Focus on the bundling and quality, not price. Arguably, Netscape is not that much better of a browser than IE; hence, the inclusion of IE at no extra cost of effort for the Windows user means that there's little incentive to go for Netscape -- whereas the various Paint-type applets are vastly inferior to, say, FractalDesigner or PhotoShop, and Wordpad is nothing compared to Emacs.
gcc and Emacs/vim are included in Linux distributions, but people still buy commercial IDEs, despite the additional cost.
If Netscape really were a vastly superior browser compared to IE, then perhaps consumers would be willing to go the extra mile in both time and money, just as they are able and willing to replace numerous other free products; on Windows/x86, the former is NOT the case. In the case of many non-Windows/x86 platforms, it _is_ because IE is simply absent.
It's probably not in MSFT's interests to be fighting this for that long, either, if they can get a settlement that'll end speculation over what the judicial system *might* do; and the DoJ lawyers would get to go home pointing to winning results in a *very* big case. Eh, guess we'll see.
It depends. Did they accept any licensing restrictions? Does Norway restrict that sort of thing, either through its own law or by treaties that it's a signatory to? Is this a patent violation?
If not, there's probably not a case against them.
Breaking a crypto scheme could be illegal; if you open a package, but to do so, you must agree to a EULA not to do so -- and it's not an important part of actually *using* the product, then you're probably in violation. If there's no such agreement...
It *might* help, because it might now be in the MS Office group's interest to port to other operating systems; and it's in the OS group's interests to open up APIs and facilitate development of software -- and not just MS Office.
An agreement to prevent collusion (such as fair licensing terms that are consistent with those presented third parties), complete with stiff penalties that adjust for inflation... might do the trick if Jackson's inclined to divide the company, and if Justice defeats MSFT appeals.
"Free" for Linux does not mean free as in beer; it means free as in source-code availability and associated rights.
Or, perhaps, you'd like to persuade RHAT and Applix that you deserve free copies of their software, with free installation support, manuals and media? They're both commercial entities, *selling* Linux and applications for it, respectively.
Actually, they aren't; and, it looks like that most of the AC posts are actually inane folks with nothing to do except post F*P* drivel. I'm tempted to threshold to 1, or argue that ACs should only be able to post with certain restrictions (perhaps no top-level posts, and no AC response to an AC post...).
There's the obligatory disclosure that I've worked for MSFT, as an intern, a bit more than a year ago. I also happen to use both Linux and Windows, for different purposes.
It's a tad disturbing, actually, in that Judge Jackson appears to think little of the free software development model. Reading his findings, one might think that nobody would ever write Emacs, or gcc, or Linux.
A loosely-knit community *can* produce operating systems and, to a degree, applications, if profit is not a requirement. Development cost appears to be an important issue in the findings; what this fails to take into account is that unpaid developers who donate their time need not be as constrained in this regard as a corporation bound by responsibility to shareholders, and whose employees have this development as their primary vocation rather than a hobby. Given that certain major corporations such as Dell and Intel have apparently embraced Linux as an operating system worth an investment in resources, it is hard to argue that this can reasonably be ignored. That boxed editions appear on store shelves, along with entertainment software for the same operating system -- arguably among the most desktop-oriented application sectors possible -- suggests that it is not a completely unviable option. I've seen Linux distributions appear in the Top Ten lists at Chumbo, as well; and one can buy computers with Linux pre-installed. The existence of WordPerfect, StarOffice and ApplixWare for Linux is also quite suggestive, as these all compete directly with Microsoft Office.
True. It is unlikely to conquer the desktop anytime soon, and Windows is largely entrenched in that market. To say that there are no significant competitors, however, seems a tad disingenuous; major companies are not known for frittering away capital without at least a perception of possible profit.
Nope. There's a large difference between saying (as in your Imperial/H.C. Anderson example), and doing.
It may be rather easy to, say, run over your neighbor's cat, or for that matter your mayor, or to set fire to City Hall. It's also trivial to repeatedly mail-bomb somebody. None of these are legal, despite the fact that they may be easy.
Since breaking the encryption was a non-trivial task requiring completely voluntary, openly discouraged effort, whether or not it was "easy" is no defense at all.
Overall, this is not a security issue; it's one of legality. If the decryptors violated a license agreement, or conspired to distribute this with the intent to facilitate duplicating copyrighted works, then they're likely in the wrong. If they did not, then again the difficulty or lack of it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, legally.
It strikes me that most of the more-advanced nations in the world are largely profit-oriented. Societies that have stagnated or withered away have been disproportionately communal; witness the Utopian movements, most indigenous tribal cultures, the more Socialist states, and so forth -- which have largely disappeared or been defeated. To fade away is not progress.
It's just findings-of-fact, not a final punitive ruling. If the judge finds that MSFT is indeed a monopoly in violation of anti-trust law, then there will need to be another phase to determine what action to take. *Then* such issues as whether the company should be broken up are decided...
In horror/suspense, there's a lot to be said for cloaking the plot in mystery. I'd have to say that straightforward violence like your typical Tarantino flick (_Reservoir Dogs_, anyone? Which looked damn like _City on Fire_ (IIRC) -- but that's another thread... I don't know which came first, or whether one was a remake of the other) is far less "horrific" or scary than your average Machen, Poe, (Clark Ashton) Smith, or Ellison, or...
It's also incredibly uncreative. Well, perhaps 'incredibly' is the wrong word; more like 'typically'. It would have been at least marginally more interesting to invoke the inexplicable.
Suppose they design a fully-working robotic SpyFly, one with good resolution (if not necessarily field-of-view) and stealth. 'suppose then that it manages to pop by, say, Saddam's residence-of-the-day.
How do they get the information *out*? Does it just store a small number of images, and have to fly back to be recovered, or does it transmit over radio (and thus increase the risk of detection?)
I'm not up on bugging technology, obviously. Anybody here follow that sort of stuff?
Frankly, I'm appalled, and hope this company lurches painfully to bankruptcy, leaving its owners to panhandle while struggling to control untreatable, horribly *slow* disorders of their connective tissue... and may ten thousand camels run rampant through their houses, as well.
But then, I'm an obnoxious opinonated, vindictive b*stard at times. {evil grin}
As others have noted, there's a remarkably informative "Register" article, with perhaps the one oddity that instead of mooching directly off of RedHat, the *few* *all-binary* packages that they've made available for FTP all bear tell-tale "mdk.i586.rpm" extensions, as far as I can tell.
"The Company's extensions to the Linux software kernel will rapidly distinguish its products from all other available Linux software"... well, er, it's GPLed. If it's good, the patches can be used by others. If it's not... needing an eye-patch or a dialysis machine is distinctive, too.
There's also no mention of the licensing on their FTP site, as far as I can tell -- which, according to Netcraft, runs RH.
Their documents on the web site are badly-written and inconsistent. Parts glorify (?!) the ability to work w/o partitioning, while the latter stage figures prominently in their installation instructions... Perhaps that's their "full" LinuxOne OS, and not "Lite", 'tho.
Their web site *strongly* implies that most of the features are *their* features, and not common to most distros.
"Most useful and complete"? Um, no; not unless you're shipping a multiple-CD collection.
"No lost data, no confusion, and no chance for a disk drive disaster"? How, precisely, does *sharing* an existing partition with an OS that is not designed to coexist, and thus can manipulate the filesystem at will, promote stability? Argh. If you want stability, you *isolate* things. Not funky multi-function boards; not strange combos of OSes and filesystems; and so forth. If it dies one day, who's to blame -- Windows file corruption? LinuxOne? The foibles of a novice?
"Simply type 'reboot'" -- are they dropping people into a root shell, without any mention of normal user accounts?
...and, for the Mac...
"All functions available through the computer's mouse."
Right. So, write a Perl5 module for parsing and comparing Bayes Nets, using a single-button mouse.
'cuse me while I go chortling hideously into the night...
First the curse. SuSE 6.2 is already 6 CDs, and that's a lot of packages (although, thankfully, it seemed decently organized... and the INDEX file means that with grep, it's not a problem figuring out what's where.) However, with all that extra space... is there going to be much reason to allow for minimalist distributions? or encouraging compact packages?
However, it might be a nifty boost to the multi-distro folks. Imagine a DVD with just the GPL'd versions of multiple distros, and one front-end that asks for which installer to use...
It'd be nice if they bring back the live filesystem with the main distribution rather than as a separate product.
Or, say others could package a minimalist distro, a full-featured distro, and a BSD or two onto the same disc. Or a distro plus a Sunsite pub/linux mirror...
Featuring: - VP Al Gore, who's stiffness inhibits dodging (when he's not doing the Macarena), but comes equipped with the Chaingun of Connections... - Ex-Sen. Bill Bradley, who may be able to blind Gore with his Spotlight; who can toss a grenade for 3 points over his shoulder... - Gov. Bush, who's both encumbered and armed with huge bags of money, and used to get occasional boosts from a mysterious powder... - Sen. McCain, who's got experience, a shotgun and a meeeeeean temper, - Steve Forbes, who's got a penchant for flattening his opponents and folding them into postcards, - Gov. Ventura, who's ALWAYS got the 'Beserk' power-up, - Pat Buchanan, who's got intrinsic fireproofing and can isolate himself from the world at will, and, finally, - Donald Trump, who's fortunes seem to vary as much as those of his patrons...
* First: Many folks don't know what a public key is. Most of them won't want to learn, and won't bother.
* Second: Many folks have computers nowadays which, perversely enough, don't have floppy disks. Also, what filesystems? MINIX? FAT? ext2?
* Third: Candidates have been using personality *forever*. It's gotten far worse since the invention of television (think JFK), but it's always been there. However, most people who are polled, wouldn't vote; that could change significantly.
* Fourth: The people have, in general, neglible will; it's not like it's difficult to write a letter to a politician or editor, or cast a vote. Voting is correlated with motivation. The system largely does represent the wishy-washy will of the people, in its own way...
{chuckle} Ahhh, the naive are always so amusing. Everywhere else is just rosy, right? Nope.
* Central America: - We did not *create* the "death squads". They are locals, doing local work, for governments run by locals, and businesses run by locals. Between the dope-dealing "freedom fighters" financing their murders with extortion, assassination and narcotics, and their corrupt governments, they've largely screwed themselves over. This has pretty much been the case since before Cortez and Pizarro ever landed, with tribal warfare. Look it up.
* Russia: We didn't create the gulag system for them. We didn't genocide the ukraine, out of spite. We certainly didn't nationalize the agricultural system and massively reduce output. Nor did we ever have a leader who had executed any officer high enough to be considered a threat -- right before a war that was *anticipated* by both sides; nor did we ever conduct live-fire military exercises with prisoners as the victims, ala Spetznatz. Look it up.
* Southeast Asia: We've never used little kids as soldiers by giving them grenades and telling them to run at troops. We've never deliberately accepted massive casualty ratios simply to score political points, ala the Tet Offensive -- a military defeat but political victory for the NVA. We've never used armed guerillas masquerading as, and among, innocent refugees in order to attack troops who are kind enough to offer them shelter.
One very relevant detail you neglected to mention is that the exception that the US is currently seeking would be to permit the development and deployment of a small system. This system, perhaps based on the Exoatomospheric Kill Vehicle previously discussed here, would be completely irrelevant to the Russians, because they've got more than enough nuclear-tipped ICBMs to beat it -- each EKV can take out at most one missile, at a very high price.
They're simply using this as a bludgeon for political points and favors. We know it; they know it; but perhaps the public doesn't. Fie.
How, precisely, is settling for $2 billion dollars a demonstration of invulnerability? By agreeing to that amount (which is a significant fraction of their worth...), they've acknowledged that they may not be able to beat the suit -- despite the fact that apparently nobody's demonstrated actual data loss or other incidental, related damages at all.
Um, right. Settling is often NOT a win for the defendant; often it's a Pyrrhic victory.
Hm. You don't mention which partitioning program you were using, but I'm pretty sure the basic fdisk lets you specify a partition with just a starting cylinder and a megabyte count (e.g. +2048M, IIRC).
Still, 'tho, machines nowadays tend to have absolutely flimsy, useless manuals. I remember manuals talking in depth about config.sys options, about partitioning limits (32MB ea), maximizing conventional memory and so forth. Nowadays, the going assumption seems to be that the user shouldn't even be asking those questions.
SuSE, RH (at least 3.3, 5.1, and 5.2) let you customize to a T with cat, Perl, rm and dd if you like.
Repeat after me: The underlying configuration is STILL THERE.
If you like, you can run a RHAT box exactly like a Slackware box; change what you don't like -- you've got the source -- and run it how you prefer. Ditto for SuSE. So, the clueful who actually read manuals and don't say, "Oh, a GUI? Gee, they must have taken away the CLI configuration methods" are unhampered.
Slashdot Mirror
Focus on the bundling and quality, not price. Arguably, Netscape is not that much better of a browser than IE; hence, the inclusion of IE at no extra cost of effort for the Windows user means that there's little incentive to go for Netscape -- whereas the various Paint-type applets are vastly inferior to, say, FractalDesigner or PhotoShop, and Wordpad is nothing compared to Emacs.
gcc and Emacs/vim are included in Linux distributions, but people still buy commercial IDEs, despite the additional cost.
If Netscape really were a vastly superior browser compared to IE, then perhaps consumers would be willing to go the extra mile in both time and money, just as they are able and willing to replace numerous other free products; on Windows/x86, the former is NOT the case. In the case of many non-Windows/x86 platforms, it _is_ because IE is simply absent.
Not if it gets to the Supreme Court, it won't be.
It's probably not in MSFT's interests to be fighting this for that long, either, if they can get a settlement that'll end speculation over what the judicial system *might* do; and the DoJ lawyers would get to go home pointing to winning results in a *very* big case. Eh, guess we'll see.
It depends. Did they accept any licensing restrictions? Does Norway restrict that sort of thing, either through its own law or by treaties that it's a signatory to? Is this a patent violation?
If not, there's probably not a case against them.
Breaking a crypto scheme could be illegal; if you open a package, but to do so, you must agree to a EULA not to do so -- and it's not an important part of actually *using* the product, then you're probably in violation. If there's no such agreement...
It *might* help, because it might now be in the MS Office group's interest to port to other operating systems; and it's in the OS group's interests to open up APIs and facilitate development of software -- and not just MS Office.
An agreement to prevent collusion (such as fair licensing terms that are consistent with those presented third parties), complete with stiff penalties that adjust for inflation... might do the trick if Jackson's inclined to divide the company, and if Justice defeats MSFT appeals.
"Free" for Linux does not mean free as in beer; it means free as in source-code availability and associated rights.
Or, perhaps, you'd like to persuade RHAT and Applix that you deserve free copies of their software, with free installation support, manuals and media? They're both commercial entities, *selling* Linux and applications for it, respectively.
Sheesh.
Actually, they aren't; and, it looks like that most of the AC posts are actually inane folks with nothing to do except post F*P* drivel. I'm tempted to threshold to 1, or argue that ACs should only be able to post with certain restrictions (perhaps no top-level posts, and no AC response to an AC post...).
There's the obligatory disclosure that I've worked for MSFT, as an intern, a bit more than a year ago. I also happen to use both Linux and Windows, for different purposes.
It's a tad disturbing, actually, in that Judge Jackson appears to think little of the free software development model. Reading his findings, one might think that nobody would ever write Emacs, or gcc, or Linux.
A loosely-knit community *can* produce operating systems and, to a degree, applications, if profit is not a requirement. Development cost appears to be an important issue in the findings; what this fails to take into account is that unpaid developers who donate their time need not be as constrained in this regard as a corporation bound by responsibility to shareholders, and whose employees have this development as their primary vocation rather than a hobby. Given that certain major corporations such as Dell and Intel have apparently embraced Linux as an operating system worth an investment in resources, it is hard to argue that this can reasonably be ignored. That boxed editions appear on store shelves, along with entertainment software for the same operating system -- arguably among the most desktop-oriented application sectors possible -- suggests that it is not a completely unviable option. I've seen Linux distributions appear in the Top Ten lists at Chumbo, as well; and one can buy computers with Linux pre-installed. The existence of WordPerfect, StarOffice and ApplixWare for Linux is also quite suggestive, as these all compete directly with Microsoft Office.
True. It is unlikely to conquer the desktop anytime soon, and Windows is largely entrenched in that market. To say that there are no significant competitors, however, seems a tad disingenuous; major companies are not known for frittering away capital without at least a perception of possible profit.
Nope. There's a large difference between saying (as in your Imperial/H.C. Anderson example), and doing.
It may be rather easy to, say, run over your neighbor's cat, or for that matter your mayor, or to set fire to City Hall. It's also trivial to repeatedly mail-bomb somebody. None of these are legal, despite the fact that they may be easy.
Since breaking the encryption was a non-trivial task requiring completely voluntary, openly discouraged effort, whether or not it was "easy" is no defense at all.
Overall, this is not a security issue; it's one of legality. If the decryptors violated a license agreement, or conspired to distribute this with the intent to facilitate duplicating copyrighted works, then they're likely in the wrong. If they did not, then again the difficulty or lack of it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, legally.
"Progress is the enemy of profits"?
It strikes me that most of the more-advanced nations in the world are largely profit-oriented. Societies that have stagnated or withered away have been disproportionately communal; witness the Utopian movements, most indigenous tribal cultures, the more Socialist states, and so forth -- which have largely disappeared or been defeated. To fade away is not progress.
It's just findings-of-fact, not a final punitive ruling. If the judge finds that MSFT is indeed a monopoly in violation of anti-trust law, then there will need to be another phase to determine what action to take. *Then* such issues as whether the company should be broken up are decided...
...as well as creativity and subtlety.
In horror/suspense, there's a lot to be said for cloaking the plot in mystery. I'd have to say that straightforward violence like your typical Tarantino flick (_Reservoir Dogs_, anyone? Which looked damn like _City on Fire_ (IIRC) -- but that's another thread... I don't know which came first, or whether one was a remake of the other) is far less "horrific" or scary than your average Machen, Poe, (Clark Ashton) Smith, or Ellison, or...
It's also incredibly uncreative. Well, perhaps 'incredibly' is the wrong word; more like 'typically'. It would have been at least marginally more interesting to invoke the inexplicable.
Suppose they design a fully-working robotic SpyFly, one with good resolution (if not necessarily field-of-view) and stealth. 'suppose then that it manages to pop by, say, Saddam's residence-of-the-day.
How do they get the information *out*? Does it just store a small number of images, and have to fly back to be recovered, or does it transmit over radio (and thus increase the risk of detection?)
I'm not up on bugging technology, obviously. Anybody here follow that sort of stuff?
Nice catch. :)
Hehehehe...
Frankly, I'm appalled, and hope this company lurches painfully to bankruptcy, leaving its owners to panhandle while struggling to control untreatable, horribly *slow* disorders of their connective tissue... and may ten thousand camels run rampant through their houses, as well.
But then, I'm an obnoxious opinonated, vindictive b*stard at times. {evil grin}
As others have noted, there's a remarkably informative "Register" article, with perhaps the one oddity that instead of mooching directly off of RedHat, the *few* *all-binary* packages that they've made available for FTP all bear tell-tale "mdk.i586.rpm" extensions, as far as I can tell.
"The Company's extensions to the Linux software kernel will rapidly distinguish its products from all other available Linux software"... well, er, it's GPLed. If it's good, the patches can be used by others. If it's not... needing an eye-patch or a dialysis machine is distinctive, too.
There's also no mention of the licensing on their FTP site, as far as I can tell -- which, according to Netcraft, runs RH.
Their documents on the web site are badly-written and inconsistent. Parts glorify (?!) the ability to work w/o partitioning, while the latter stage figures prominently in their installation instructions... Perhaps that's their "full" LinuxOne OS, and not "Lite", 'tho.
Their web site *strongly* implies that most of the features are *their* features, and not common to most distros.
"Most useful and complete"? Um, no; not unless you're shipping a multiple-CD collection.
"No lost data, no confusion, and no chance for a disk drive disaster"? How, precisely, does *sharing* an existing partition with an OS that is not designed to coexist, and thus can manipulate the filesystem at will, promote stability? Argh. If you want stability, you *isolate* things. Not funky multi-function boards; not strange combos of OSes and filesystems; and so forth. If it dies one day, who's to blame -- Windows file corruption? LinuxOne? The foibles of a novice?
"Simply type 'reboot'" -- are they dropping people into a root shell, without any mention of normal user accounts?
...and, for the Mac...
"All functions available through the computer's mouse."
Right. So, write a Perl5 module for parsing and comparing Bayes Nets, using a single-button mouse.
'cuse me while I go chortling hideously into the night...
First the curse. SuSE 6.2 is already 6 CDs, and that's a lot of packages (although, thankfully, it seemed decently organized... and the INDEX file means that with grep, it's not a problem figuring out what's where.) However, with all that extra space... is there going to be much reason to allow for minimalist distributions? or encouraging compact packages?
However, it might be a nifty boost to the multi-distro folks. Imagine a DVD with just the GPL'd versions of multiple distros, and one front-end that asks for which installer to use...
It'd be nice if they bring back the live filesystem with the main distribution rather than as a separate product.
Or, say others could package a minimalist distro, a full-featured distro, and a BSD or two onto the same disc. Or a distro plus a Sunsite pub/linux mirror...
And so forth.
Imagine THAT debating format.
*** Candidate Deathmatch ***
Featuring:
- VP Al Gore, who's stiffness inhibits dodging (when he's not doing the Macarena), but comes equipped with the Chaingun of Connections...
- Ex-Sen. Bill Bradley, who may be able to blind Gore with his Spotlight; who can toss a grenade for 3 points over his shoulder...
- Gov. Bush, who's both encumbered and armed with huge bags of money, and used to get occasional boosts from a mysterious powder...
- Sen. McCain, who's got experience, a shotgun and a meeeeeean temper,
- Steve Forbes, who's got a penchant for flattening his opponents and folding them into postcards,
- Gov. Ventura, who's ALWAYS got the 'Beserk' power-up,
- Pat Buchanan, who's got intrinsic fireproofing and can isolate himself from the world at will, and, finally,
- Donald Trump, who's fortunes seem to vary as much as those of his patrons...
*** ding!
:)
Do you mean "revote", which only happens in significant cases of voter fraud, or "recount" ?
* First: Many folks don't know what a public key is. Most of them won't want to learn, and won't bother.
* Second: Many folks have computers nowadays which, perversely enough, don't have floppy disks.
Also, what filesystems? MINIX? FAT? ext2?
* Third: Candidates have been using personality *forever*. It's gotten far worse since the invention of television (think JFK), but it's always been there. However, most people who are polled, wouldn't vote; that could change significantly.
* Fourth: The people have, in general, neglible will; it's not like it's difficult to write a letter to a politician or editor, or cast a vote. Voting is correlated with motivation. The system largely does represent the wishy-washy will of the people, in its own way...
{chuckle} Ahhh, the naive are always so amusing. Everywhere else is just rosy, right? Nope.
* Central America:
- We did not *create* the "death squads". They are locals, doing local work, for governments run by locals, and businesses run by locals. Between the dope-dealing "freedom fighters" financing their murders with extortion, assassination and narcotics, and their corrupt governments, they've largely screwed themselves over. This has pretty much been the case since before Cortez and Pizarro ever landed, with tribal warfare. Look it up.
* Russia:
We didn't create the gulag system for them. We didn't genocide the ukraine, out of spite. We certainly didn't nationalize the agricultural system and massively reduce output. Nor did we ever have a leader who had executed any officer high enough to be considered a threat -- right before a war that was *anticipated* by both sides; nor did we ever conduct live-fire military exercises with prisoners as the victims, ala Spetznatz. Look it up.
* Southeast Asia: We've never used little kids as soldiers by giving them grenades and telling them to run at troops. We've never deliberately accepted massive casualty ratios simply to score political points, ala the Tet Offensive -- a military defeat but political victory for the NVA. We've never used armed guerillas masquerading as, and among, innocent refugees in order to attack troops who are kind enough to offer them shelter.
And so forth. Go learn.
One very relevant detail you neglected to mention is that the exception that the US is currently seeking would be to permit the development and deployment of a small system. This system, perhaps based on the Exoatomospheric Kill Vehicle previously discussed here, would be completely irrelevant to the Russians, because they've got more than enough nuclear-tipped ICBMs to beat it -- each EKV can take out at most one missile, at a very high price.
They're simply using this as a bludgeon for political points and favors. We know it; they know it; but perhaps the public doesn't. Fie.
Nope. There WAS such a treaty -- IIRC, it was called, prosaically enough, the ABM Treaty.
It's purpose was to enable and preserve the balance of power through MAD, by restricting the development or deployment of ABM systems.
How, precisely, is settling for $2 billion dollars a demonstration of invulnerability? By agreeing to that amount (which is a significant fraction of their worth...), they've acknowledged that they may not be able to beat the suit -- despite the fact that apparently nobody's demonstrated actual data loss or other incidental, related damages at all.
Um, right. Settling is often NOT a win for the defendant; often it's a Pyrrhic victory.
Ahhhh. I see; I've not used RH since 5.2...
That's simply evil.
I remember toying with the Druid in 5.2, saying "blech" and going straight to fdisk.
Hm. You don't mention which partitioning program you were using, but I'm pretty sure the basic fdisk lets you specify a partition with just a starting cylinder and a megabyte count (e.g. +2048M, IIRC).
Still, 'tho, machines nowadays tend to have absolutely flimsy, useless manuals. I remember manuals talking in depth about config.sys options, about partitioning limits (32MB ea), maximizing conventional memory and so forth. Nowadays, the going assumption seems to be that the user shouldn't even be asking those questions.
Um, here's a few bytes. Go get yourself a clue.
SuSE, RH (at least 3.3, 5.1, and 5.2) let you customize to a T with cat, Perl, rm and dd if you like.
Repeat after me:
The underlying configuration is STILL THERE.
If you like, you can run a RHAT box exactly like a Slackware box; change what you don't like -- you've got the source -- and run it how you prefer. Ditto for SuSE. So, the clueful who actually read manuals and don't say, "Oh, a GUI? Gee, they must have taken away the CLI configuration methods" are unhampered.
Check the rebuttal (cited in post 21 in this discussion).
;-)
If they did actually do it, 'tho, and I were an evil lunatic working for Pepsi, I'd consider installing heat lamps.