Linux-Advocacy Digest #665, Volume #25 Fri, 17 Mar 00 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("Jim Ross")
Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable ("Jim Ross")
Re: Giving up on NT ("Dan O'Nolan")
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed ("Nik Simpson")
Re: C2 question ("Chad Myers")
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Nik Simpson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:05:26 -0500
> >I did a simple reboot from the Login box and Corel would hang frequently.
> >One time it locked and I had to do a reset (I'm not on a network so
telnet
> >was not possible) to reboot.
> >Apparently that really screwed up the system and would not boot after
that.
> >I hadn't stressed Corel 1.0 up till that point, thus giving no reason to
do
> >that.
>
> Ross appears to be saying that he rebooted the computer
> multiple times, without synching the file system, until he'd
> caused enough corruption that it would no longer work. How
> clever! (But hitting it with a hammer would have been quicker.)
So I can't even reboot now without doing extra commands. That blows chunks.
That seems insane if I must sync and the system doesn't take care of that
itself.
>
> >I have done worse with NT and it's never done that.
>
> You don't *have* to violate proper operating procedures to
> make NT crash; running enough diverse programs and processes
> on it will often bring it down.
At least it doesn't crash itself with no help.
>
> >> >> >Corel 1.0 feels like a sad replica of Windows 9X now.
> >> If Ross's criterion were applied to Windows 95, it would be
> >> seen as a "sad replica" of Windows 3.1,
> >
> >Windows 95 looked nothing liek Windows 3.1
> >
> >and "not ready for
> >> the desktop",
> >
> >I agree Windows 3.1 was never ready for the desktop and feel it was a
> >nightmare I'm glad is over.
>
> Ross is being purposely obtuse and deceptive here. In parts
> of my post that he snipped out, he was quoted as saying that
> Linux is not suitable for desktop use because it uses differ-
> ent keystrokes to invoke functions than the most commonly
> used OS, Windows9X, does. So I illustrated the absurdity of
> that criterion by noting that Windows9X, Windows3.1, MS-DOS,
> and computers in general all failed to behave the way the
> previous and most widely used technology did, and so by his
> principle they would all be declared unsuitable for use.
Other people have a problem when I keep quoting the whole message, so I
can't make everyone happy, sorry.
Note: I said no such thing.
>
> But Ross doesn't want to admit that his principle makes no
> sense, because he formulated it in order to justify his
> propaganda that Linux is not usable as a desktop system.
I said that out-of-the-box Linux system using sucks.
My proof is more than one website on how to fix poor out-of-the-box fonts.
I see no such websites for Windows.
Note: Windows doesn't need it. Fonts look very smooth.
>
> >> Windows 9X is an *arbitrary* frame of reference, which is
> >> considered "excellent" by some people and lousy by others.
> >> The fact that it's widely used at the present time doesn't
> >> mean that it's good, only that Microsoft's (often fraudulent
> >> and coercive) marketing techniques have been effective.
> >
> >Benchmarks are often done against something well know.
> >Windows 9X has over 90% market share.
> >Thus I would not use OS/2, or Commodore 64 to compare Linux with.
>
> Again he's saying that software should be evaluated according
> to its similarity to the most widely used software, which just
> happens to be from Microsoft. Of course, he would never admit
> to be propagandizing in favor of Microsoft.
Who cares who it's from?
I use Win9X as a benchmark since people are most familiar with it.
The fact that that happens to be Microsoft is your hangup Mark.
>
> >> Unquestioning belief that it's the right, proper, natural way
> >> to do things, and the standard against which all operating
> >> systems should be judged, is similar to the unquestioning
> >> belief of religious fundamentalists in their particular dogma,
> >> hence the use of that metaphor.
> >
> >I didn't say Win9X was good or bad, bad it's a starting point in
reference.
> >Like stability of Win9X to NT, or stability of Win95 to Linux for
example.
> >Here Win95 loses both times. Still, a good point of reference, as I know
> >well how stable Win9X is, as does likely almost everyone.
>
> That paragraph contains no reasoning in support of his claim
> that MS-Windows is a rational reference point.
I don't have to. By definition Win9X is a good benchmark.
Goto dictionary.com to prove it to yourself Mark.
What use would a benchmark be if the benchmark itself weren't a known good?
Note: Absolutely useless.
Mark, it is natural to take the pepsi challenge.
>
> >> Jim Ross has trouble figuring out how to do something in
> >> Linux, and for some reason doesn't want to request or accept
> >> assistance. He then claims that therefore *Linux itself*
> >> "isn't ready for the desktop"! This is like Jeff Szarka
> >> and his bogus Linux installation scam all over again.
> >
> >Hey, it's my opinion. You can leave it.
> >Other agree with me.
>
> Those others being the same few pro-Microsoft spammers that
> have been operating here for a year.
Mark, you are in fact the radical.
>From one Linux user to another, your conspiracy theory gives Linux, its
supporters, and yourself a bad name.
>
> >I've struggled with Linux on the desktop and have not yet felt
comfortable
> >with it is that role.
> >
> >> Linux may not be ready for *Ross's personal desktop*, or,
> >> more accurately, he may not be ready for it.
> >
> >Same thing right? My opinion, not fact, and no scientific studies were
done
> >by me proving it.
>
> But *not* the same thing as his claim that desktop Linux is
> not useful for anyone else.
...not useful for anyone else...in my opinion. Yes, the same thing.
>
> >> But his minor
> >> problems, and his strange refusal to accept help in solving
> >> them, have no relevance to the suitability of Linux for
> >> everyone else.
> >
> >I did accept help. I can now paste URLs in Netscape using middle button,
> >and I could before.
>
> Ross doesn't consider his articles worth reading before he
> posts them; why should anyone else read them after?
It's a free country. Don't.
>
> >> >> This despite the fact that many millions of people are
> >> >> already using them, often on desktop computers.
> >
> >That doesn't imply that it's ready for the general public.
> >I think IDC gives that number is percentage as 4% Linux desktop market
> >share.
> >It doesn't sound that impressive now.
>
> Ross is saying that even though millions of people are already
> using desktop Linux, that doesn't prove it's usable,
It doesn't prove it's usable by the general public.
Millions is not proof of anything out of hundreds of millions of computer
users.
because
> a lot more people are still using Microsoft Windows. That
> makes no sense, but it looks like he's going to repeat it
> over and over again.
Nope.
>
> >> getting help
> >> for any problems they encounter certainly *does* make it
> >> usable (and thus non-sucking).
> >
> >It doesn't change the out-of-the-box experience, which isn't up to par in
my
> >opinion.
>
> By his own admission, Linux wouldn't be satisfactory to him
> unless it was exactly like Microsoft Windows. And for some
> mysterious reason, he feels obliged to post lots of articles
> in this newsgroup trying to make others think the same way.
No. Exactly would include everything.
I think I refer to Linux (the system) having poor looking fonts
out-of-the-box.
To Mark that covers all 100+ attributes of both Windows.
Hmmm...
>
> >> >Fonts are known by everyone to be a problem.
> >>
> >> Which can easily be fixed by following Donovan's HOW-TO,
> >> as has already been explained here.
> >
> >Maybe someone should tell the distribution people about it then, so fonts
> >get fixed a handful of times, and not millions of times.
> >
> >> >I want people to be damn clear before they start what the issues are.
> >>
> >> Ross's "issues" are the result of his belief that Microsoft
> >> windows is the "excellent frame of reference" by which all
> >> operating systems should be judged.
> >
> >Well said. Yes.
> >Of course an excellent frame of reference doesn't say anything about the
> >excellent of said benchmark OS.
> >It's just a starting place. Maybe just Mark doesn't understand this
> >concept.
>
> Maybe Ross doesn't understand that he's contradicting himself
> within a single paragraph. If you compare X with benchmark B
> and say that X is no good because it's not like B, then there
> is an implied assertion that B *is* good.
More like if you compare X with benchmark B in respect to fonts, and say
that X is no good because it's not like B (WRT) fonts, then
there is an implied assertion that B *is* good (WRT) fonts (being good
out-of-the-box.)
>
> >bench·mark (benchmärk)
> >n.
> >
> >Often bench mark. A surveyor's mark made on a stationary object of
> >previously
> >determined position and elevation and used as a reference point in tidal
> >observations and surveys.
> >
> >To measure (a rival's product) according to specified standards in order
to
> >compare
> >it with and improve one's own product.
>
> This proves nothing except that Ross can read and type,
> although not neatly.
And this proves you can't be reasoned with since you won't
a. read
b. understand
c. incorporate this information
>
> >> Those whose goal is actually using Linux (rather than per-
> >> suading others not to), and who read the manual and seek and
> >> accept the public user support, are generally pleased, not
> >> disappointed.
> >
> >I did no such thing.
>
> 8^)
>
> >I mentioned what problems I thought there were with the out-of-the-box
> >experience in using Linux as a desktop.
> >I'm sure you're not saying people don't have minds of their own.
>
> No, but Ross was, by telling everyone that Linux was useless
> as a desktop system because *he* couldn't figure out how to
> copy and paste.
Give it up already.
Just because you say it doesn't make it sure.
Note: Not only didn't I say that, I don't believe that and never have.
Linux is not useless as a desktop system.
I could figure Linux out.
Note: Mark is the only person that said otherwise. Mark is the enemy of
Linux and Linux users.
>
> >> >I clearly have some issues with Linux on the desktop.
> >> >I use Linux on the server myself, where it's best suited.
> >>
> >> Perhaps that's where it's best suited for Jim Ross,
> >
> >I do.
>
> ???
>
> >but his
> >> generalization to everyone else is without merit.
> >
> >I did no such thing. I talked about my personal experience.
>
> He's lying; he said that, as a result of his personal
> experiences:
Mark's lying. He's a lies. He doesn't deserve Linux.
Go back to Windows.
>
> "I don't feel Linux is ready yet for the desktop."
>
> That's a general statement applying to everyone, not just
> to him.
>
How twisted...It does not. That statement says nothing about who it is not
ready for.
I could be talking about my grandmother.
Grandma is old. Here eyes aren't what they used to be, and she couldn't do
email
for hours with the fonts of Linux+X.
Mark, this thread is beyond silly at this point.
I won't argue with you anymore.
I know what I see and believe.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 is pretty reliable
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 02:07:28 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:15:57 -0500, Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >Nikola D Krgovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> David Goldstein wrote:
> >>
> >> > Donn Miller wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Bad news for us unix types -- I've been asking around in various
NG's,
> >> > > and people have been telling me that Windowss 2000 is extremely
> >> > > reliable. From what I've heard so far, W2K has been up on people's
> >> > > servers, and running for 1-3 months now without a crash. Sounds
> >> > > pretty stable to me.
> >> >
> >
> >Actually I don't think effects Linux at all.
> >W2K are really different beasts.
> >
> >If anything W2K and Linux are even more different than NT and Linux.
> >W2K includes the kitchen sink, and Linux is modular.
> >
> >That's a major reason to like Linux. Stability is just a nice plus Linux
> >users have had for years now.
>
> Actually, M$ thinks that they are going to be able to strip
> the cruft and bulk away from NT5 and deploy it as a console
> gaming OS (xbox).
>
> --
> |||
> Resistance is not futile. / | \
>
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
I wish they would. And maybe offer that as a good replacement for Win9X
series.
I'm not sure if even MS could pull that off.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Dan O'Nolan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 06:45:07 -0800
Chad Myers wrote in message <8ar0iu$6kr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"mr_organic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Seriously, though, Emacs *isn't* that hard to pick up. And once you
learn
>> it, you'll rapidly discover that it eclipses nearly every other editor
out
>> there. I've found over the years that Emacs suits for almost everything
I
>> do -- coding, word-processing, editing, sorting, searching, even basic
>> web-surfing and news reading.
>
>A matter of hours?
>
>I mean, seriously, is it really necessary to have to LEARN my text editor?
You don't. KDE has a very simplistic, text editor (The name escapes me at
the moment. I haven't used KDE in quite some time). You'd feel right at
home.
>
>I can fire up TextPad for Windows, which is one of the best text editors
>around (IMHO, syntax highlighting, and much, much more) and I am up and
>running in a matter of SECONDS and doing all that Emacs does and more.
>
>There's probably a few, if not more, things that Emacs does that TextPad
>doesn't, but I would probably never be able to find them, let alone
>master them in Emacs anyhow. The time it would take me to find and practice
>them in Emacs, I could just do it manually in TextPad.
People had a learning curve when learning to use windows 3.1 from DOS, and
Windows 95 from 3.1. Your point?
>
>I'm not sure, though, it's possible TextPad has much more than Emacs, which
>is an equally likely case.
>
>However, I think it's ludicrous for you guys to consider it acceptable that
>I have to learn and train to use a text editor for some of the most basic
>things when, in a GUI, I can be using them in seconds with little training.
>
>This specific case, a GUI is much better than a CLI. I don't want to start
>that debate, but you have to admit, that, in this one specific case, GUIs
>are just simply more intuitive and have a lot less learning curve.
>
>-Chad
>
>
But sometimes not necisarrily faster. Thats why a GUI hasn't totally
replaced the command line in Linux.
-Dan
"All is not as it may seem. life is little but a dream."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:35:31 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Jim Ross wrote:
> > >I did a simple reboot from the Login box and Corel would hang frequently.
> > >One time it locked and I had to do a reset (I'm not on a network so
> telnet
> > >was not possible) to reboot.
> > >Apparently that really screwed up the system and would not boot after
> that.
> > >I hadn't stressed Corel 1.0 up till that point, thus giving no reason to
> do
> > >that.
> >
> > Ross appears to be saying that he rebooted the computer
> > multiple times, without synching the file system, until he'd
> > caused enough corruption that it would no longer work. How
> > clever! (But hitting it with a hammer would have been quicker.)
>
> So I can't even reboot now without doing extra commands. That blows chunks.
> That seems insane if I must sync and the system doesn't take care of that
> itself.
>
You can reboot with no problem. Mark is wrong or else he is assuming that by
"reboot" you meant hit the power button. But clicking on the reboot button
from the login box should cause no problems.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Virus Info Enclosed
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:35:37 -0500
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8at5vd$vtv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > tony roth wrote:
> >
> > How about a non-power user receiving a Word document infected with one
of
> the
> > many Macro Virii via e-mail? Not all virii depend on power user access
> rights.
>
> But it still can't do any more damage than that user's rights allow.
>
> > Another thing - User ends his/her day at work. Shut down the system -
but
> > forgets the stiffy (infected with a boot virus) in the drive. Next day
> comes,
> > power up - but - oops... Infected disk in drive a causing a new fresh
boot
> > virus on the hard drive.
>
> Not if it's NT on an NTFS disk.
Beep, wrong answer. If the floppy has a boot sector virus and you boot from
it it will copy itself to the boot sector of the hard drive, doesn't matter
filesystem the hard drive is formatted with. On an NT system it will often
render the drive unbootable because it assumes the code in the bootsector is
for DOS/Win and trashes NT's bootloader, I suspect it would do the same to
LILO. That's why the original poster recognised that this scenario is just
as much of a problem for LINUX users as for NT users, boot sector viruses
are equal opportunity infections :-)
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: C2 question
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 13:47:15 GMT
http://acl.bestbits.at/example.html
Then why are people making ACLs for Linux, if it's so great?
I mean, these people must be stupid, because, as you have
offered here, those dumb security experts are wrong about
Linux's 70's era MacOS-esq Permission Bits scheme and that
DAC isn't as good as Permission Bits?
-Chad
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8argtl$1d47$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8arbg9$1d47$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > How can you specify a list of groups that have access to a specific file,
> >> > for example?
> >>
> >> Give group read/write/excecute access to that file, chgrp the file to the
> >> group in question.
>
> > So that would allow you to have more than one group have permissions to a
> > file? What if you wanted 3 groups?
>
> I think that groups work slightly differently than youre thinking....Theres
> no reason to have three groups have access to a file at the exclusion of
> the rest, you simply add the individual logins that you want to have access
> to the file to the group to which you are granting access.
>
> It may seem like this is a round-about way to do things, but it becomes
> very handy when youre scripting large chunks of functionality.
>
> >> Youd do it with Sudo. But its a dumb thing to do, and it doesnt have much
> >> to do with discretionary access as defined in the above mentioned document.
>
> > Are you kidding? ACLs are at the heart of DAC. Being able to EASILY add
> > users, groups, and other types of authenticated resources to a permissions
> > list for a given resource are necessary for fine grained access control.
>
> I'm approaching this from a different perspective I think. All of the things
> that you would like to be able to do are possible, and yes, some of them are
> a big kludgey as they approach fine-grained access control.
>
> But it *is* possible. Sudo isnt doing anything that UNIX cant do on its own,
> its simply collecting functions and redistributing them.
>
> > Using a bunch of backhanded techniques is not only difficult and obtrusive,
> > but it's plain silly for something that seems so natural.
>
> The backhanded techniques are nessesary when youre talking about an operating
> system like unix. You should have seen it BEFORE sudo. It was an enormous
> pain in the ass to do everything that Sudo does by hand.
>
> And there are utilities beyond Sudo that give you naturally even finer grained
> access (with easier to understand conf files too).
>
> When youre talking about unix and unix-like operating systems, this kind of
> functionality is *always* lent by reorganizing existing functions. A safe
> mode of thinking is that under unix, you can pretty much do anything you can
> imagine, its just a matter of figuring out how to organize existing functions.
>
> > "I have a file, I want this guy, that guy, this group, and that group to
have
> > access to this file, but this guy should only have read, and this group
should
> > have modify"
>
> Yes, but the point is that what you were asking is indeed possible.
>
> >> > What about Auditing? Can you audit a specific user's actions on a
specific
> >> > file when excercised through a group?
> >>
> >> Yes, you can do this with Sudo.
>
> > What, exactly does sudo do? And how come, on an average RH 6.0 install, I
can't
> > seem to find the sudo command anywhere?
>
> You have to go get it. Its part of the latest Suse and Debian distribs.
>
> And beyond that, now youre talking about distributions, not the operating
system.
>
> The operating system of linux is little more than a kernel, a filesystem and
> a few functions. Everything else is built atop by whoever is doing the
> distributing.
>
> I daresay that if you are going to define linux by distribution, it wouldnt
> be too terribly difficult to come up with a distribution that would earn a C2
> readily. All youd need is a few good programmers---again because its all a
> matter of reorganizing existing functions. (which are more often than not
> themselves a reorganization of existing functions).
>
> >> > Can you do explicit Deny? And when I mean Deny, I don't mean to NOT give
> >> > someone permissions, I mean, explicitly disallow them from accessing a
> >> > resource? This is a requirement of C2.
> >>
> >> Yes. You can do this with both file permissions and Sudo.
>
> > You can explicitly deny one person, and explicitly allow another?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 08:53:11 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8aru6p$feu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > When you get into complex back-end business integration,
> > > clustering isn't as trivial. You can do clustering with
> > > DCOM, CORBA, RPC, or MQ, and you can add Tuxedo, CICS, CORBA
> > > Transaction Services, or MQ Transaction services to integrate
> > > with XA compliant databases and servers to provide transactional
> > > integrity.
> >
> > And your point is?
>
> The methods Microsoft touts (DCOM, MTS, and MSMQ) are microsoft-only
> solutions. You can only use them on NT or Win2K. This means that
> when you are getting into large-scale solutions, you are still stuck
> to Microsoft platforms.
>
Seems to work pretty well for some very large sites, DELL for instance, what
sites do you have in mind that are too big to be handled in this way? Web
sites tend to be pretty easy to balance accross multiple machines so
relative power of a single machine doesn't seem to be that big a deal, how
many web sites do you know that run on say an E-10K machine?
> > > At a lower level, you can use PVM and MPI to create distributed
> > > calls that can anonymously be routed to other procesessors while
> > > still supporting the context of the calling process/processor.
> >
> > Irrelevant to websites.
> Actually, many e-business and e-commerce sites that do a great deal
> of sophisticated customer relations management do rely on
> data-warehousing techniques and very large engines such as SP/2 and
> E-10k machines. Both make very effective use of these technologies.
Name some.
> > Are you saying that an Oracle licence
> > LINUX for use on a largescale website
> > is $120, I somehow doubt that figure.
> Progres comes with unlimited users. SQL database, 2 phase commit,
> and ODBC compatible. When you need to switch to Sybase or DB2,
> you can get site licenses at reasonable prices.
So when you need to switch to an industrial strenght DB, you end up paying
for database licences. How many largescale sites can you point to that are
using Progres as the backend. And anyway it doesn't invalifdate my original
(which you seem to have snipped) that spread the FUD about needing CALs for
an NT webserver which is BS.
> > NT boxes can also do their own DNS, so the same rather crude DNS load
> > balancing is possible.
> > However CISCO local director and similar solutions
> > are much more popular at web sites because they
> > give finer granularity.
> And CISCO runs BSD UNIX as it's core operating system.
So what, a router is a blackbox. The main reason they run things like a BSD
kernel is hsitorical, CISCO has been developing routing code on top of BSD
kernels since the mid-80s why would they change. However, a BSD kernel is
not a requiremen for Local Director like functionality, WLBS is a "shim"
driver in the network stack on NT and does just the same.
> > > Microsoft has tried to lock Linux out of USB, DVD, PCI-PnP, and
> > > several of it's other key technologies. Eventually, the proprietary
> > > content was either disclosed or hacked.
>
> Microsoft required each member of each organization to sign
> comprehensive nondiscosure agreements before participating in their
> standards bodies.
Care to provide a reference for that assertion, or should we just take your
word for it.
> Normally, if you are trying to establish industry standards, you
> want the standards open and published.
> Microsoft eventually saw that it was loosing the market to CORBA
> and offered to publish a brain-dead specification of DCOM that allowed
> CORBA implementors to map DCOM IDL to CORBA IDL. You still can't
> implement DCOM Clients with that specification.
And what about all the shenaigans Sun has got upto with the JAVA
standardisation process.
> > What evidence do you have the Microsoft
> > was repsonsible for any of these, If
> > I recall correctly, the DVD issue was
> > caused by the AAMP, something that MS
> > is not even a member of.
> Microsoft was a key member of DVD-CSS, and was the sole
> provider of software to decode DVD-CSS. Interesting that
> you can download the decoder software from Microsoft,
> but you can't even show the link to Norway.
Because Microsoft has paid its dues to AAMPA and can thuis distribute
software to decode DVDs, also the Microsoft code will not bypass the dumbass
region encoding that the DVD standard got saddled with. The movie industry
is the one driving the limitations of the DVD standard not Microsoft and
they the movie industry is doing it to protect copyright and movie release
cycles, not Microsoft. All somebody had to do wqas pay the licence fee and
they could produce a DVD player for LINUX, the problem arose because some
members of the LINUX community beleive that everything should be free.
> > PCI-PnP requires a licence, and that is controlled
> > by the PCI folks whoa re primarily run by the chipset
> > and hardware vendors, same goes for USB.
> Both of which were implemented and pushed by Microsoft, often
> at the cost of open and published standards like Fire-Wire.
Intel were the big force behind PCI and USB, not Microsoft.
> > What you mean is that the LINUX folks didn't want to pay
> > to join these clubs
> Actually, Bob Young stated at the Raleigh Linux Expo that he
> would be happy to join the clubs and publish binaries where
> necessary. There are several drivers that are published in
> binary formats that are not GPL. When possible, these are
> included as RPMs on the main distribution, when royalties
> must be paid, these binaries are placed on the secondary
> service.
So what you are saying is that when Redhat decided to play by the same rules
as the rest of the industry and licence the PCI-PnP specs they had full
access just like everybody else.
> Red Hat DID pay and did receive key PCI-PNP information from
> Adaptec who was a member of the PCI standard. Microsoft had
> promised to give SCSI a much bigger role in future computers
> and renigged when it was discovered that Linux ran faster on
> SCSI than NT did.
In what way can Microsoft give SCSI a bigger role? They ship drivers for
Adaptec products on their CDs, it's up to the buying public and the hardware
vendors to decide what disk I/F they buy. This is just more conspricary
theory bullshit.
> > and in your deluded mind that equates
> > to some vast Illuminati conspiracy from
> > the evil Microsoft empire.
> The last time someone made a comment like that was about 6 months
> before the DOJ case. His name was Roger. Judge Jackson's findings
> of fact confirmed all but two of my accusations.
I don't recall Judge Jackson even discussing issues like USB/DVD,PCI-PNP
etc. He has more sense than that.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
