than just
a blip on the public's radar screens.
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 03:20:09 GMT, john_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> :Face it, dealing with "the suits" is the best way to ensure Linux
> :remains a healthy competitor to MS. And if they want to make a
> :profit, let them! There is a name for the school of thought that
> :holds that everyone works for no profit, just for the greater good of
> :the community. It's called Communism. And we all know the
> :disadvantages of that. If there is infighting in the Linux community
> :because of this, then all is lost. Remember who is the real opponent
> :here. If we have to slowly move towards a for profit business model,
> :then so be it. The importance of having a viable competitor to
> :Microsoft should outweigh any of these socialistic ideals.
>
Martin A. Boegelund
john_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
[snipped]
> Some have even started
> accusing Red Hat of being the Microsoft of the Linux world.
>
> remains a healthy competitor to MS.
People being angry at RedHat for making money on Linux haven't
understood the concept of Linux, nor the concept of economy. They
probably haven't even understood the GPL!
My personal impression is that people being angry at RedHat somehow
got the idea that Linux is "theirs" (in some ways it is, in others it
isn't), and that others success with selling Linux is on the angry
peoples expense.
By the way, isn't it time that we in the Linux community stop
defining Linux relatively to Microsoft's products? Linux is easier,
more successful and more powerful than ever. Right now, Linux is
kicking enough butt on it's own, it's time we move on and talk about
things that matter...
[snipped]
--
------------------
Mr Sparkle - Aka Martin A. Boegelund
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Martin A. Boegelund
Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 03:20:09 GMT, john_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
[snip]
>
> I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
>
Fine! Don't buy RedHat distros, it's a free market! I guess that RedHat
is a profitmaximizing company, and if they weren't I would become
really suspicious...
Martin A. Boegelund
Paul Flinders <paul.f...@finobj.com> wrote:
>
> Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
> > I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market
has
> > increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
> > as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
> > money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
>
> from RedHat if they believe the extras (the Applications CD, book and
> installation support) are worth the asking price.
>
> If RedHat have mis-judged things and are percieved as greedy people
> will simply vote with their feet.
Amen to that. It all boils down to "supply and demand"...
mlw
> :remains a healthy competitor to MS. And if they want to make a
> :profit, let them! There is a name for the school of thought that
> :holds that everyone works for no profit, just for the greater good of
> :the community. It's called Communism. And we all know the
> :disadvantages of that. If there is infighting in the Linux community
> :because of this, then all is lost. Remember who is the real opponent
> :here. If we have to slowly move towards a for profit business model,
> :then so be it. The importance of having a viable competitor to
> :Microsoft should outweigh any of these socialistic ideals.
>
> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
No matter who you are, you have never purchased Linux. If you shelled
out cash for Linux it was for the business of making the distribution
media. Also, RedHat adds support. Support is a very expensive
undertaking. As bad as RedHat is reported to be, I have seen it helpful
on more than one occasion, which is more than I can say about Microsoft
tech support.
I am a capitalist with strong social values. As long as RedHat produces
GPL code, contributes to Linux, and perpetuates the notion of 'free'
software (In essence keeps doing what it is currently doing), they can
charge what ever they want.
Remember, unlike restrictive licensing, I could buy the full release of
redhat and install it on 100 computers, or 1000! If I use that CD 1000
times, the Linux cost me only $0.08 per machine.
If the price is too high to buy the full product, get the cheap bytes
CD.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Take a look at the Mohawk Software Mascot at www.mohawksoft.com
James Stafford
> It looks as though RedHat is looking to capitalize on something that PC
> and chip manufacturers have been taking advantage of for many years. The
> public's desire to own the newest available distribution. I'd be shocked
> if we didn't see the price of Redhat 6.x at $49 within the next 2-3 months
Uh... it's already $79.00 at Fry's, CompUSA, and etc..
jamess
P.S.
I would *never* buy it.
Christopher B. Browne
>It looks as though RedHat is looking to capitalize on something that PC
>and chip manufacturers have been taking advantage of for many years. The
>public's desire to own the newest available distribution. I'd be shocked
>if we didn't see the price of Redhat 6.x at $49 within the next 2-3 months
That is one possible scenario, and it may even be supported by evidence. I
hear rumor that people have seen $40 versions of Red Hat Linux in stores.
And I have no big problem with RHS charging a premium to those that feel the
need to Blindly Upgrade Now Because It's There. (What was there in 6.0 that
was *really* new that couldn't be added to 5.2?)
The other scenario is that the $80 box contains something more than the $50
box, namely an installation support infrastructure that is of some value.
Their support offerings have, um, left something to be desired in the past.
If the extra money permits having enough staff to allow useful support to be
provided, the price increase may be *well* justified. SuSE, with $30 boxes
on shelves, has *no* room to offer *any* service without doing
charge-by-the-minute stuff.
A third scenario is that there may be a significant market that is not
sensitive to this increase in price. Corporate purchasing departments leap
particularly to mind. They're used to buying $200 licenses, and if they're
happy buying $80 boxes from Red Hat Software, Red Hat Software will
doubtless be quite happy to provide those boxes.
I would suggest that all three of these scenarios have some validity.
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
Christopher B. Browne
posted:
>increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
>as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
>money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
One of the freedoms that free software gives you is the freedom to make some
of your own choices. With Linux, that includes the ability to pick from a
selection of distributions.
If you feel there's a better distribution, and consider it worthwhile to
migrate to it, then feel free to do so.
Chris Long
news:3791e274....@news.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 03:20:09 GMT, john_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> :Face it, dealing with "the suits" is the best way to ensure Linux
> :remains a healthy competitor to MS. And if they want to make a
> :profit, let them! There is a name for the school of thought that
> :holds that everyone works for no profit, just for the greater good of
> :the community. It's called Communism. And we all know the
> :disadvantages of that. If there is infighting in the Linux community
> :because of this, then all is lost. Remember who is the real opponent
> :here. If we have to slowly move towards a for profit business model,
> :then so be it. The importance of having a viable competitor to
> :Microsoft should outweigh any of these socialistic ideals.
>
> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
I just paid a whopping $5.99 for RedHat 6.0. (My first Linux install, so
far so good) Those who are paying $80 are paying for more than just the
software. Support is the most expensive part of any software package. If you
don't need it you don't have to pay for it.
Chris
Jeff Szarka
<snip>
:Remember, unlike restrictive licensing, I could buy the full release of
:redhat and install it on 100 computers, or 1000! If I use that CD 1000
:times, the Linux cost me only $0.08 per machine.
Doesn't it include commercial software with per seat licenses? or was
that maybe OpenLinux?
Jeff Szarka
<"remove"webm...@interpcserv.com> wrote:
:Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote in message
:news:3791e274....@news.supernews.com...
:
True, but everyone sights Redhat's support as a major reason why linux
is becoming mainstream. Take it away and you've went back to a year
ago when you were on your own. Same goes with documentation. It's not
to much to expect for 40$ a CD, a manual, and limited support.
(allowing you to purchase support contracts for more usage if needed)
Donovan Rebbechi
Well firstly, not many companies offer any OS bundle for $40- *including*
support.
However, you're
not the onl;y one who is a little dissapointed with Redhat's new pricing model.
Then again, they appear to be moving towards the corporate buyers and away
from home users.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend a redhat boxed set now. The Caldera and
SuSE box sets are also quite nice , and not so pricy.
-- Donovan
Donovan Rebbechi
THe Redhat box comes with 3 CDs. One CD consists of free stuff. One is source.
THe other is nonfree. You can install everything from the "basic" CD on as
many machines as you like.
-- Donovan
mlw
>
> :Remember, unlike restrictive licensing, I could buy the full release of
> :redhat and install it on 100 computers, or 1000! If I use that CD 1000
> :times, the Linux cost me only $0.08 per machine.
>
> that maybe OpenLinux?
Nope, there is a commercial sampler CD, but that is not the general
install CD.
JuanValdez
LinuxCentral.
Perhaps they are charging for Publishing documentation.
Mark S. Bilk
>
>Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
>> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
>> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
>> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
>But you can buy it from CheapBytes at $1.99
Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
deceptive article. He's been posting to c.o.l.a for months
-- 193 articles in May alone, according to DejaNews, almost
all of them anti-Linux propaganda. He and "Chad Mulligan",
"Boris", "Xerophyte", "Odin"/"ubercat", "boobaabaa", and
a few others have produced a huge and continuing flood of
lying and jeering propaganda against Linux. Given that
one of the wealthiest men in the world is threatened with
billions of dollars loss in profits due to competition
from Linux, it would be surprising if at least some of
these posters were *not* paid agents of Microsoft.
>so people will only buy it from RedHat if they
>believe the extras (the Applications CD, book and
>installation support) are worth the asking price.
Exactly right. Red Hat is even nice enough to provide
their *book* in free, downloadable form on their ftp sites.
So as long as you can get by without their tech support,
everything else (except the commercial apps from other
companies) is available for free if you want to download
it, or for a couple of dollars if you want CDs.
>If RedHat have misjudged things and are perceived as
>greedy people will simply vote with their feet.
Red Hat sells (GNU/)Linux to corporations that want to
have physical media with brand name labels. They use
some of that money to pay developers to improve the soft-
ware. Then they *give it away*, with all the documenta-
tion, to anyone in the world who wants it. They even
allow other companies to redistribute it on cheap CDs.
What more could Red Hat and the other distributors do in
their business practices to please people? Cover the
disks in chocolate, wrap them in gold foil, and *pay*
people to take them?
This new and successful business model must be incred-
ibly threatening to Microsoft. No wonder Gates is
paying people to do fraudulent benchmarks, and there
is a flood of nasty propaganda appearing in the news-
groups, mostly from anonymous, untraceable sources.
Chad Mulligan
Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:msbFCq...@netcom.com...
> In article <uemjv0...@finobj.com>, Paul Flinders
<paul.f...@finobj.com> wrote:
> >
> >Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
> >> I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
> >> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
> >> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
> >> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
>
> >But you can buy it from CheapBytes at $1.99
>
> Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
> deceptive article. He's been posting to c.o.l.a for months
> -- 193 articles in May alone, according to DejaNews, almost
> all of them anti-Linux propaganda. He and "Chad Mulligan",
> "Boris", "Xerophyte", "Odin"/"ubercat", "boobaabaa", and
> a few others have produced a huge and continuing flood of
> lying and jeering propaganda against Linux. Given that
>
I've admitted it, but lying, no.
PS. You left Stephen Edwards out of your hall of fame, he might be
disappointed.
john_...@my-deja.com
entitled "Linux: Making a profit from a free product?", and it detailed
the strategies Red Hat is using to push Linux, and somehow make a profit
from it. If you want to read the article, just go to CNN, it should be
easy enough to find. Anyway, it seems that Red Hat has angered some in
the Linux community for (gasp?) daring to think of making money off of
Linux. Ok, here's where my opinion begins. First of all, I think that
these people who are angry at Red Hat should step back, and look at the
big picture. The bigger thing at stake is Linux's viability as a
competitor to Microsoft. And if there is infighting amongst the Linux
community over actually making money from Linux, then Microsoft will
surely win, and Linux will go the way of Macintosh. Face it, the profit
motive drives our economy, and getting mad at Red Hat just because they
want to make money is ludicrous. The following quote from the article
disturbed me the most:
The big challenge, he says, is convincing large corporations that
installing Linux software isn't risky. Red Hat's deals with companies
such as IBM, Oracle and Dell are solving that problem. ``A big company
doesn't want to buy from a small company like Red Hat. But they don't
mind buying from Dell,'' Young says. But the more Young associates with
``the suits'' and talks of making profit off Linux, the more he
generates resentment in the Linux community. Some have even started
accusing Red Hat of being the Microsoft of the Linux world.
Face it, dealing with "the suits" is the best way to ensure Linux
remains a healthy competitor to MS. And if they want to make a profit,
let them! There is a name for the school of thought that holds that
everyone works for no profit, just for the greater good of the
community. It's called Communism. And we all know the disadvantages of
that. If there is infighting in the Linux community because of this,
then all is lost. Remember who is the real opponent here. If we have
to slowly move towards a for profit business model, then so be it. The
importance of having a viable competitor to Microsoft should outweigh
any of these socialistic ideals.
Jeff Szarka
:Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
:deceptive article
<snip>
Yes I knew it. Are you going to suggest a new Linux user buys a disk
from cheap bytes with no documentation or support? Everyone knows you
can download redhat or buy it very cheap, I was not trying to deceive
anyone.
I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
say double standard?
I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
Christopher B. Browne
posted:
>I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
>there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
>HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
>idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
>say double standard?
Slashdot is a wonderful anodyne; due to the K001 up-to-date web-based
interface (which happens not to scale very well, oh, well...), has
attracted many of the "advo-kids" that can't live without posting
news in HTML.
The word "maturity" does not fit terribly well in such contexts.
Taking what a bunch of immature kids say, and mapping that onto
others, represents either foolishness or dishonesty. Pick whichever
brush you prefer...
Leslie Mikesell
Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:50:58 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>:Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
>:deceptive article
>
>from cheap bytes with no documentation or support?
Of course. If they have trouble they most likely know someone
who can help.
>Everyone knows you
>can download redhat or buy it very cheap, I was not trying to deceive
>anyone.
Actually I suspect that the $80 neighborhood is the 'right' price
to allow some discounting in the retail market and get some
visibility on store shelves. This is good all the way around
since increased usage will put some pressure on hardware vendors
to supply missing drivers which is one place MS has an advantage.
>I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
>there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
>HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
>idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
>say double standard?
Weren't you paying attention when MS embraced java? And tried
to 'improve' it?
>I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
>turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't
out to get you...
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Mark S. Bilk
>Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote in message msbFCq...@netcom.com...
>>In article <uemjv0...@finobj.com>, Paul Flinders <paul.f...@finobj.com> wrote:
>>>Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
>>>> I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
>>>> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
>>>> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
>>>> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
>>>But you can buy it from CheapBytes at $1.99
>>Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
>>deceptive article. He's been posting to c.o.l.a for months
>>-- 193 articles in May alone, according to DejaNews, almost
>>all of them anti-Linux propaganda. He and "Chad Mulligan",
>>"Boris", "Xerophyte", "Odin"/"ubercat", "boobaabaa", and
>>a few others have produced a huge and continuing flood of
>>lying and jeering propaganda against Linux. Given that
>Show me one instance of lying??? Once or twice I may have been wrong, and
>I've admitted it, but lying, no.
Most of the numerous time-wasting posts from "Chad Mulligan"
are devoted to jeering, which always involves a lie about
the person or thing being slandered. For example, from
the very first post of his that I saved:
- From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org>
- Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
- Subject: Re: LINUX COMMUNITY: Are you going to acknowledge Microsoft's challenge?
- Message-ID: <TLy33.2023$kd5.2...@typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:38:21 -0700
-
- I must say that I've seen some very weak excuses for not responding. Even
- RH and the other Penguin Pimps could fund a team but not a peep.
-
- Makes one wonder if the original tests were valid after all, doesn't it?
He implies that the Mindcraft benchmark may have been
valid, long after we have all seen the details of how
they intentionally de-optimized Linux and Apache.
He is lying.
>PS. You left Stephen Edwards out of your hall of fame, he might be
>disappointed.
Point taken.
Chad Mulligan
Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote in message news:msbFCq...@netcom.com...
> In article <f9l53.772$PN6....@typhoon01.swbell.net>, Chad Mulligan
<cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
> >Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote in message msbFCq...@netcom.com...
> >>In article <uemjv0...@finobj.com>, Paul Flinders <paul.f...@finobj.com>
wrote:
> >>>Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) writes:
> >>>> I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
> >>>> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
> >>>> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
> >>>> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
>
> >>>But you can buy it from CheapBytes at $1.99
>
> >>Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
> >>deceptive article. He's been posting to c.o.l.a for months
> >>-- 193 articles in May alone, according to DejaNews, almost
> >>all of them anti-Linux propaganda. He and "Chad Mulligan",
> >>"Boris", "Xerophyte", "Odin"/"ubercat", "boobaabaa", and
> >>a few others have produced a huge and continuing flood of
> >>lying and jeering propaganda against Linux. Given that
>
> >Show me one instance of lying??? Once or twice I may have been wrong, and
> >I've admitted it, but lying, no.
>
> Most of the numerous time-wasting posts from "Chad Mulligan"
> are devoted to jeering, which always involves a lie about
> the person or thing being slandered. For example, from
> the very first post of his that I saved:
>
jeering me, then scan the entire thread and find who jeered first.
>
> - From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmul...@hipcrime.vocab.org>
> - Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.advocacy
> - Subject: Re: LINUX COMMUNITY: Are you going to acknowledge Microsoft's
challenge?
> - Message-ID: <TLy33.2023$kd5.2...@typhoon-sf.snfc21.pbi.net>
> - Date: Fri, 28 May 1999 08:38:21 -0700
> -
> - I must say that I've seen some very weak excuses for not responding. Even
> - RH and the other Penguin Pimps could fund a team but not a peep.
> -
> - Makes one wonder if the original tests were valid after all, doesn't it?
>
> He implies that the Mindcraft benchmark may have been
> valid, long after we have all seen the details of how
> they intentionally de-optimized Linux and Apache.
>
claim. When invited to participate in the tests, to ensure these things don't
happen, no takers. I hear talk but see no action, no proof, no evidence.
>
> He is lying.
>
Then prove it. That my opinion of the results differs from yours doesn't prove I'm
lying. Differing from public opinion doesn't make one a liar. Show your proof. If a
debate only had one side it would be boring wouldn't it. Besides I'm getting tired
of unsupported claims by those who are unwilling to stand and deliver.
>
> >PS. You left Stephen Edwards out of your hall of fame, he might be
> >disappointed.
>
> Point taken.
>
>
Jeff Szarka
:>I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
:>there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
:>HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
:>idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
:>say double standard?
:
:Weren't you paying attention when MS embraced java? And tried
:to 'improve' it?
And no one HAD to use the MS specific options. Java is died because it
sucks. It never lived up to its own hype.
:>I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
:>turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
:
:Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't
:out to get you...
True enough but I just saw an article by the mainstream press quoting
slashdot's discussion boards. It does more harm then good.
mlw
>
> On 3 Jun 1999 00:26:43 -0500, l...@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>
> :>I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
> :>there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
> :>HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
> :>idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
> :>say double standard?
> :
> :Weren't you paying attention when MS embraced java? And tried
> :to 'improve' it?
>
> And no one HAD to use the MS specific options. Java is died because it
> sucks. It never lived up to its own hype.
>
Lets talk about this one. First, Java isn't dead yet. It may recover.
Java's state is directly related to Microsofts actions. The WHOLE idea
of java was a portable environment, write once run anywhere. Which was
what made it perfect for the Internet. Microsoft took java and
"enhanced" it to a more Windows specific model.
With Visual Studio, the Windows only additions were ubiquitous and hard
to avoid. Most companies would use the Windows specific parts so they
could ship sooner, thus eliminating any multiplatform usefulness of
java. Microsoft was counting on their monopoly and the Windows only
additions to castrate the threat of java.
So when Sun complained and took Microsoft to court, a Judge ruled that
Sun would more likely than not win the suit, and ordered Microsoft to
take out its extensions. By adding things to Java that should not have
been there, Microsoft was able to discredit the Java environment.
I was at a Microsoft developer conference about Java. The MS guys had an
interesting phrase, java was "Write once, test everywhere." FUDsters at
their best. The reason you had to test everywhere is because Microsoft
added incompatibilities on purpose.
You can bet "WinPerl" will try to do the same thing.
Mark S. Bilk
>On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:50:58 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>:Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
>:deceptive article
>Yes I knew it. Are you going to suggest a new Linux user buys a disk
>from cheap bytes with no documentation or support?
All of the documentation -- the Installation and Getting
Started Guides -- is *included* on the main CD. It can
also be downloaded or read online here:
www.redhat.com/corp/support/manuals
The html or postscript formats can be viewed on another
computer or printed out. Or one can legally borrow the
paper manual from another user and xerox it. Redhat
gives full permission to reproduce it freely in any form.
As for tech support, this page:
www.redhat.com/cgi-bin/support
has links to Red Hat's searchable support database (aka
FAQ), with almost 300 problem/solution entries. It also
connects to a page of known bugs ("errata") with downloads
to fix them, and to an extensive unofficial FAQ run by a
user, here:
www.best.com/~aturner/RedHat-FAQ
All this can be found by wandering around the "support"
section of Red Hat's web site (which is the natural place
to look first) for an hour or so. Support at all levels
is also available in the appropriate newsgroups.
So when Jeff Szarka writes in this very article (repeated
from above),
>Are you going to suggest a new Linux user buys a disk
>from cheap bytes with no documentation or support?
he is *lying* -- there *is* documentation and support. In
fact, judging from the quality of advice given in the news-
groups (to people who furnish an adequate description of
their problem), the direct individual support *by the com-
munity* is at least as good as provided by most companies.
>Everyone knows you can download redhat or buy it very
>cheap, I was not trying to deceive anyone.
Then he must have done so without trying, because this is
what he originally wrote:
- I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
- increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
- as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
- money of someone else's work.
As shown above, what Red Hat is selling for $80 is individual
phone support, *not* RH Linux 6.0, which it makes available
to everyone for *free*, including all the documentation, and
including all the work of other people, with everything very
nicely organized so people can install and use it easily.
All at no cost, or $5 (which they don't even receive) if you
want it on CDs.
Red Hat, and the other Linux distributors that do likewise,
and of course all the people who have created Linux, GNU,
and the other software included on those disks, have done
something very kind and generous by giving everyone all this
stuff.
They are doing something wonderful, but Szarka's propaganda
claims that Red Hat is doing something *wrong* -- ripping
off its customers and the creators of the software.
But the facts contradict him. Szarka is lying.
>I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
>there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
>HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
>idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
>say double standard?
>
>I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
>turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
Szarka adopts an authoritative manner and tells us that
the Open Source community's fear of attacks by Microsoft
results from paranoid delusions. He attempts to invalidate
that concern by likening it to the "X-Files".
However, *his* claim is contradicted by the famous Microsoft
internal "Halloween Documents", accessible at:
www.opensource.org/halloween.html
The excerpts below from "Halloween I" explain *exactly* how
Microsoft could damage Perl the way it has damaged Java and
other community standards, showing that the OSS community's
concern about this is entirely justified, and not paranoid
at all.
Jeff Szarka must know about these documents, because they
are mentioned frequently in the c.o.l.a newsgroup where he
posts about 200 articles per month. Yet he pretends they
don't exist, and hopes that his readers don't know about
them, because these *Microsoft documents* state that one
of Microsoft's *main strategies* should be to adopt, extend,
and destroy the community protocols -- such as Java and Perl
-- that Open Source software relies on.
By writing as if this central piece of evidence, which he
certainly must know about, does not exist, Szarka is *lying*
to the readers of comp.os.linux.advocacy -- lying in a way
that benefits Microsoft and harms the developers, distribu-
tors, and users of GNU/Linux.
From www.opensource.org/halloween1.html; Eric S. Raymond's
comments are enclosed in {curly brackets}:
...
{ I believe that far and away the the most dangerous tactic advocated in
this memorandum is that embodied in the sinister phrase
``de-commoditize protocols''.
If publication of this document does nothing else, I hope it will
alert everyone to the stifling of competition, the erosion of consumer
choice, the higher costs, and the monopoly lock-in that this tactic
implies.
The parallel with Microsoft's attempted hijacking of Java, and its
attempts to spoil the ``write once, run anywhere'' potential of this
technology, should be obvious.
I have included an extended discussion of this point in my interlinear
comments. To prevent this tactic from working, I believe open-source
advocates must begin emphasizing these points:
1. Buyers like being in a commodity market. Sellers dislike it.
2. Commodity services and protocols are good for customers; they're
less expensive, they promote competition, they generate good
choices.
3. "De-commoditizing" protocols means reducing choice, raising
prices, and suppressing competition.
4. Therefore, for Microsoft to win, the customer must lose.
5. Open source pushes -- indeed relies upon -- commodity services and
protocols. It is therefore in harmony with consumer interests.
}
...
Blunting OSS attacks
Generally, Microsoft wins by attacking the core weaknesses of OSS
projects.
De-commoditize protocols & applications
OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server
applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized,
simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new
protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
David Stutz makes a very good point: in competing with Microsoft's
level of desktop integration, "commodity protocols actually become
the means of integration" for OSS projects. There is a large
amount of IQ being expended in various IETF working groups which
are quickly creating the architectural model for integration for
these OSS projects.
{ In other words, open protocols must be locked up and the IETF
crushed in order to ``de-commoditize protocols & applications''
and stop open-source software.
A former Microserf adds: only half of the reason MS sends people
to the W3C working groups relates to a desire to improve RFC
standards. The other half is to give MS a sneak peak at upcoming
standards so they can "extend" them in advance and claim that the
`official' standard is `obsolete' when it emerges around the same
time as their `extension'.
Once again, open-source advocates' best response is to point out
to customers that when things are ``de-commoditized'', vendors
gain and customers lose.
}
Some examples of Microsoft initiatives which are extending
commodity protocols include:
...
[end of excerpts]
cbas...@my-deja.com
Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
-- snip --
> I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
> there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
> HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
> idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
> say double standard? ^^^^^^^
Well, the paranoia is at least partly justified; the problem is that MS
doesn't stop at "embrace." Their motto is "embrace and extend," which
has historically translated into "commandeer and proprietize."
> I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
> turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
Nope, not everyone. Just MS. :)
Curtis
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:50:58 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
> :Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
> :deceptive article
>
>
>
> Yes I knew it. Are you going to suggest a new Linux user buys a disk
> from cheap bytes with no documentation or support?
I would absolutely suggest this to a potential Linux user -- try an
operating system for $1.99, what more do you want? Documentation and
support would be done by yours truly.
mawa
--
Tja, nun bin ich selber Kanzler - und welches andere Subventionsbonbon
sollte ich meinen Wählern geben als meine Wähler's Original?
Wähler's Original. Damit auch du jemand ganz Besonderen wählst - mich.
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> :>there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
> :>HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
> :>idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
> :>say double standard?
> :Weren't you paying attention when MS embraced java? And tried
> :to 'improve' it?
>
> And no one HAD to use the MS specific options. Java is died because it
> sucks. It never lived up to its own hype.
Java has died? That's news to me.
For your information: nothing ever lives up to corporate hype. Java
has found its niches: useful applications embedded in WWW content and
such (note I say useful -- the useless Java schnickschnack has largely
disappeared by now) and, more important, non-performance-critical
cross-platform software.
Bryan Scott
> :remains a healthy competitor to MS. And if they want to make a
> :profit, let them! There is a name for the school of thought that
> :holds that everyone works for no profit, just for the greater good of
> :the community. It's called Communism. And we all know the
> :disadvantages of that. If there is infighting in the Linux community
> :because of this, then all is lost. Remember who is the real opponent
> :here. If we have to slowly move towards a for profit business model,
> :then so be it. The importance of having a viable competitor to
> :Microsoft should outweigh any of these socialistic ideals.
>
We could bring in another largely debated matter regarding cost of
operating systems.
It seems that an extremely "popular" OS that ships *with* most computers
presently costs about the same amount. And, as someone mentioned in an
earlier post, you receive no support. 90% of the time, if you buy your
computer preassembled, it comes with an *enhanced* (proprietary) version
of that particular OS, with no customizable installation (you have to
reformat your drive if you reinstall the operating system). With little
(or no) option to upgrade those proprietary installs without buying a
whole new CD and reinstalling *again*, the company with the upper hand
(presently..) is making a double profit off of at least two versions of
their OS. So what if someone else wants to compete in the $80 arena?
You get a better, more instructional book with the CD. Heck, you get
more than one CD!
We've probably all seen the stories in the papers about people who
purchase preassembled machines (i.e. Dell, Gateway machines, or laptops)
and are stuck with an $89 piece of software they don't want. Unless
things have changed in the past couple of months, that still seems to be
the case.
Now, I paid the $60 at Media Play for RH 5.2 Extra Edition; it came with
5 CD's that I figured I'd never have the time to download at home, nor
would I be able to find in one compilation. I spent quite a bit,
considering the OS is free, but it's still cheaper and quite a bit more
software than I would have gotten had I bought another OS that came out
last year...and I can legally use most of it on as many machines as I
want (presently 10).
-- Bryan Scott
-- CTR Online Systems Administration
cbas...@my-deja.com
Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
> On 3 Jun 1999 00:26:43 -0500, l...@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>
-- snip --
> :Weren't you paying attention when MS embraced java? And tried
> :to 'improve' it?
>
> And no one HAD to use the MS specific options. Java is died because it
> sucks. It never lived up to its own hype.
(Ahem) Java isn't dead, for starters. Yes, it's going through a period
of adjustment, but MS' attempts to kill it haven't succeeded, at least
not yet.
As far as using the MS-Extensions is concerned, you are aware that these
extensions were "on" by default, yes? The upshot was that a developer,
using J++ to create a "100% Pure" Java app was *actually* creating a
*Windows* app that simply happened to be written in Java.
-- snip --
cbas...@my-deja.com
Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
-- snip --
> I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
The problem here is that you are neither clairvoyant nor omniscient, so
you really have **NO** idea why Red Hat set their pricing at eighty
bucks. You **ASSUME** that "they raised the cost for the sole point of
making more money of someone else's work" because you (apparently)
already have an anti-Linux bias. In truth, RH does indeed contribute to
the Linux development effort. They have their own lab (Red Hat
Advanced Development Labs at http://www.labs.redhat.com/ ) and they have
contributed to the development of GNOME, among other things.
You are free to continue your (misguided) dislike of RH, but you
really should get enlightened about what's going on instead of spouting
off.
Jeff Szarka
Davies) wrote:
:On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:31:42 GMT, Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff
:Szarka) wrote:
:
:>On 3 Jun 1999 00:26:43 -0500, l...@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
:>
:>:>I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
:>:>there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
:>:>HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
:>:>idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
:>:>say double standard?
:>:
:>:Weren't you paying attention when MS embraced java? And tried
:>:to 'improve' it?
:>
:>And no one HAD to use the MS specific options. Java is died because it
:>sucks. It never lived up to its own hype.
:
:How exactly is it died? What part of it sucks?
Dead? Not really, Lets just say sick.
What sucks is SUN promised Java was going to revolutionize the way we
compute... Uh...Yea.... Like someone said, it's found a few
specialized area's it's decent at. I'm not a programmer but I know a
little about the general concept of C and Java and the like and I
really can't think of any reason I'd want to use Java except for web
based applications. Even then I'd try to avoid it, it's slow and it
has a nasty habit of crashing anything it comes in contact with. I
don't like MS's WFC either, I simply don't like anything to do with
Java.
:You're right you don't have to use the MS specific options and all the
:prelimenary judgement said that by default these options must be off.
:Of course MS has said they weren't going to implement parts of the
:spec and had altered some of the standard base classes.
:
:----
:Glenn Davies
Leslie Mikesell
Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
>:Weren't you paying attention when MS embraced java? And tried
>:to 'improve' it?
>
>And no one HAD to use the MS specific options. Java is died because it
>sucks. It never lived up to its own hype.
Unless you wanted to use the nifty visual development tools under
MS-windows and then got stuck with the code it spits out that
won't run on other platforms...
>:Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they really aren't
>:out to get you...
>
>True enough but I just saw an article by the mainstream press quoting
>slashdot's discussion boards. It does more harm then good.
Does anyone imagine that the non-portability of MS-java was an
accident?
As for real java being fast/useful/portable, have you tried the
browser-client verison of vncviewer? (http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/).
You can run a remote-control session of a windows or X desktop with
nothing but a java-aware browser on the client side. Yes, the
dedicated native client is better - if you happen to have it where you
need it.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Eva Anderlind
>What sucks is SUN promised Java was going to revolutionize the way we
>compute... Uh...Yea.... Like someone said, it's found a few
>specialized area's it's decent at. I'm not a programmer but I know a
>little about the general concept of C and Java and the like and I
>really can't think of any reason I'd want to use Java except for web
>based applications. Even then I'd try to avoid it, it's slow and it
>has a nasty habit of crashing anything it comes in contact with. I
>don't like MS's WFC either, I simply don't like anything to do with
>Java.
Java didn't make it on the client-side because, as you say, it is too slow
loading over the modem cable. But Java is still a baby, and the Java engines
are being improved all the time (in spite of Microsoft's continous efforts
to soil Java) by a number of big players in the developing scene.
And on the server-side those disadvantages doesn't matter. If you have an
instance pool, you can bypass the classloading time. I read in an article
that a Java servlet with Sun's Java Webserver beat even Fast-CGI in
performance! As for Java crashing all the time, I don't know what you mean
either. The only "buggy" piece of work in Sun's JDK is the Swing package
(GUI toolkit).
So if you think Java is dead, I say you'll have to do your homework a little
better... In a couple of years, terms like "Perl" and "CGI" will be nothing
but a fading nightmare in the web application sector.
Jonas
Jim Richardson
brought forth the following words...:
>On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 08:01:48 -0500, "Chris Long"
><"remove"webm...@interpcserv.com> wrote:
>
>:Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote in message
>:news:3791e274....@news.supernews.com...
>:> On Wed, 02 Jun 1999 03:20:09 GMT, john_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snip>
>:>
>:> I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
>:> increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
>:> as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
>:> money of someone else's work. There are better distros out there.
>:
>: I just paid a whopping $5.99 for RedHat 6.0. (My first Linux install, so
>:far so good) Those who are paying $80 are paying for more than just the
>:software. Support is the most expensive part of any software package. If you
>:don't need it you don't have to pay for it.
>:
>:Chris
>:
>
>
>True, but everyone sights Redhat's support as a major reason why linux
>is becoming mainstream. Take it away and you've went back to a year
>ago when you were on your own. Same goes with documentation. It's not
>to much to expect for 40$ a CD, a manual, and limited support.
>(allowing you to purchase support contracts for more usage if needed)
No-one is saying take away RedHat support. Just pointing out that if you
don't want it, you can buy the distro without it. Totally legally.
--
Jim Richardson
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
All hail Eris
"Linux, where do you want to go tomorrow?"
Jeff Szarka
:You are free to continue your (misguided) dislike of RH, but you
:really should get enlightened about what's going on instead of spouting
:off.
FACT:
Redhat 5.2 was not 80$
Redhat 6.0 is 80$
Other distro's have not changed their prices as much and they
contribute to Linux development as well. Get real, Redhat wants to
make money and they are doing one of the things everyone claims to
hate MS for. (charging more for each new release)
je...@dementia.mishnet
If you really think that then you haven't been listening.
Besides, anyone that wants to can get the new release
(even 6.0) for free for pretty much the cost of shipping.
--
Novice end users deserve better than a |||
random collection of spare parts optimized / | \
for cost rather than ease...
In search of sane PPP Docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
Jerry
>
> On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:55:44 GMT, cbas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :You are free to continue your (misguided) dislike of RH, but you
> :really should get enlightened about what's going on instead of spouting
> :off.
>
> FACT:
>
> Redhat 5.2 was not 80$
> Redhat 6.0 is 80$
>
> Other distro's have not changed their prices as much and they
> contribute to Linux development as well. Get real, Redhat wants to
> make money and they are doing one of the things everyone claims to
> hate MS for. (charging more for each new release)
Tell me then where I can download Win98 for free then ? or Win 95 ? or
WinNT ? or Win2000 ? or any version of MSDOS ? Linux can be downloaded
from RedHat and others for FREE - what do MS offer for free - apart from
loads of hassle ?
Ignorant lying git....
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:55:44 GMT, cbas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :You are free to continue your (misguided) dislike of RH, but you
> :really should get enlightened about what's going on instead of spouting
> :off.
>
>
> FACT:
>
> Redhat 5.2 was not 80$
> Redhat 6.0 is 80$
>
> Other distro's have not changed their prices as much and they
> contribute to Linux development as well. Get real,
That's what you should do some day.
> Redhat wants to
> make money
Yes. Problem with that?
> and they are doing one of the things everyone claims to
> hate MS for. (charging more for each new release)
Semantics exercise: Find and prove the blatant, unsupported assertions
made in this statement, take specific care of the words `each' and
`everyone' and their usage. You've got 5 minutes.
mawa
--
When you care enough to post the very worst.
-- Cary Sandvig
mlw
>
> On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:55:44 GMT, cbas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :You are free to continue your (misguided) dislike of RH, but you
> :really should get enlightened about what's going on instead of spouting
> :off.
>
> FACT:
>
> Redhat 5.2 was not 80$
> Redhat 6.0 is 80$
>
> Other distro's have not changed their prices as much and they
> make money and they are doing one of the things everyone claims to
> hate MS for. (charging more for each new release)
Come on Jeff, you know as well as I do that what ever RedHat sells the
"Official" box set for is irrelevant. What is important is that one can
still download it from the net for free, or pay $1.99 to someplace like
cheapbytes. You have been hanging around this group long enough to have
picked that up by now.
Personally, my issues with MS stem from dirty deeds done dirt cheap.
Have you been following the DoJ trial. Ouch! man they have been nasty
F#$%kers to people that are supposed to be their customers. If I treated
my customers like that I'd have no customers. MS needs to be brought
down a notch or two or three.
Chuck Hardin
>I don't like Redhat because they feel just because Linux's market has
>increased they can suddenly charge 80$. Redhat 5.x is just as useful
>as 6.0 yet they raised the cost for the sole point of making more
>money of someone else's work.
This is a multiply foolish argument. Red Hat will find out quickly enough
whether they can charge $80 for their supported package -- that is the
nature of the free market. The 6.0 distro is a substantial improvement over
5.2, especially the 2.2 kernel and a recent release of GNOME. Red Hat did a
lot of work to make the distribution; they didn't just sit back and
accumulate the work of others. And you can get the result of all that work
for $1.99 from Cheapbytes, or for the cost of the time to FTP it if that
works better for you. (If it doesn't, don't whine -- no one option is perfect
for everyone.)
>There are better distros out there.
Then buy one. However, if you want to present an argument that has more
general force, you have some work ahead of you.
--
Chuck Hardin
CyberJanitor, SRK Technologies
Anthony Ord
(Jeff Szarka) wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 22:50:58 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>:Yes, and Jeff Szarka certainly knew this when he wrote his
>:deceptive article
>
><snip>
>
>Yes I knew it. Are you going to suggest a new Linux user buys a disk
>from cheap bytes with no documentation or support? Everyone knows you
>can download redhat or buy it very cheap, I was not trying to deceive
>anyone.
>
>I've never seen a more paranoid group of people, today on slashdot
>there was an article about MS embracing perl and everyone was like "WE
>HAVE TO STOP THEM!", "DON'T LET THEM TOUCH MY LANGUAGE" I thought the
>idea of "openness" was so anyone could embrace something? Hmm, can you
>say double standard?
It's who embracing you. Would you prefer Kate Winslett? Or
Typhoid Mary?
>I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
>turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
The X-files is too optimistic. The truth is not out there.
Regards
Anthony
--
-----------------------------------------
| And when our worlds |
| They fall apart |
| When the walls come tumbling in |
| Though we may deserve it |
| It will be worth it - Depeche Mode |
-----------------------------------------
Odin
> By the way, isn't it time that we in the Linux community stop
>defining Linux relatively to Microsoft's products? Linux is easier,
>more successful and more powerful than ever. Right now, Linux is
>kicking enough butt on it's own, it's time we move on and talk about
>things that matter...
That would make perfect sense, wouldn't it? Trouble is, in here...it's never
going to happen. You see, in here.. the bs..er..excuse me, the OS is the
defining factor in ones existence. Zealots need to identify with something.
Something they feel makes them different, powerful, attractive, superior..
Sad, but true. Little do they know there are millions of people right now,
working, that's right! working with whatever software on whatever OS they
have at hand to create. Yes, create tools and ideas transformed into
something positive. Not a dick sizing contest.
It's ludicrous, this advocacy. When I hear that word, I know it's just a
buzzword for "Fanatics talking." Terrible, sad state we are in...that Linux
is in.
cbas...@my-deja.com
Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:55:44 GMT, cbas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :You are free to continue your (misguided) dislike of RH, but you
> :really should get enlightened about what's going on instead of
> :spouting off.
>
> FACT:
>
> Redhat 5.2 was not 80$
> Redhat 6.0 is 80$
>
> Other distro's have not changed their prices as much and they
> contribute to Linux development as well. Get real, Redhat wants to
> make money and they are doing one of the things everyone claims to
> hate MS for. (charging more for each new release)
Maybe, but your original claim was "RH wants to make money off of the
work of others" or something very much like that. I was simply showing
that RH is doing some development work in an attempt to make Linux more
approachable for the masses (i.e., GNOME). I am aware that SuSE
contributes to the XFree86 effort, for example, and, of course, GNOME is
open-sourced, like everything else RH does.
I was simply stating that RH isn't all about "getting rich off of
others' work" like you are trying to make it out to be. Again, you can
dislike RH if you want. I don't care. Just do it for the right reasons.
Charging eighty bucks for a distro that simply blows away anything MS
can produce, and allowing you to install that distro on a million
machines -- legally -- isn't a good enough reason, to me. And no, RH is
*not* like MS -- MS does, in fact, charge money based on the work of
others (DoubleSpace/Stac) or simply proprietizes it for their own
marketing manipulations (IE/Mosaic). Red Hat does neither, but instead
releases the source code to their work.
If you don't wanna pay eighty bucks, then use a different distro. The
funny thing is that you can *still* benefit from the work of RHAD Labs,
even if you do use a different distro. GNOME will run on any distro out
there, not just Red Hat's.
Is MS like that? Perhaps if it suits their marketing department's "Kill
All Competitors At Any Cost" objectives, but generally, no.
Matthias Warkus
..and Anthony Ord <n...@rollingthunder.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> It's who embracing you. Would you prefer Kate Winslett? Or
> Typhoid Mary?
Natalie Portman, but that's purely IMHO :))
> >I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
> >turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
>
> The X-files is too optimistic. The truth is not out there.
I doubt a TV show about the absurdity of reality would be very
successfull...
The (nil) Files: There Is No Truth
mawa
--
Do you want to share my ever-expanding collection of signature
cookies? mawa is your friend: e-mail ma...@iname.com - I'm always happy
to serve!
Christopher Browne
>On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:55:44 GMT, cbas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>:You are free to continue your (misguided) dislike of RH, but you
>:really should get enlightened about what's going on instead of spouting
>:off.
>
>
>FACT:
>
>Redhat 5.2 was not 80$
>Redhat 6.0 is 80$
>
>Other distro's have not changed their prices as much and they
>contribute to Linux development as well. Get real, Redhat wants to
>make money and they are doing one of the things everyone claims to
>hate MS for. (charging more for each new release)
FACT:
Red Hat 5.2 was available in one form or another for various prices,
including prices as high as $50 for a box that provided extremely
limited email-based installation support, and prices as low as $2 for
bare CDs.
Red Hat 6.0 is similarly available in a variety of forms at varying
prices, including a rate of $80 for a box providing some degree of
telephone-based installation support, $40 for a box that omits that,
and prices as low as $2 for bare CDs.
It is arguable whether or not the additional $30 will provide
additional value to purchasers; if it doesn't, then the principle of
equilibrium pricing will make it more difficult for Red Hat Software
to sell those $80 boxes.
In any case, Red Hat 6.0 is still available for $2 for anyone who
knows where to go, and thereby by anyone who *knows* anyone who knows
where to go.
Seven days after the official release of Red Hat 6.0, a couple hundred
sets of CDs of the $2 variety were distributed through my local Linux
users group. There will doubtless be more distributed at the next
meeting.
You can waste your time blathering about the issue; it seems to me
that there's a pretty decent "distribution network" operating
independently of Red Hat Software for the inexpensive distribution of
their software, and that this represents as much of a response as is
necessary.
If you *want* to pay $30 for SuSE, then you can do so at CompUSA. I'd
rather go to an NTLug meeting and pay $5 for a CD there, and skip the
copious middleman markup. (Actually, there *is* a markup, but it's
rather more like $3 than it is like $15...)
--
"Besides a mathematical inclination, an exceptionally good mastery of
one's native tongue is the most vital asset of a competent programmer."
-- Edsger W.Dijkstra
cbbr...@ntlug.org - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Christopher Browne
Christopher B. Browne
<n...@rollingthunder.demon.co.uk> posted:
>>I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
>>turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
>
>The X-files is too optimistic. The truth is not out there.
ROTFL!
*There's* a .signature...
--
"The X-Files are too optimistic. The truth is *not* out there..."
-- Anthony Ord <n...@rollingthunder.co.uk>
cbbr...@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."
Anthony Ord
Warkus) wrote:
>It was the Fri, 04 Jun 1999 06:19:37 GMT...
>..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 Jun 1999 20:55:44 GMT, cbas...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> :You are free to continue your (misguided) dislike of RH, but you
>> :really should get enlightened about what's going on instead of spouting
>> :off.
>>
>> FACT:
>>
>> Redhat 5.2 was not 80$
>> Redhat 6.0 is 80$
>>
>> Other distro's have not changed their prices as much and they
>> contribute to Linux development as well. Get real,
>
>That's what you should do some day.
>
>> Redhat wants to
>> make money
>
>Yes. Problem with that?
>
>> and they are doing one of the things everyone claims to
>> hate MS for. (charging more for each new release)
>
>Semantics exercise: Find and prove the blatant, unsupported assertions
>made in this statement, take specific care of the words `each' and
>`everyone' and their usage. You've got 5 minutes.
Give them a little longer. They may not be native speakers
of English.
<chuckle>
>mawa
Jeff Szarka
<jerrys121DEL...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:Ignorant lying git....
Hey buddy, Before you foam at the mouth anymore I am referring to the
copy's of redhat you could buy at your local software store. NOT the
free copy's. This has nothing to do with the fact you can download
redhat from an FTP site. It has to do with Redhat raising costs
whereas others have stayed the same and offer much more quality IMO. I
have explained this at least twice, I can't believe people are stupid
enough to foam at the mouth like rabid monkeys anytime someone
disagrees with public opinion.
You really need to calm down, it's just an operating system.
Jeff Szarka
:Come on Jeff, you know as well as I do that what ever RedHat sells the
:"Official" box set for is irrelevant. What is important is that one can
:still download it from the net for free, or pay $1.99 to someplace like
:cheapbytes. You have been hanging around this group long enough to have
:picked that up by now.
Yes I am very aware of that and at no time have I claimed you can not
download it for free. I am simply saying their retail package now
costs almost as much as Win98 and NT4 OEM and is almost double the
price of other distro's. Many people trying Linux are going to buy the
retail kit's instead of downloading it, Redhat charges to much and
offer's to little. SuSE comes on what 5 CD's? including massive
amounts of software and it costs half as much. That's my point, not
that redhat is turning into MS or Redhat is not worth 80$ I am simply
trying to state Suse offers more for half the price....
The result? I get called names. Why is it such a crime I don't like
Redhat and would rather spend 30$ and get more instead of 80$ and get
less?
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
Heh funny.
That's basically what we've been telling you ever since you started
spewing garbage in this group.
mawa
--
The danger of the haphazard application of computer technology to
situations that are really getting along just fine in the first place
should be apparent to all.
-- Art Medlar <a...@big-ben.UUCP>
je...@dementia.mishnet
>On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 16:56:34 +0100, Jerry
><jerrys121DEL...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>:Ignorant lying git....
>
>
>Hey buddy, Before you foam at the mouth anymore I am referring to the
>copy's of redhat you could buy at your local software store. NOT the
The first copies of Redhat that were personally available
to me were the ones that come along in the Infomagic set
for $20. So calling you an ignorant lying git in this
instance is rather justified.
Furthermore, in this day and age with LUGs and the wide
availability of ISP connections, settling for the first
'one' you see simply isn't necessary.
[deletia]
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:It was the Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:03:51 GMT...
:..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
:> You really need to calm down, it's just an operating system.
:
:Heh funny.
:That's basically what we've been telling you ever since you started
:spewing garbage in this group.
:
:mawa
believe me, I don't take any of this very seriously. I just like
seeing what others think about things, seeing the other point of view
on something is very interesting.
The people who take it to seriously are the ones that bitch and moan
about MS or resort to name calling because someone says something they
don't like. I may think there are area's Linux can be improved but I
would challenge you to find a post from me that says "Linux is
worthless"
mlw
Well, I would call you names. ;-)
Anyway, you are still missing the point. RedHat is selling support. Once
you install your Linux software, unlike Windows, you can keep installing
it on as many machines as you wish.
Ray
>On Fri, 04 Jun 1999 17:33:33 +0000, mlw <ma...@mohawksoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>Yes I am very aware of that and at no time have I claimed you can not
>download it for free. I am simply saying their retail package now
>costs almost as much as Win98 and NT4 OEM and is almost double the
>price of other distro's.
The OEM versions of Windows (9x or NT) come with NO support. The full
retail Win98 costs roughly $189.00 and NT Server 4 w/10 client licensing is
around $1000.00.
> Many people trying Linux are going to buy the
>retail kit's instead of downloading it, Redhat charges to much and
>offer's to little.
Those are exactly the sorts of people who need phone support and that does
cost money.
>The result? I get called names. Why is it such a crime I don't like
>Redhat and would rather spend 30$ and get more instead of 80$ and get
>less?
There's nothing wrong with not liking Red Hat's product, personally I use
Debian. The problem is that your arguement about the retail pricing is just
plain silly in light of Cheap Bytes etc.
--
Ray
Jeff Szarka
:Anyway, you are still missing the point. RedHat is selling support. Once
:you install your Linux software, unlike Windows, you can keep installing
:it on as many machines as you wish.
Right but doesn't OpenLinux offer support? and SuSE?
I'd rather RTM then call support anyway, but it's very useful for new
users or the people with big time problems.
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:26:37 +0200, ma...@iname.com (Matthias Warkus)
> wrote:
>
> :It was the Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:03:51 GMT...
> :..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> :> You really need to calm down, it's just an operating system.
> :
> :Heh funny.
> :That's basically what we've been telling you ever since you started
> :spewing garbage in this group.
> :
> :mawa
>
>
> believe me, I don't take any of this very seriously.
So why don't you let it show? Humour is the word.
mawa
--
Multiple exclamation marks are sign of a diseased mind.
-- Terry Pratchett
Anthony Ord
<ube...@m3.sprynet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>It's ludicrous, this advocacy. When I hear that word, I know it's just a
>buzzword for "Fanatics talking." Terrible, sad state we are in...that Linux
>is in.
So why are you here if you don't like it? Doesn't the name
of the newsgroup comp.os.linux.ADVOCACY drop a large enough
hint?
On usenet, the title of the group often has something to do
with the contents.
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
<snip>
: Anyone who thinks Microsoft is not out to get them is _damn_ stupid.
well when I read a post like this the words "damn stupid" certainly do
come to mind.
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:It was the Sat, 05 Jun 1999 17:47:33 GMT...
:..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
:> On Sat, 5 Jun 1999 16:26:37 +0200, ma...@iname.com (Matthias Warkus)
:> wrote:
:>
:> :It was the Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:03:51 GMT...
:> :..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
:> :> You really need to calm down, it's just an operating system.
:> :
:> :Heh funny.
:> :That's basically what we've been telling you ever since you started
:> :spewing garbage in this group.
:> :
:> :mawa
:>
:>
:> believe me, I don't take any of this very seriously.
:
:So why don't you let it show? Humour is the word.
:
:mawa
Because half the time I say something in jest I have someone quote me
on it weeks later. Remember when I said the KDE fonts were ugly? That
still comes up now and again.
Jeff Szarka
(Anthony Ord) wrote:
:On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 16:22:08 -0400, "Odin"
:<ube...@m3.sprynet.com> wrote:
:<snip>
:>It's ludicrous, this advocacy. When I hear that word, I know it's just a
:>buzzword for "Fanatics talking." Terrible, sad state we are in...that Linux
:>is in.
:
:So why are you here if you don't like it? Doesn't the name
:of the newsgroup comp.os.linux.ADVOCACY drop a large enough
:hint?
:
:On usenet, the title of the group often has something to do
:with the contents.
:
:Regards
:
:Anthony
It really doesn't bother me when I see it here, it does though however
make me mad when I see it on slashdot.org because other news
organizations have quoted their discussion boards. Slashdot has become
one of the most popular Linux sites and no matter what the story is if
MS is in the title you can pretty much rely on the discursion boards
being filled up with FUD. The picture as gates as a borg is real
mature too. I just don't think it's a good public image for Linux.
je...@dementia.mishnet
Hardly, they treat even their own partners despicably.
Christopher B. Browne
posted:
>The picture as gates as a borg is real mature too. I just don't think
>it's a good public image for Linux.
If it's not good public image for Linux, think of how bad it must have
been when IBM used a similar motif for presenting OS/2 versus Windows
3.1...
--
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Jeff Szarka
(Christopher B. Browne) wrote:
:On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 18:02:10 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net>
:posted:
:>The picture as gates as a borg is real mature too. I just don't think
:>it's a good public image for Linux.
:
:If it's not good public image for Linux, think of how bad it must have
:been when IBM used a similar motif for presenting OS/2 versus Windows
:3.1...
Well the thing really is... I'm not quite sure how to put it because I
don't really mean any disrespect by it but it seems like Linux users
are 13 year old's who hate MS. YES it's just a joke but still.... you
know what they say about first impressions....
Gergo Barany
Johnson wrote:
>In article <375de98f....@news.supernews.com>,
>Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
>>I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
>>turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
>
Most companies are out to get their competition; that's called
capitalism. Sure, Microsoft might use more brutal methods than others,
but nobody makes you buy their products or have any connection to them.
And by the way, I'm sure they are not out to get *me*.
Gergo
--
Stay away from hurricanes for a while.
GU d- s:+ a--- C++>$ UL+++ P>++ L+++ E>++ W+ N++ o? K- w--- !O !M !V
PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP+ t* 5+ X- R>+ tv++ b+>+++ DI+ D+ G>++ e* h! !r !y+
Jeff Szarka
:>
:> Anyone who thinks Microsoft is _not_ out to get them is just plain stupid.
:
:Most companies are out to get their competition; that's called
:capitalism. Sure, Microsoft might use more brutal methods than others,
:but nobody makes you buy their products or have any connection to them.
:And by the way, I'm sure they are not out to get *me*.
Well I'm glad the people who do think MS is out to get them use Linux
or Be or FreeBSD or <insert non-MS Os here>. They have every right to,
big bad MS has also not come to their house and reinstall Windows
(yet) so I really don't know why the issue keeps coming up.
MS has done some bad things, but in the grand scheme of things it's
just a software company, they haven't killed anyone (that I know of)
they haven't done anything than at the worse a few corporate crimes. I
always tell the anit-Ms people to go protest RJR or go protest the
human rights violations in China. Don't waste your time hating MS,
they're JUST a software company.
je...@dementia.mishnet
To really develop a really nasty simmering hatred of Microsoft,
it helps if one has been computing for 13 years rather than just
merely alive for 13 years.
IOW: a 13 year old simple doesn't have the proper experience or
perspective on the matter.
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> :> believe me, I don't take any of this very seriously.
> :
> :So why don't you let it show? Humour is the word.
> :
> :mawa
>
>
> Because half the time I say something in jest I have someone quote me
> on it weeks later. Remember when I said the KDE fonts were ugly? That
> still comes up now and again.
Hm, you haven't been around Usenet very long, have you? There is
something we call emotional markup.
It can be done with smileys: :) :-) :| :-| :( :-( etc. etc.
Or, e.g., sarcasm tags: <sarcasm> Of course operating system crashes
are God's punishment for using third-party software. </sarcasm>
mawa
--
But when she was with Chacko, old limits were pushed back. Horizons
expanded. She had never before met a man who spoke of the world [...]
in the way other men she knew discussed [...] their weekends at the
beach.
-- Arundhati Roy, _The_God_of_Small_Things_
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> (Christopher B. Browne) wrote:
>
> :On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 18:02:10 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net>
> :posted:
> :>The picture as gates as a borg is real mature too. I just don't think
> :>it's a good public image for Linux.
> :
> :If it's not good public image for Linux, think of how bad it must have
> :been when IBM used a similar motif for presenting OS/2 versus Windows
> :3.1...
>
>
> Well the thing really is... I'm not quite sure how to put it because I
> don't really mean any disrespect by it but it seems like Linux users
> are 13 year old's who hate MS. YES it's just a joke
No. Jokes are funny.
> but still.... you
> know what they say about first impressions....
You don't want to know what my first impression of you was and what my
current impression of you is.
Gergo Barany
>MS has done some bad things, but in the grand scheme of things it's
>just a software company, they haven't killed anyone (that I know of)
>they haven't done anything than at the worse a few corporate crimes. I
>always tell the anit-Ms people to go protest RJR or go protest the
>human rights violations in China. Don't waste your time hating MS,
>they're JUST a software company.
I agree, many people take their anti-Microsoft sentiments too far. Also,
they complain about Microsoft but at the same time crave the software
they make.
Interesting anecdote: I got permission to install Linux on a machine at
my high school. My user (there's only one except for me) wrote me an
e-mail asking me to install a pascal compiler to get away from the NT
bloatware installed on the other machines.
The same guy asked me to install StarOffice so he didn't have to use the
KDE notepad for his editing. So he hates bloatware yet fails to grasp
that there is anything besides KDE + StarOffice to edit your texts. I
answered with a quote from the GNU Manifesto where RMS says that Emacs
is our editor and TeX is out text formatter ("we" being GNU developers
and users). And even for Emacs haters, there's vi and ed and joe etc. on
that machine.
It seems that that particular user uses Linux because he thinks it's
cool, not to be more productive or be less dependent on software
companie, and it seems that there are more and more people doing the
same thing.
Gergo (who is out of touch with current issues in the US and would
appreciate a short explanation of who/what RJR is)
--
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend: and inside a dog,
it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx
Jeff Szarka
:On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 20:04:23 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
:>On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 19:38:40 GMT, cbbr...@news.brownes.org
:>(Christopher B. Browne) wrote:
:>
:>:On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 18:02:10 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net>
:>:posted:
:>:>The picture as gates as a borg is real mature too. I just don't think
:>:>it's a good public image for Linux.
:>:
:>:If it's not good public image for Linux, think of how bad it must have
:>:been when IBM used a similar motif for presenting OS/2 versus Windows
:>:3.1...
:>
:>
:>Well the thing really is... I'm not quite sure how to put it because I
:>don't really mean any disrespect by it but it seems like Linux users
:>are 13 year old's who hate MS. YES it's just a joke but still.... you
:>know what they say about first impressions....
:
: To really develop a really nasty simmering hatred of Microsoft,
: it helps if one has been computing for 13 years rather than just
: merely alive for 13 years.
:
: IOW: a 13 year old simple doesn't have the proper experience or
: perspective on the matter.
I've been using computers for a long time and I really have no hate
for anyone. I dislike Win9x, I dislike software that's cumbersome to
configure when it doesn't have to be that way, I dislike upgrades that
offer few new features, I dislike cheap hardware that causes a zillion
headaches no matter what Os you use but I honestly don't HATE any
thing connected to computers. There are many worse things in the world
then big bad evil MS IMO
One note, I meant the bill gates as a borg will make many think Linux
users are 13 year old's who hate MS, I worded it wrong in the above
statement.
Chad Mulligan
some lawsuits proving they illegally aimed their marketing at children to
make them start smoking early, and also enhanced their product to make it
more addictive.
Gergo Barany wrote in message ...
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:Or, e.g., sarcasm tags: <sarcasm> Of course operating system crashes
:are God's punishment for using third-party software. </sarcasm>
I throw a <JOKE> tag around things now and again or START JOKE and END
JOKE so people will have some clue it's not to be taken seriously.
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:It was the Sun, 06 Jun 1999 20:04:23 GMT...
:..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
:> On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 19:38:40 GMT, cbbr...@news.brownes.org
:> (Christopher B. Browne) wrote:
:>
:> :On Sun, 06 Jun 1999 18:02:10 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net>
:> :posted:
:> :>The picture as gates as a borg is real mature too. I just don't think
:> :>it's a good public image for Linux.
:> :
:> :If it's not good public image for Linux, think of how bad it must have
:> :been when IBM used a similar motif for presenting OS/2 versus Windows
:> :3.1...
:>
:>
:> Well the thing really is... I'm not quite sure how to put it because I
:> don't really mean any disrespect by it but it seems like Linux users
:> are 13 year old's who hate MS. YES it's just a joke
:
:No. Jokes are funny.
Sure, except when you are trying to be serious.
Let me ask you this, if you're doing work for someone who happens to
think Bill Gates is a nice guy, maybe he heard about his recent gifts
to charity and he asks you where he might find out more about linux
and you tell him slashdot.org and he goes there and he see's pictures
of Gates as a borg, discussion boards of paranoid people ranting about
the evil empire, flames about even the most simple things don't you
think he's going to be turned off by Linux?
Consider this, what if slashdot.org was backwards? maybe it was
www.msnews.org and routinely stories were posted about Linux with a
picture of linus edited as a communist (not my accusation but a common
joke about GPl) and every story about Linux had rants in the
discussion boards about "LinSUCKS", no matter how trivial the story a
large group of people were willing to bash it.
That's really how slashdot looks to many of us non-MS haters. You have
to remember most people don't hate MS, they are totally indifferent
about what OS they use.
:> but still.... you
:> know what they say about first impressions....
:
:You don't want to know what my first impression of you was and what my
:current impression of you is.
No, I don't care what it was/is. As I said anyone's personal opinion
of me is irrelevant. We are talking about a computer operating system
and nothing more. I have no hate for anyone here, no hate for you, not
even a slight disliking. If someone wants to disagree with me that's
fine, it does not cause me to have a negative view of them.
Alan N.
Chris Johnson <jinx...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:jinx6568-060...@tempa44.bf.sover.net...
> In article <375de98f....@news.supernews.com>,
> Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
> >I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
> >turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
>
stupid.
>
> don't give up. They won't play fair. They will get you if they can. Then
> they will laugh at you for being 'got', and cheat you, and break their
> word.
>
> Deal with it, or don't deal with them.
>
> Anyone who thinks Microsoft is not out to get them is _damn_ stupid.
>
>
And I think this is WHY M$ is so worried. With Linux, there's nobody to
get!
They will have to assimilate some of the worlds greatest programmers and
hackers!
They ain't gonna do that!
Jeff Szarka
:Gergo (who should have inserted paragraph brakes in the above text; and
:is out of touch with current issues in the US and would appreciate a
:short explanation of who/what RJR is)
Ah, I'm glad you asked. I haven't went on a RJR is killing people
rant lately.
RJR is a big tobacco company in the US. They've been accused of adding
things to make cigarettes more addictive, lying to the public about
health risks involved with smoking, targeting advertising to kids,
paying off congressmen to vote for less tobacco laws, the list goes on
and on and on. Internal memo's even show they knew long ago smoking
was harmful, there are even internal memo's about advertising saying
"I think this would appeal more to kids" It's simply pathetic. They
also are known to put tobacco billboards by schools so kids would see
those adds. Thankfully they are getting sued big time by all the
states. (and losing too)
When someone says Ms is evil they have no clue what evil is... I
honestly don't care if MS lies to a judge about what they've done in
the software industry. I DO care about what RJR has done to murder
people. Anyone who thinks the two are even close needs to look at the
millions of deaths RJR helps cause, don't kid yourselves by thinking
MS is even close.
Gergo Barany
>On 6 Jun 1999 22:39:36 GMT, gergo....@gmx.net (Gergo Barany) wrote:
>
>:Gergo (who should have inserted paragraph brakes in the above text; and
>:is out of touch with current issues in the US and would appreciate a
>:short explanation of who/what RJR is)
>
>
>Ah, I'm glad you asked. I haven't went on a RJR is killing people
>rant lately.
Thanks for explaining that; you're right, that is something to protest
against. I'm glad I don't smoke.
Gergo
--
"You should, without hesitation, pound your typewriter into a
plowshare, your paper into fertilizer, and enter agriculture"
-- Business Professor, University of Georgia
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> for anyone.
Have you done anything *real* with those computers?
mawa
--
Q: What has four legs, is big, green, fuzzy, and if it fell out of a
tree would kill you?
A: A pool table.
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
> :> don't really mean any disrespect by it but it seems like Linux users
> :> are 13 year old's who hate MS. YES it's just a joke
> :
> :No. Jokes are funny.
>
>
> Sure, except when you are trying to be serious.
>
> Let me ask you this, if you're doing work for someone who happens to
> think Bill Gates is a nice guy, maybe he heard about his recent gifts
> to charity and he asks you where he might find out more about linux
> and you tell him slashdot.org
MAJOR ERROR #1. Nearly no one in his right mind would tell someone to
go to Slashdot as a first source of information about Linux. That's a
discussion site, after all, not primarily an informational site.
www.linux.org and www.linux.com, in my case perhaps www.linux.de, too,
are what I'd select as a starting point.
> and he goes there and he see's pictures
He sees. This is not a noun in the genitive case.
> of Gates as a borg, discussion boards of paranoid people ranting about
> the evil empire, flames about even the most simple things don't you
> think he's going to be turned off by Linux?
MAJOR ERROR #2. Anyone who confuses Linux with what's going on on
Slashdot and who will constantly keep on confusing those two mostly
unrelated things even if one explains it to him must have got a case
of Reality Distortion Syndrome anyway.
> Consider this, what if slashdot.org was backwards? maybe it was
> www.msnews.org and routinely stories were posted about Linux with a
> picture of linus edited as a communist (not my accusation but a common
> joke about GPl) and every story about Linux had rants in the
> discussion boards about "LinSUCKS", no matter how trivial the story a
> large group of people were willing to bash it.
Such fora exist, and there is a crowd of `rabid' (quoting you) MS
users to fill them, too. You have had a look at some of Boris' and
Paul Doherty's postings, haven't you?
> That's really how slashdot looks to many of us non-MS haters. You have
> to remember most people don't hate MS, they are totally indifferent
> about what OS they use.
Eh? I don't hate MS either. I don't care about MS very much anymore,
as I simply don't need their products. Your first statement may have
been right, but your second one is simply wrong, most people stick to
Windows even if it's just for irrational reasons.
> :> but still.... you
> :> know what they say about first impressions....
> :
> :You don't want to know what my first impression of you was and what my
> :current impression of you is.
>
>
> No, I don't care what it was/is. As I said anyone's personal opinion
> of me is irrelevant. We are talking about a computer operating system
> and nothing more.
Oh really. Then why do you keep on and spew reality-distorted nonsense
about people you consider `rabid' and such, etc. etc. etc.?
mawa
--
Whatever Dilbert says - this world is not peopled by pointy-haired
bosses, marketing droids and couch-potato TV addicts alone.
Common sense will eventually win out.
-- mawa, on an optimistic day
Anthony Ord
Warkus) wrote:
>It was the Sat, 05 Jun 1999 17:47:33 GMT...
>..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
>> wrote:
>> :It was the Sat, 05 Jun 1999 13:03:51 GMT...
>> :..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
>> :Heh funny.
>> :That's basically what we've been telling you ever since you started
>> :spewing garbage in this group.
>> :
>> :mawa
>>
>
>So why don't you let it show? Humour is the word.
No! Humour needs to be banned from this newsgroup. People
take it too seriously. There's three things that need to
happen to humour. It needs to be hung, drawn and quartered
then banned.
>mawa
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:> No, I don't care what it was/is. As I said anyone's personal opinion
:> of me is irrelevant. We are talking about a computer operating system
:> and nothing more.
:
:Oh really. Then why do you keep on and spew reality-distorted nonsense
:about people you consider `rabid' and such, etc. etc. etc.?
Because I'm sick of people lying.
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:It was the Sun, 06 Jun 1999 22:48:51 GMT...
:..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@Concentric.net> wrote:
:> I've been using computers for a long time and I really have no hate
:> for anyone.
:
:Have you done anything *real* with those computers?
:
:mawa
Yes, quite real.
Rick
>
> I've been using computers for a long time and I really have no hate
> for anyone. I dislike Win9x, I dislike software that's cumbersome to
> configure when it doesn't have to be that way, I dislike upgrades that
> offer few new features, I dislike cheap hardware that causes a zillion
> headaches no matter what Os you use but I honestly don't HATE any
> thing connected to computers. There are many worse things in the world
> then big bad evil MS IMO
>
You might want to explain that to the investors of Go Computing, Digital
Research, Netscape, etc. Microsoft has wrecked lives using illegal
business practices. as for things inthe world being more evil, well, we
can only fight certain battles.
Rick
> On Mon, 7 Jun 1999 16:52:44 +0200, ma...@iname.com (Matthias Warkus)
> wrote:
>
> :> No, I don't care what it was/is. As I said anyone's personal opinion
> :> of me is irrelevant. We are talking about a computer operating system
> :> and nothing more.
> :
> :Oh really. Then why do you keep on and spew reality-distorted nonsense
> :about people you consider `rabid' and such, etc. etc. etc.?
>
>
> Because I'm sick of people lying.
Then email gates and company and ask them to stop lying and to stop
their illegal activities.
Rick
> RJR is the largest Tobacco producing company in the world, they just lost
> some lawsuits proving they illegally aimed their marketing at children to
> make them start smoking early, and also enhanced their product to make it
> more addictive.
You might not like to know that several lawsuits against tobacco
companies have been lost lately. It seems people may now actually have
to take responisibility for their lives.
Rick
> In article <jinx6568-060...@tempa44.bf.sover.net>, Chris
> Johnson wrote:
> >In article <375de98f....@news.supernews.com>,
> >Trad...@Concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
> >>I think you guys should lay off the X files for a while, you're
> >>turning into nuts who think everyone is out to get you.
> >
> > Anyone who thinks Microsoft is _not_ out to get them is just plain stupid.
>
> Most companies are out to get their competition; that's called
> capitalism. Sure, Microsoft might use more brutal methods than others,
> but nobody makes you buy their products or have any connection to them.
> And by the way, I'm sure they are not out to get *me*.
>
> Gergo
Really?
Tell that to IBM.
Steve Mading
: And no one HAD to use the MS specific options. Java is died because it
: sucks. It never lived up to its own hype.
And here we see an example of that lying you were accused of.
Java's not dead. You say it is, with full knowlege of your 'stretching'
of the truth. That's a lie.
Steve Mading
: When someone says Ms is evil they have no clue what evil is... I
: honestly don't care if MS lies to a judge about what they've done in
: the software industry. I DO care about what RJR has done to murder
: people. Anyone who thinks the two are even close needs to look at the
: millions of deaths RJR helps cause, don't kid yourselves by thinking
: MS is even close.
Suppression of knowlege restricts scientific progress, which *does*
effect human life down the road. No, MS's attempts to destroy knowlege
are not akin to a RJR or Hitler, But they *are* akin to the burning of
the Library of Alexandria.
Chad Mulligan
Steve Mading wrote in message <7jhj40$tto$4...@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
I'm not sure but I think we just hit Godwin's Principe here.
r.e.b...@usa.net
Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> : When someone says Ms is evil they have no clue what evil is... I
of destroying life.
However, Microsoft has used it's Monopoly of the OS to disrupt the
lives of millions of people on multiple occaisions. Microsoft
has violated the privacy of individuals for dubious motives. Microsoft
has caused the bankruptcies of numerous allies when Microsoft decided
to take over the market.
Microsoft has formatted hard drives, destroyed files, and disrupted
business processes. Often this occurred as a result of bugs in
copy protection software. If a teenager put that same software
into the same applications (Office, Windows 95, Windows 98, Office 97,
IE, and Back-Office) he would be facing unlimited prison time - See
"Mitnick" on any search engine.
> : honestly don't care if MS lies
> : to a judge about what they've done in
> : the software industry.
So if a corporation is lawless, demonstrates contempt for the
spirit and intent of the law, and it's executives purger themselves
to protect themselves, that is OK - unless somebody dies.
> : I DO care about what RJR has done to murder
> : people. Anyone who thinks the two are
> : even close needs to look at the
> : millions of deaths RJR helps cause,
> : don't kid yourselves by thinking
> : MS is even close.
I don't agree with what RJR did. It's a topic for a different
newsgroup. Discussing it here is like MSNBC leaking confidential
information about Clinton's affair to divert attention away from
the Microsoft Trial. Will Microsoft start a war to divert
attention?
What Microsoft ultimately seeks (According to numerous interviews
and writings of Chairman Bill), is control of the world's information.
The ability to limit what you see, to see what you don't want them
to see, and to share it with people you don't want to have it.
This, in it's own right may not be evil. History has shown however,
that when technology makes it possible to invade personal privacy,
that this technology is often abused.
Even if Bill Gates was a benevolent leader (his nature is being
dramatically illustrated in the DOJ hearings), there would still
be the possibility that that much control, in the hands of the wrong
people, could be used to create totalitarian states.
Hitler's SS used automobiles, tanks, telephones and radios to
conquer countries in a matter of weeks. What could a Hitler
do with control of the Internet, the information inside every
computer, and every interchange between computers.
Eventually, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin were able to exploit
this technology as efficiently as Hitler (right down to reading and
writing his mail). Linux and Internet is the counterresponse
to MS-Windows and MSN/Exchange.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Gergo Barany
>Gergo Barany <gergo....@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Most companies are out to get their competition; that's called
>> capitalism. Sure, Microsoft might use more brutal methods than others,
>> but nobody makes you buy their products or have any connection to them.
>> And by the way, I'm sure they are not out to get *me*.
>>
>> Gergo
>
>Really?
>
>Tell that to IBM.
IBM is in the unfortunate position of having to buy Microsoft software
*if they want to stay in the PC business*. They could probably make
enough money just with their mainframes. It's not like a lot of people
buy IBM's PCs anyway.
Gergo
--
If you explain so clearly that nobody can misunderstand, somebody
will.
Gergo Barany
>
>Steve Mading wrote in message <7jhj40$tto$4...@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
>>effect human life down the road. No, MS's attempts to destroy knowlege
>>are not akin to a RJR or Hitler, But they *are* akin to the burning of
>>the Library of Alexandria.
>
>I'm not sure but I think we just hit Godwin's Principe here.
Well, Godwin's Law is not as clearly stated as it could be; the Jargon
file quotes it as talking about "a comparison involving Nazis or
Hitler." This post does, but I'm not sure this is what the law really
intends to say. In effect, Steve said "MS != Hitler," which I don't
consider wrong. I thing Godwin's Law should only apply to cases where
the post specifically states that "x == Hitler."
Matthias Warkus
..and Steve Mading <mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> : When someone says Ms is evil they have no clue what evil is... I
> : people. Anyone who thinks the two are even close needs to look at the
> : millions of deaths RJR helps cause, don't kid yourselves by thinking
> : MS is even close.
>
> effect human life down the road. No, MS's attempts to destroy knowlege
> are not akin to a RJR or Hitler, But they *are* akin to the burning of
> the Library of Alexandria.
Let's not forget that `evil' in the hackish sense is different from
common people's `evil'. Talking jargon, Microsoft is 100% evil.
mawa
--
GIF's a toy, and a dangerous one. Document your image or get out of
GIF.
-- Allen Braunsdorf in comp.graphics