Maybe put it in "non-free" is a good idea. That's all I really meant...
reply to comments...
Philip Ashmore wrote:
You forgot to mention DCE.
Absolutely not, RPC is from unix, and I didn't mean to be all inclusive. But
thank you for caring.
And I don't believe Microsoft's code for DCE matches their advertisements. DCE is what kills unix
and leaves Microsoft stocks rich. That's all you need to know. It's always been that way.
one mapping ProdIDs to GUIDS and another mapping GUIDS to plug-in
filenames.
Product IDs is a new Microsoft monopoly feature right? It's in many past non-ms products. But them
centrally controlling who gets PIDs (and to pay for ms), that is "all new". Seems abusable does it
not? It will be.
> Qt provides a plug-in system but it's system-wide and shared between
> programs and users.
Am I halucinating? Qt is apple, not microsoft, and Qt was given not taken (see
below).
ATL? The U.S. government end up paying to fix DCOM and ATL because Microsoft's was bereft of real
code? Yes they did. Read up.
You admit taking material that brandishes warnings you should not?
Maybe put it in "non-free" is a good idea. That's all I really meant.
> I could change all the names by adding an "idily" at the end -
> CoCreateInstanceExIdily() -
> "v3c-dcom provides the same system but inside a file"
> "could become part of a boot loader"
Wine? Used to require you pay for MS libs. You weren't supposed to steal the libs. And Win3.1
it's no longer a competitive venue.
Samba? Different days, when ftp was cool. Those "protocols" were not solely designed or owned by
Microsoft. Were they not Intel? Anyhow. Anyhow, no one complained back then.
A microsft patented bootloader for linux? I'd say the nvidia blobs are too much.
"tainted"
If Debian showed concern about use of Java don't you think they'd take DOUBLE the precaution with
DCOM ? Sun was friendly, MS is not.
"Distributed Component Object Model (DCOM) is a proprietary Microsoft technology for communication
among software components distributed across networked computers." (not really true anyhow)
Ah! But Microsoft stole the C/C++ compiler (as well as apple's X and many other softwares) to make
this "proprietary thing" didn't they? Yes they did.
Sites that don't want "tainted kernel blobs" or "tainted submissions" may be concerned with having
"baby DCOM" on their company drive.
If your a kid you don't care. Of course ! :)
It matters not how often Microsoft has been proven to steal. (though I love
reminding people).
What matters is a 500lb gorilla has in the past been shown harass and to sue and win against linux
groups, which debian is.
If Debian could only boot with nVidia blob supported in the kernel how long do you think it would be
until Microsoft shut it off?" If you think they wouldn't you are reading false history. They would
and are trying.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4eef7ab6.3040...@cox.net
