Linux-Advocacy Digest #426, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 12:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: IE on UNIX (Craig Kelley)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Russ Allbery)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
(=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Joe Ragosta)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (void)
Re: BSOD and Penis Problems (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Chad Myers")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 28 Feb 2000 09:12:38 -0700
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:52:54 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> <snip>
>> They were already doing that anyway. 99% of the drivers available for
>> Windows 95 were also available for NT...(discounting USB, for obvious
>> reasons).
>
> 99%? What world do you live in? I would rate it more like 40%, and then
> mostly video, network and storage drivers. How many Video Capture cards
> work in NT? only a handful. How many Winmodems? How many Windows
> Printers/scanners? How many TV Tuner cards? How many Sound cards?
I've been using NT4 for about 3 years now, and the only problem I ever
had was with DVD hardware. That was resolved in a couple of months by
Creative.
Every single scanner, modem and sound card has worked (although some
sound cards have given me headaches with isapnp). In fact, NT4 has
been much more reliable than Windows95 was on the same hardware.
I've never attempted to use a video capture or TV tuner card.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 08:11:31 -0800
In gnu.misc.discuss, phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's a lot more to the quality of a film than the resolution of the
> image recording material. To say otherwise is to imply that Casablanca
> is a crap film because it is in black and white.
Yes, but if you look at the statement that I made that started this
particular subthread, you'll find that I didn't use the phrase quality
without qualification. And I stand by the statement that I made
originally.
>>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure an advocate of free software would want to draw that
>>>> particular comparison, as the primary difference between theatrical
>>>> movies and TV programs is that theatrical movies are significantly
>>>> higher quality in pretty much all technical respects and even in most
>>>> creative respects. (There are, of course, exceptions.)
The technology used in the creation of film, from special effects to film
quality to lighting to distribution medium, is generally a cut above the
technology used for television programs.
As for the creative respects, of course that's a horribly subjective
judgement, but I am personally of the opinion that if you polled the
population at large and asked them whether the general writing and acting
quality were higher in the average theatrical production than in the
average television show (worded in a more neutral fashion, of course, so
as not to bias the survey), I believe you'd find that most people are of
that opinion.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:27:50 +0100
"Greg Copeland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> > On 18 Feb 2000 15:48:58 GMT, Mark S. Bilk wrote:
> >
> > >That's great PR, Chad:
> > >
> > > "Microsoft -- We're the company you can trust, because,
> > > although we used to lie all the time, now we've stopped."
> >
> > ROFL.
> >
> > You know, in the rare instance that you abstain from daft conspiracy
> > theories, you can be quite entertaining.
> >
> > --
> > Donovan
>
> While it certainly is funny, it does happen to correctly depict
> Microsoft.
>
> Sad but true.
Frankly, it probably depicts any big business company I can think of, but
apparently it's okay to bash just Microsoft, after all, they are the evil
empire.
> Greg
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:31:06 GMT
In article <89e60l$k78$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
> >
> > There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any plans to
> > put W2K on.
>
> It's not shipping, but Microsoft is going for the Itanium IA-64 ISA.
>
> I assume that AMD's not far behind, and they'll have a processor also.
>
> However, they'll both use the IA-64 (I believe, AMD wouldn't be foolish
> enough to try to pass their own 64-bit architecture, would they?) ISA.
>
But neither one is available and neither will be available by summer
which is when you claimed that W2K/64 would be shipping.
--
Regards,
Joe Ragosta
Get $10 free:
https://secure.paypal.com/auction/pal=jragosta%40earthlink.net
Or get paid to browse the web (Mac or PC):
http://www.alladvantage.com/home.asp?refid=KJS595
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:32:37 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >> Well, there's the answer. Let's just have everyone stop developing software
> >> except for OpenSource software. Then we can all use LaTeX and Emacs.
> >
> >Are you really this silly?
>
> I don't see what's so silly about this.
What is silly about it is that open source software has been continuously
developed, is being developed now, and will continue to be developed in the
future. The suggest that open source software will always be limited to LaTeX
and Emacs (which isn't even true today), is absurd.
Extrapolate GNOME and GNOME Office out a few years and it looks nothing like
LaTeX and Emacs (not to knock these). Not to mention the *many* other "user
friendly" open source projects. Have you seen XMMS? It rocks (literally).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 16:35:55 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:32:26 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>When logical debate disappears and you start responding with glib answers that
>don't make any sense, I think that suggests something. Conclusion left to the
>reader.
I should add something -- rather than respond to my entire post, you dismiss
the entire thing based on an out of context quote. Like it or not, the argument
still stands.
Are you wiling and able to address the post ? Namely, the issue I raise is
regarding mandatory sharing. In the post, I also debunked your attempt
to show that malls followed a "mandatory sharing" model, and also debunked
the analogy between anti-discrimination laws and laws that would force the
developer to share their software with everyone as a condition of sharing it
with one person.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:44:51 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Would you take a job where the employer said that he'd
> pay you "voluntarily", when he "felt like" paying you ?
Actually, I did once, and many people continue in such jobs today. It is
customary for many jobs in the financial industry (and others) that a major
part (in some cases the predominant part) of ones compensation is a
discretionary (by the employer) year-end bonus.
Of course, this has nothing to do with what I suggested, since the one making
the voluntary payment would be users, not employers. Salaries would of course
not be voluntary.
> Why should developers be forced to panhandle for their supper?
Nice metaphor, but unfortunately disconnected from reality. In the real world,
developers are not compensated directly by copyright royalties; they are paid
a salary by an investor-backed enterprise. It is very unlikely this would
change even if copyright protection ceased to be a means for copyright owners
to extract compensation. Programmers would still work for investors and be
paid a salary. They wouldn't be out "panhandling."
And, as I said earlier, most (the *vast* majority of) developers work on
in-house and custom applications (these jobs often pay better than "publisher"
jobs, too). By making such development cheaper and more productive, open
source should be expected to *increase* number of such opportunities, as well
as their pay.
Quoting myself: "Improving the productivity of in-house programmers in the
financial industry by 10% probably makes more difference to the economy than
doubling it at Microsoft."
Replace "economy" with "career prospects for software developers" if you
prefer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 16:52:03 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:15:22 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, my reply at the top because there is no point in replying line by line.
Then you could have shortened my posting ...
> Look, you are trying to say that simply because MS has not ported
> hotmail.com to NT that NT is a failure.
No. I am saying it's not as usable (and as much a success) as MS
tries to make others believe.
> Can you not see the stupidity of that remark? What does one site have to do
> with the quality or success of NT? When you know that 1000s of other sites,
> many of which are much bigger than hotmail are running NT
Well, depends on your measurement. But don't marginalise
Hotmail: It's an MS-owned shop for two years now ... and still NT
is not the primary server. Just one amongst others. That's
undeniable, or is it?
The lesson here is: If you run Solaris and do something remotely
similar to Hotmail, you don't need NT ...
> - what is the
> point of bringing up hotmail again? NT is capable of handling MORE than
> hotmail - but hotmail was bought in a working state by MS. "If it ain't
> broke, why fix it?"
Cause MS said they'll do so. Now, if they had said "Hey, it runs
OK under Solaris or FreeBSD, no sense changing it!" I'd
understand. (It wouldn't be too good for their marketing,
though.) But they did not. They proclaimed they were migrating
--- albeit slowly --- to NT. Now, i am just calling their bluff,
so to say.
MS can now say one of:
- There are other OS that can do this, actually we are happy
enough with Solaris
- We did not manage to port Hotmail to NT.
- Porting Hotmail to NT turned out to be more hassle than it's
worth.
- Actually, we lied (again) ... we are going to do $WHATEVER.
Somehow I cannot see them doing any of this. Can you?
> Having said that I tell you that I expect hotmail to be running W2K before
> the end of the year.
Wait and see. If the specialists need half a year, how muh longer
will the average admin-team need?
> But, again, what is the point? So, we announce: Hotmail
> is running W2K and is now faster than ever before.
And the W2k licenses alone cost more than the old licenses *plus*
hardware, not to mention that you need 5 times the machines?
(Note: I'm not saying that this *will* happen. Just that it
could. As with any other OS, including Linux[1].) With enough
money you can always be faster, but sometimes thats not the goal.
> What will be the reply?
> "Oh my, that proves NT is perfect, I will abandon BSD/Solaris for NT
> immediately!" - Of course not. So, again, what is the point? Why does it
> matter?
What you cannot understand, apparently, is that with MS being
unable/unwilling to switch Hotmail to NT, why should anyone else
with comparable requirements do so? And why does MS-Marketing
tell us: "SWIIIICH TOOOO NNNNN-TTTTTTeeeeee!!!"
> You are desperate to find something to pick on because you cannot pick on
> the product itself.
Of course I can. I read BugTraq.
http://www.securityfocus.com/templates/archive.pike?list=1&date=2000-02-21&[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You are careful not to say: W2K can't handle Hotmail -
> only that: How come MS didn't port to W2K yet?
Yes, because unlike some I try not to say things that might turn
out wrong ... NT probably can handle Hotmail. If HotmailA's
still usable and how to administrate all the dozends of
clients is another question.
BTW: I do *not* wonder about W2K. MS probably knows that it's not
tested enough (and by the collective previous experience with MS:
debugged enough) to handle Hotmail. After all, SP1 is already
out, isn't it? Give it half a year or 2 to ripen.
[1] Though you won't be eaten by license costs, of course.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 16:03:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Which 64 bit processors (plural) would that be?
>
>There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any
>plans to put W2K on.
And the sad part is that there are 64bit processors out there that
MS did support - but no longer.
Remember when MS promoted NT as being cross-platform. Four
supported processor families. Down to one now.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 16:54:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 22:17:31 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Answer #1 - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Question #1: Why then *ever* change to MS, unless what you got is
broken in first place?
Question #2: When does MS-Marketing learn Answer #1?
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:50:33 -0600
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > However, they'll both use the IA-64 (I believe, AMD wouldn't be foolish
> > enough to try to pass their own 64-bit architecture, would they?) ISA.
> >
>
> But neither one is available and neither will be available by summer
> which is when you claimed that W2K/64 would be shipping.
Who claimed? Me?
I claimed, based on MS's statements that Win2K would probably ship in
the summer. Yeah, they were wrong, but they released a better product
because of it.
I don't recall ever having said that 64-bit would ship in the summer.
I remember always saying that Win2K Datacenter server would ship later
than Win2K Pro, Server, and A.Server, and that 64-bit would follow
shortly thereafter, and that seems to be how it's folding out.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: 28 Feb 2000 16:55:13 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:27:50 +0100, Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
internet.fr> wrote:
>
>Frankly, it probably depicts any big business company I can think of, but
>apparently it's okay to bash just Microsoft, after all, they are the evil
>empire.
While they hardly have a *cough* monopoly on lying, Microsoft does do so
with astonishing frequency and brazenness.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: BSOD and Penis Problems
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 03:06:44 +1000
Jessica69 wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone :)
>
> My friend Kim said only men with small dicks use Windows. Personally,
> I watched in amazement as my boyfriends penis shrunk every time BSOD
> appeared. He was once 9" and now he's 3". I need help fast!!!!! Someone
> told me that Linux could reverse the problem. Is this true? What can I
> do?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Jessica 69
> http://jessica-69.secret-playmates.com
Yes, it's true. Hence "Micro - Soft".
My penis has been increasing in size daily since I stopped using MS.
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!!
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:59:16 -0600
"Bill Vermillion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >There isn't a single shipping 64 bit processor that MS has any
> >plans to put W2K on.
>
> And the sad part is that there are 64bit processors out there that
> MS did support - but no longer.
>
> Remember when MS promoted NT as being cross-platform. Four
> supported processor families. Down to one now.
The design still supports it. However, in case you haven't noticed,
companies have to make money. MS was not making money on any of the
other platforms, so they dumped support.
It's not as if NT magically stopped working on them, it's just that
Microsoft doesn't produce any software for them anymore.
You'll notice, however, that all of their software patches and
whatnot are still released as Alpha binaries.
Win2K _can_ be cross platform as well, however, MS and Compaq
stopped development on Alpha because of monetary reasons.
It's still capable, just not profitable.
Of course, it's just easier for you to FUD and make it seem like
it's not even possible.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:09:33 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:44:51 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> Would you take a job where the employer said that he'd
>> pay you "voluntarily", when he "felt like" paying you ?
>
>Actually, I did once, and many people continue in such jobs today. It is
>customary for many jobs in the financial industry (and others) that a major
>part
Yes, a major part. Not "all of". Under the model you are advocating, the entire
payment would be discretionary.
>Of course, this has nothing to do with what I suggested, since the one making
>the voluntary payment would be users, not employers. Salaries would of course
>not be voluntary.
Yes, so the corporation's funding would be voluntary. The corporation will in
fact operate much like some sort of charity, which will probably reflect
in the developer's salaries.
If this model really is profitable, then why isn't anyone using it ? If
"cosource" is really a profitable idea, I'd suggest you get in there and
be the first to show it to be so. However, since no one has operated in
the black by developing "cosource" software, your claims that it is
profitable are entirely speculative.
>> Why should developers be forced to panhandle for their supper?
>
>Nice metaphor, but unfortunately disconnected from reality. In the real world,
>developers are not compensated directly by copyright royalties; they are paid
>a salary by an investor-backed enterprise.
You're assuming that the company is publically held.
> It is very unlikely this would
>change even if copyright protection ceased to be a means for copyright owners
>to extract compensation. Programmers would still work for investors and be
>paid a salary. They wouldn't be out "panhandling."
No, the corporation paying their salary would be panhandling. All you are
demonstrating is that the panhandler is the corporation, not the developer.
The end result is the same thing. If the corporation can't make money,
neither can its employees.
>in-house and custom applications (these jobs often pay better than "publisher"
>jobs, too).
I am not trying to argue about in house and custom applications. I agree
that OpenSource is well suited to this kind of thing. What I don't agree
with is your opinion that OpenSource is some kind of magical pixie dust
that automatically makes everything better. I also don't agree that
cosource is a viable business model for most end user applications. And
all you've offered is speculation -- you have yet to name a single piece
of succesful "cosource" end user application software.
>Quoting myself: "Improving the productivity of in-house programmers in the
>financial industry by 10% probably makes more difference to the economy than
>doubling it at Microsoft."
So what's stopping the in-house developers going with OpenSource ( assuming
it works for their companies, which it often does ) while the application
developers stick to whatever works for them ? That OpenSource works for
(X) doesn't mean that it does work and should be used for (Y).
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
