Linux-Advocacy Digest #720, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 23:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (nohow)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development (Bob
Tennent)
I don't want to stir up any concerns... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Producing Quality Code ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (George Marengo)
Re: Producing Quality Code ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:32:52 -0800
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 16:42:17 -0800, Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>josco wrote:
>
>> -- joseph
>>
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 18:54:23 GMT, Forrest Gehrke
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > >>
>> > >> >Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill off OS/2
>> > >> >is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
>> > >
>> > >Even if that were granted, what did MS do? IBM management may
>> > >have been after only a good sized niche, one that MS would
>> > >never have missed. Why when analyzing IBM's "failure" you
>> > >do not question what MS did to totally freeze them out?
>> > >Why act as if there had been no Finding of Fact by Judge Jackson?
>> >
>> > I'm not acting as if their had been no finding... IBM knew what the
>> > terms of their OS bundling contract was; i.e., if they preloaded OS/2
>> > in preference to Windows, they would lose preferential treatment
>> > and pricing status. That wasn't hidden from them, and was in fact
>> > part of the reason why MS was found guilty.
>> >
>> > Given MS's history, even to that point, there were NO indications
>> > that they would ever concede anything... they want it all. If IBM
>> > thought that MS wouldn't miss "a good sized niche", they failed.
>>
>> You have your "facts" all wrong.
>>
>> MS asked IBM to kill OS/2 - Period. Again, Mr. Norris' testimony is
>> available on-line. Of course some times the facts are made to fit the
>> opinion, in this case IBM is culpable. IBM decided to not unilaterally
>> cede markets to MS and also break the law by colluding with MS to not
>> compete.
>>
>> "Hey I told him I'd shoot him if he breathed."
>>
>
>IBM charged an arm and a leg to get an OS/2 devlopment kit while Microsoft gave them
>away free at schools.
>But MS killed off OS/2.
It depends on what time frame you are talking about. When MS and IBM
were working on OS/2 together the dev kit for 1.3 cost IIRC over
$3000. At the time of 2.2 and Warp it was a couple of hundred for a
yearly supscription.
>IBM didn't embrace the concept of CD's and multimedia untell way late in the game,
>forcing users to install 50+ 1.44meg disks.
>But MS killed off OS/2.
>OS/2 refused to support an easy install method, forcing users to edit a 200+ line
>CONFIG.SYS file to add a CD-ROM driver.
>But MS killed off OS/2.
The first version aimed at the home market had full CD support.
>IBM droped all consumer level support for OS/2 forcing users to pay up to 200$ an hour
>for help installing the thing.
>But MS killed off OS/2.
Well after Warp was released and the jig was up. Until then they had
good support. But your point is correct, IBM killed OS/2.
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:29:10 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 02:49:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 01:44:36 GMT, George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
<snip>
>>MS's legal issues didn't kill OS/2, despite what they wanted.
>
>OS/2 is still very much alive. It controls the SE and HMC in IBM's top
>of the line CMOS processors (9672 for you number freaks)
It's not like it's gone, but can you still buy it, or is this like the
Amiga is not dead?
>>Do you really think that MS won't survive a break-up? Ever hear
>>of Standard Oil? Guess what happened to them after they were
>>broken up. Break up MS and you'll end up will smaller versions
>>of the current MS.
>
>MS is going to be crippled...
We'll see... I think they'll just become a mult-headed monster
instead of the monolith that they are now.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: seeUthere.com switches from Linux to Windows DNA for Web site development
Date: 21 Mar 2000 03:14:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 15:16:51 -0500, Drestin Black wrote:
>
>In three months, the team working with Windows DNA caught up with the work
>it had taken the Linux group five months to do.
>
>http://www.microsoft.com/windows/dailynews2/031700.htm
>
>
To see how economical with the truth MS has been on this, see
http://AboutLinux.com/art_seeuthere_a.html
The key conclusion of this very detailed and unbiased analysis:
I believe the major portion of their delays would have been eliminated by a
different choice of tools, and were not per se a result of choosing Linux;
but more due to design and implementation decisions.
What's surprising is that MS, with all their resources and money,
weren't able to find a better example. Perhaps there aren't any!
But I'm sure we'll get lots more FUD.
Bob T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:15:53 GMT
but imagine, someone would need 1e6 Linux runtime licenses.
What might they good for?
Enjoy!
Hans
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Begin forwarded posting
=====================================================================
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:39:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Janina Sajka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Microsoft Outlook and Explorer on Linux?
Resent-Date: 16 Mar 2000 23:42:03 -0000
Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Resent-cc: recipient list not shown: ;
I kid you not.
Microsoft has licensed one million run time licenses from Main Soft
Corporation to port Internet Explorer and Microsoft Outlook to Linux,
according to a presentation by a MainSoft representative to the
Washington
DC Area Linux Users Group meeting yesterday.
Why would Microsoft want to do that? I don't know, but that's what we
heard yesterday.
Why would anyone port a Windows application to Linux? Theories abounded
during the meeting, and no definitve answer was forthcoming.
What does this mean for blind users? Is JAWS for Windows on Linux in
your
future?? According to the MainSoft representative, Windows apps on Linux
still blue screen at the same place. "You get bug for bug
correspondance," he explained. But, at least that doesn't crash the OS
--
just the process.
Janina Sajka, Director
Information Systems Research &
Development
American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Send your message for blinux-list to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Blinux software archive at ftp://leb.net/pub/blinux
Blinux web page at http://leb.net/blinux
To unsubscribe send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with subject line: unsubscribe
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:36:53 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RPBB4.4279$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ywBB4.2223$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:S0BB4.4248$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> The intrusiveness of our government and corporations increases year by
> > year,
> >> and I find it comforting to keep my public profile fairly low.
> >
> > Here you are espousing personal responsibility and making sacrifice for
the
> > common good, yet you hide behind a ficticious name because you find it
> > "comforting".
> >
> > I would call you a hypocrite. Start with yourself before condemning
others
> > on the moral ground.
>
> In what way am I being a hypocrite by calling for better-quality code? My
> choice to remain anonymous on Usenet is a practical one as much as
> anything; were I to use my real e-mail, I would have to wade through
> mountians of spam and flames to get to the "real" mail. Furthermore,
> as I said before, I have good and sufficient reason to keep my affairs
low-
> profile. What I said elsewhere in this thread is true: if you want to
know
> my real identity and I think you would benefit by knowing, I'll tell you.
No, I call you a hypocrite because you insist that others "stand up" for
their ideals, even in the face of hardship. Yet you won't bother to put up
with a few potential flames and spam in order to stand up to your own
ideals.
I use my real name and real email address because I feel that one should
take responsibility for the words they say. Using your real name isn't
going to give you "mountains" of spam. Using your real email address might
(though I get very little).
If you want us to take your opinions seriously, you should be serious enough
to sign your real name.
> > Yet you want people to rise up out of their cubicles and demand change
at
> > the expense of their own "comfort".
>
> Absolutely. But I would also argue that standing up for your principles
is
> not all that dangerous -- in today's climate, a good programmer (even an
> idealistic one) can get a good job almost anywhere. We can pick and
choose
> whom to work for, and how to work; I'm only asking that we make good
choices.
That's only true in major markets. It's also true that you have to wade
through dozens of job interviews and weeks of being unemployed. If you have
children and a family, you can't just quit or risk your job.
> If you're not willing to be part of the solution, you're part of the
problem.
Then sign your real name.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:33:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 20 Mar 2000 23:45:48 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>AmigaDOS's GUI-engine was based on heavily proprietary (albeit
>>fairly-well documented) hardware. Parts of it might be
>>extractable, but the Intuition display was quite dependent
>>on the various Coprocessor(s) -- one of which was the Blitter,
>>a (relatively) fast data mover.
>>
>Have a look at AROS, www.aros.org for a really interesting project regarding
>the extraction of AmigaOS from its original hardware and more.
Sounds interesting.
>
>>It was a beautiful design, all around, for its time. Sigh. :-)
>>
>Still is :)
Actually, there was one wart. A prioritized list was used for
scheduling, which means that, if a lot of processes were running,
the system had to do a bit of searching in order to insert a
process in the proper place in the list. (Since no more than
a couple dozen processes usually ran, this was probably an
acceptable tradeoff as opposed to constructing something more
complicated and space-hungry.) A derivative of this wart
was that the scheduler didn't adjust priorities as processes
waited in the queue, which means that a high-priority process
could in fact lock out just about everyone else -- at least,
until it had to wait for something.
The other flaw -- not really a wart, since the hardware at the
time of the original design just wasn't available! -- is that
it didn't do Virtual Memory Management (VMM) well. Of course,
VMM didn't even exist back in '83 or so for consumer-level equipment.
But these are small flaws, considering that the alternative back
then was the Dumb Operating System. :-) (And I suspect AROS will
improve on these -- after all, it's only been what? 15 years
or so? since the Amiga first came out; we've learned a lot
about OO and computing complexity since then. I hope...)
>
>>I'm not sure where the hardware design is now, though. Last I heard,
>>Gateway had it...or was it a firm in Germany?
>>
>AFAIK Gateway still holds it, but has licensed the patents to another
>company with Amiga-"fanatics" wanting to make THE new Amiga. Will it
>work this time? Only time will tell :)
We shall see. I'll admit, it's going to have to do quite a bit
to upbraid the various video cards on the PC platform. But
there might be good value-added in a well-integrated system;
one plus with the Amiga was that it was very well-balanced,
hardware wise (after all, HAM, hack that it was, could display
thousands of colors before any card on the PC could).
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- can PCs genlock yet? :-)
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:40:32 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 21:20:37 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Root has no restrictions, even when you want there to be restrictions from
>accidental modification without restricting everyone. That's the unix
>philosophy, all or nothing.
No, that's not the Unix philosophy -- it assumes that the
administrator knows what he's doing.
>> And administrator can do the exact same thing.
>
>can, not must.
So you have to make a mistake twice rather than once -- is that
the crux of your argument WRT Administrator vs root?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 19:54:57 -0800
In article <vtBB4.2222$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> mr_organic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Engineers are usually aware of this dichotomy, but elect to
>> put up with it rather than protesting strongly and acting
>> as agents for change.
>
> Engineers that protest become unemployed. Companies are already are moving
> to hiring off-shore labor (H1-B visas are 4x the amount they were just a few
> years ago) and cheap entry-level workforces. The only way to affect change
> is to keep yourself employed. You can't change things if you get fired for
> trying.
>
*snort*
I can't say for sure on Software, but every company I consult with is begging for
engineers, the demand is huge. Provided you avoid wandering down the halls
with a shotgun, getting fired is not a problem. The reason the companies are hiring
as many H1-B's as they can, is because of that demand.
Know any good RF engineers? I have a half dozen companies with projects holding
for design work, and I am not a headhunter. They're periferal to my work.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:49:57 +1000
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nQBB4.2226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > They have full access, yes. What administrator has that root does not
> is
> > > the ability to remove permissions. Yes, the administrator can reclaim
> those
> > > permissions but you have to deliberately do so.
> >
> > you can set things up on a unix machine so that root has to undo things
> > before they can modify something. So what's your point?
>
> Yes, but nobody else can modify that something either.
>
> > root on Unix = all-powerful
> > administrator on NT = all-powerful
> >
> > what's your point eric?
>
> What's your Pawl?
>
> Root has no restrictions, even when you want there to be restrictions from
> accidental modification without restricting everyone. That's the unix
> philosophy, all or nothing.
I think, Erik, what you;re trying to say is best summed up by:
(start exceprt, taken from a Unix programming subject)
On Unix, when a process tries to do something, whether or not it can is
determined by the following algorithm:
If the EUID[1] of the process is 0, access is allowed.
If the EUID of the process matches the st_uid field, access is determined by
the 3 owner bits of the st_mode
If the EUID of the process does not match st_uid, but the EGID[2] matches
st_gid, access is determined by group permissions.
If neither the EUI nor EGID match, access permissions are determined by the
permissions for "other"
[1] Effective User ID
[2] Effective Group ID
(end excerpt)
Whereas on NT *all* resource access go through the security system and are
checked for permissions.
As I understand it, if you are root on Unix then the security system simply
doesn't apply - permissions are not even checked, whereas on NT permissions
are *always* checked, even if you're Administrator.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
