Re: If you could design a $300 homecomputer today, what would you choose?

[David Ogg <davidogg@nc.rr.com>]

In article <eYD3LPzNA5Y7EwGR@gratiano.zephyr.org.uk>, 
james@zephyr.org.uk says...
> In message <MPG.15cd57b570ee233e98969e@news-server.nc.rr.com>, David Ogg
> <davidogg@nc.rr.com> writes
> >> Free clue: Linux doesn't work like that, dear.
> >
> >(sigh!) you're missing the point.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > Make something up yourself. We're not
> >talking about what linux is, we're talking about what the government
> >should be/shouldn't be able to do.
> 
> And you're making some spurious links to Linux, not understanding the
> first thing about what you're talking about.
> 
> Remember: Just because MS do their Operating Systems one way doesn't
> mean all Operating Systems work that way.  Hence, what the Government do
> there doesn't apply to some other OSes - because it's entirely
> irrelevant to them.
> 
> Government: "Microsoft, no integration of browser with OS!"
> MS:         "Squeak!  Yes sir!"  (eventually, maybe)
> Government: "Linux, no integration of browser with OS!"
> Linux:      "Erm, we don't."
> 
> You're trying to make links between two entirely incompatible
> situations.  What a Government can/can't do with Microsoft is entirely
> different to what it can/can't do with Linux - because the entire system
> doesn't work like that.
> 
> 
> Free clue: When giving examples and analogies, try harder to make them
> relevant.

Actually, now that we somehow got our shirt stuck on this nail that 
wasn't relevant to the subject at hand anyway, just kind of provided 
like a freehand sketch for those that lose interest in the text without 
pictures version...

 Linux is not an Operating System. It's not up to "Linux" what gets 
integrated into the OS. Redhat, Slackware, ect are Operating Systems, 
They decide what gets integrated into the OS. Linus is just a kernel.
 
 The Analogy was NOT between "Windows and Linux", The analogy was 
between two "Equally /available/" operating systems. the consumer has 
the same access to one as the other, illustrating something not true in 
a monopoly.

 As for (re: linux) "They don't do that", who are "They?" and what 
dictates  what "they" do? Is not Linux open for anyone to do what they 
please? In my "Linux on an Amiga in a Box" half-hearted kill-time 
project I work on ocassionally, should I contact "them" to find out what 
I can and cant do because "we dont do that?"
 
 Unless Linus has contacted the hundreds of copyright holders on the 
various pieces of code, and they all decided to stop distributing the 
source under the GPL, I'm pretty sure I can integrate anything I damn 
well please into the kernel, or my OS. Of course it will be tricky, as 
I'm using the uClinux kernel so as to make it work on older Amiga's 
without an MMU/and UAE, and I can't get the file system to work, even 
though everything "should work" (I'm abandoning it soon I believe, I've 
decided it's time for a new project, a gnutella client that doesn't 
suck)

 Back to the point, the question (again) isnt like you said, "What they 
can/can't do", I asked what they "Should/shouldn't be allowed to do", 
this isn't a question of opportunity or current legal precidence, but a 
hypothetical question of ethics and what level of government inervention 
is beneficial to the consumer, and why.

 The answer to that question is they should either A) side with the 
small businesses being hurt by Microsoft, or B) side with the consumer,
who chooses to use the Microsoft product over the competitor.

I wasn't expecting C) "Linux doesn't work like that", and I apologise 
for my foggy analogy. The illustration was an afterthought ;)