Linux-Advocacy Digest #427, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 13:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Timothy J. Lee)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Phillip Lord)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K ("Drestin Black")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (was: TPC-C Results for W2k!! (void)
Re: IE on UNIX ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:18:23 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:32:37 -0800, Jeffrey B. Siegal wrote:
>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.
My point is that if we limited ourselves to OpenSource today, this would
be where it's at.
>Extrapolate GNOME and GNOME Office out a few years
... and it will still be a mile behind the commercial offerings. Hell,
the only decent component is gnumeric. Maybe in a year, it will vaguely
resemble an office suite, and in two years, they'll have most of the
bugs ironed out, and you'll be able to use a "transparent canvas" (wow!)
At least you could have used Koffice
for your argument, which actually resembles an office suite.
> and it looks nothing like
>LaTeX and Emacs (not to knock these).
Not at all (-; I'm actually a big fan of Latex ( though I still don't like
Esc-Meta-Alt-Ctrl-Shift )
> Not to mention the *many* other "user
>friendly" open source projects.
So how are they doing? Where are the financial analysis packages, resum'e
packages, video editors, encycolpedias, educational software packages,
OpenSource games ( 3d please ), etc etc ? The answer is that by and large,
they aren't even started, which puts them a few years behind commercial
offerings.
It's all very well that there are projects, some of which might succeed,
but it doesn't alter the fact that if we were stuck with OpenSource software,
we wouldn't have an Office suite ( while proprietary office suites have been
around for years. Hell, I remember using a word processor on a Mac 15 years
ago. )
> Have you seen XMMS?
Nope. I'll check it out.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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 17:20:13 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 17:27:50 +0100, Paul 'Z' Ewandeİ 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.
I don't know about all, but you certainly can do worse than Microsoft.
Personally, my least favourite in the computer industry is AOL. God
help us if they ever obtain the same amount of power MS wields today.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:22:50 GMT
On 28 Feb 2000 15:00:06 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph T Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Keeping software out of the "public domain" in the sense of
>maintaining it as propietary also requires force, in the shape of law
>enforcements.
Contracts and technical obstacles could do a lot without special copyright
laws. Of course, the technical measures would be enough of a PITA for users
that most would be happier under the existing model.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Timothy J. Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Busy sites Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:40:34 GMT
Reply-To: see-signature-for-email-address---junk-not-welcome
"Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
|news:89c4je$1upq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
|>
|> Of of one single machine, gigE interface and 10,000 simultanious
|> connections.
|>
|> How was microsoft's day handled? One single machine?
|>
|> I have a very hard time believing that NT can listen to 10,000
|simultanious
|> single port connections and talk gigE at the same time.
|>
|Very likely true, but equally, ftp.cdrom.com on a single machine could not
|do what www.microsoft.com does. The two systems are entirely different in
|the type of content they serve up, comparisons of the maximum downloads/day
|from the two sites are simply an excuse for dick swinging by people on both
|sides of the argument who don't understand or choose to ignore the
|differences between a dedicated FTP server and site serving up large vloumes
|of dynamically generated web pages from large databases.
Microsoft's white paper says that there are 42 computers used
just as software download servers, not including the other stuff
that the general public can get at at microsoft.com .
--
========================================================================
Timothy J. Lee timlee@
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. netcom.com
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:45:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph T Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Joseph> it implies that force and/or fraud should be initiated
: Joseph> against those who try to write software without contributing
: Joseph> it to the public domain. Even if socialists could live with
: Joseph> that notion, libertarians quite obviously could not.
: Keeping software out of the "public domain" in the sense of
: maintaining it as propietary also requires force, in the shape of law
: enforcements.
It is not the mere *use* of force (which is sometimes appropriate and
necessary) to which libertarians object, but the *initiation* of
force.
The use of force to enforce a just law is not necessarily a problem;
that begs, of course, the question of whether current laws regarding
intellectual property are just (which in turn begs the question of
whether the very notion of "intellectual property" is valid, and so
forth, ad infinitum).
Since force and fraud are morally equivalent and interchangeable in at
least some instances (libertarians would say most if not all), it is
possible and in my opinion useful to look at the problems created by
Microsoft, UCITA, CSS, etc. as examples of fraud. Microsoft, in
common with *most* of those who sell to the mass market, commits fraud
in each and every piece of marketing and advertising literature that
it creates. UCITA pretends to legitimize fraud by allowing
enforcement of a "contract" that was not freely and knowingly entered
into by one of the alleged parties to it. CSS pretends to be about
protecting content producers, which it doesn't - it actually creates a
cartel of content DECODERS, which it pretends to justify through
"anti-piracy" law, the very name of which is yet another example of
fraud (piracy actually means plundering seagoing vessels on the high
seas, a crime different both in nature and magnitude than copyright
violation, which in turn is different in nature than the alleged
"crime" of which the DeCSS authors are being accused - the "crime" of
defeating a "copy-protection" scheme that was never intended and never
had the effect of preventing copying to begin with - which is not a
crime even pursuant to the UCITA if I understand it correctly).
: I dont think that it would require force to prevent
: people from writing non PD software. It would just require the absence
: of the current support for it. After all if someone wants to write
: software in their own house and never give it to anyone why should I
: care?
Usually, widespread instances of unlawful force or fraud require the
complicity of both "governments" and the private entities which profit
from it. Take away either element, and most crimes (against
individuals, other entities, and humanity as a whole) tend to
disappear.
While libertarians recognize that some form of government is
necessary, in order to protect life, liberty and property, they also
recognize that government power is very readily abused by bureaucratic
and corporate interests. (Many socialists recognize this as well.)
While I'm not sure exactly how to balance the interests of content
creators and content consumers, I strongly believe that methods that
rely on cooperation and consensus, rather than force, will achieve
better results in the long term.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:44:48 -0500
"petilon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous Coward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Since members of the Linux crowd have agreed that petilon
> > could have run into the same problem on other OSes by not
> > taking the arrangement of his SCSI IDs into account - makes
> > your statements the uninformed ones here.
>
> Have you no shame? You are justifying this serious bug in
> Windows 2000 -- a product that corporations pay hundreds of
> thousands of dollars to Microsoft for -- by saying Linux --
> a FREE product -- has the same problem too?
>
> Do you realize decent enterprise operating systems such as
> Solaris don't have this problem? Do you realize that the Linux
> guys have already fixed this problem in the forthcoming
> version?
the next version...
yea...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:48:23 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:22:09 -0800, JCA wrote:
>crashed wrote:
> This is a very commendable feeling but, unfortunately, not the way things
> have
>historically worked out, the egregious example being that of home VCR formats.
There are more to "merits" than the product quality. There are very good
reasons why home VCR formats worked out the way they did.
>Any tactic within the law should be used in order to kill the Redmond beast,
>least it kills Linux and the open source movement first.
When you talk about "history", think about all the great revolutions -- the
(Chinese) cultural revolution, the Russian revolution, the French revolution
... and also think of their aftermaths. Once the means become corrupted, the
end follows suit.
> This is a kind of >Alliance vs. Empire struggle.
Put your light saber down, buddy. The only "struggle" is that to offer
good quality software to the users.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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 12:51:58 -0500
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:897m88$5lv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >> The above is along the lines of "Although McDonalds claims that the
> > BigMac
> > > >> is the healthiest burger on its menu, 75% of McDonalds customers
> > > >> still
> > > >> buy fries". Or how about "Although Thyssen touts the Transrapid to
> > > >> be
> > the
> > > >> most advanced and most mature of the magnetic levitation trains,
99%
> > > >> of
> > all
> > > >> customers using Thyssen equipment still choose older, rail-bound
> > > >> train
> > > >> transport".
> > >
> > > >Sun attempts to bash Microsoft for not having a 64-bit OS/platform.
> > >
> > > Do they? References? Of course, they would be correct to do so --- MS
> > > *does not* have a 64 bit OS right now, and the smallness of 32 bit
> > > address
> > > spaces are quickly becoming a problem in many areas.
> >
> > MS has Windows 2000/64 in beta right now and it works right now and runs
> > on
> > 64 bit processors right now.
>
> 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.
Ahh, "shipping." Not unless you count samples to manufacturers. No. But they
are intent to put W2K only on the newest 64-bit chips - why bother with
older crap I guess?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:52:54 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89e3s9$9in$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Joe Ragosta <[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.
>
> He dresden, did you have something to add to this thread? I couldnt
> help but notice your total silence regarding this particular lie.
Bite me Pooky - I am talking about the recent 64 bit chips from both Intel
and AMD - both which are in manufacturer samples right now. Shipping? No,
didn't mention shipping - yet...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[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 12:54:00 -0500
"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
>
> --
And you are CERTAIN of the ship dates for Intel and AMDs 64-bit chips ??
You mean like when Intel released the 733 Piiis 6 months ahead of schedule?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:57:25 -0500
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 10:13:48 -0500,
> Hobbyist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> <snip>
> >> I mean come on, "no apps run on Win2k" Wow, that's odd. Every piece of
> >> software I use works fine. (currently about 30 apps, including 4 or 5
> >> of the best selling games of the last few years)
> >
> > Well, except for two applications, everything else works for
> >me as well. I dumped PC Anywhere and my packaged CD-RW software will
> >not install. CDRWin and Gear Audio work fine however. Lotus Smartsuite
> >and MS Office Pro 97 all work fine among MANY others that I have.
> >
> Wouldn't not being able to install PC Anywhere, make remote admin, a bit
more
> difficult ?
>
> <snip>
> >-=Ali M.=-
> >
>
>
You can remote admin via telnet or via another program like VNC or
RemotelyAnywhere or via terminal services in remote admin or applications
mode (depending on what you want to use it for).
AND you can simply patch your version 8 of pcA for it to work - or you can
upgrade to 9 which is W2K compatible.
Choices - you have LOTS of choices...
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 28 Feb 2000 17:59:57 +0000
>>>>> "Donovan" == Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donovan> On 28 Feb 2000 15:00:06 +0000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph T Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Keeping software out of the "public domain" in the sense of
>> maintaining it as propietary also requires force, in the shape of
>> law enforcements.
Donovan> Contracts and technical obstacles could do a lot without
Donovan> special copyright laws. Of course, the technical measures
Donovan> would be enough of a PITA for users that most would be
Donovan> happier under the existing model.
Contracts also require law enforcement, so that does not
really apply. As for technical measures we all know how ineffective
these are in the long term. As the DeCSS case shows someone always
overcomes them no matter how intractable. Which is why there is a law
to stop ways of overcoming technical obstacles have been placed.
Phil
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:00:05 -0500
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89csf4$2e4s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >> Not really. Most unix-to-unix migrations (bsd/bsd, sysV/sysV) are
> >> pretty straightforward and simple.
>
>
> > as if you'd know... ha!
>
> I would know actually. You on the other hand, clearly wouldnt.
>
> > but most "migrations" are from unix to nt these days anyway...
>
> Do you have a source for this assertion?
yes - every time I look at figures of Unix installs and NT installs you see
the unix count dropping and the NT count going up. BUT, ignoring stats
"other guys" do. My own company. We do migrations from *nix to NT all the
time. We love it. Yanking out crap hardware and nightmare software (usually
left in worse states than you can imagine by archiac sys admins who spit on
Windows and therefore have no knowledge and are usually out of a job after
we're through and you can be sure they didn't leave everything in a "nice"
state when they leave). The people in the industry I talk to daily who are
making a WAY more than healthy living replacing *nix with NT all over the
country. THAT supports my assertion better than any graph.
------------------------------
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 17:50:07 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:59:16 -0600, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The design still supports it.
Fat lot of good that does for the consumer.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 04:00:59 +1000
"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89dvgr$4in$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > WDM is "Windows Driver Model". This is a new driver model that was
> > introduced into both Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (not compatible with
> > Windows 95). It allows driers to be targeted at both OS's without
rewriting
> > code.
>
> Neat. I wonder why that USB camera I have constantly bluescreens W2K.
I get the impression your electric shaver could bluescreen it.......
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
