Linux-Advocacy Digest #741, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 01:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Disproving the lies. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Craig Kelley)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:33:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <v%sx4.6$897.392@client>,
> <huge snip of redundant denial and crap>
>
> I like you Rex because I can snip away
> huge chunks where it LOOKs like you
> are about to actually make a point but
> never do and pluck information out of
> the thin air that contradicts what everyone
> who actually uses the product knows to be true.
> But the best part is finding that juicy paragraph where
> you spout something so blatantly wrong that it's
> just impossible to miss and therefore must be
> highlighted to demonstrate just how full of shit you
> really are. Lets see... oh here it is:
> > Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and IBM are
> > offering their flagship databases
> > on Linux and Linux compatible systems
> > (the BSD variants). BEA is
> > offering Tuxedo, and IBM has MQSeries in Beta.
> > Windows 2000 breaks
> > nearly all of the existing 3rd party software, most of the legacy
> > Microsoft software, and doesn't show much promise of generating any
> > significant revenue.
>
> So, W2K breaks nearly all existing 3rd party
> software and most of MS's own software?
This was based on reports of 64,000 bugs identified in
the release version of Winows 2000.
> I have facts that show that it's quite the opposite.
Let's see them. What programs, written and released in
production mode PRIOR to 1998, run without modification
on Windows 2000.
> The VAST majority of all Win9x and NT4
> applications run just fine under W2K,
Feel free to give me a list of which versions of
legacy third party applications run unmodified on
Win2K, then give me a list of those that require
modifications.
By run, I mean without modification, without substitution
of private DLLs, without registration of special OCX libraries,
and without replacing the EXE files of the original release.
The good news is that Windows 2000 has mitigated some of the
"DLL Hell" we go through with Windows, but then again, we haven't
even seen Service Pack 1 yet.
This is really quite normal for Microsoft - par for the course.
NT wasn't really stable untile Service Pack 3. Windows 95 wasn't
really solid until the "B release". Windows 98 is getting more
manageable with the secondary release.
I will admit though, Microsoft was very smart to offer Windows 2000
Upgrade prices to Windows 95 and Windows 98 customers as well as
Windows NT customers. It is a bit confusing though. According to
the press releases, the upgrade from Windows 98 was supposed to be
about $300 and yet I'm seeing it in CompUSA for $200.
I have a feeling that Microsoft may even have a sleeper. It's
actually possible that over the next year or so, Windows 2000
will be replacing Windows 9x on systems with the memory, hard drive,
and processor speed to handle it. It might even get 25% of the
Windows market. Let's face it. If you love Windows and you wish
your system didn't crash, Windows 2000 isn't a bad deal.
Personally, I like the "bang for the buck" that I get with Linux.
I like the fact that my development tools, management utilities,
graphics applications, and even an office suite is included in
a package that cost 1/3 the price of the Windows 2000 upgrade
which include notepad, wordpad, paint, and a brain-damaged version
of telnet.
I just had to go out and spend $50 for Works so that I could read
a document which contained a "watermark" in the word document.
Lotus WordPro read it but put the watermark on top. WordPerfect
also put the watermark on top. Wordpad just crashed, and
even Works bombed. I finally had to install my $300 Office "upgrade"
on the NT partition. As soon as I saw what the problem was, I
removed the watermark and all of the other suites could easily read
the document. In fact, the watermark appeard as a big box on Office
97 - appearantly a consultant decided to be creative with his Office
2000 processor. When he did the "Save As" Word 97 format, everything
got wierd.
And then there's that $400 project manager.
And the $500 C compiler. I did find an "educational version"
of VC++ for about $100 and one for VB6 for an additional $100.
Unfortunately, since I use these professionally, I had to choose
between the pair of $400 packages and Linux. I wrote the code
in Linux, passed it over to a VC++ developer, and after several
modifications, we had a trivial utility.
> and those that don't are being patched
> quickly or new versions prepared for release.
This is the point. Microsoft changes a few pointers, moves
a few semaphores, and changes some APIs and expects the
entire third party application developer body to make substantial
modifications to the code.
> How do you think you can sneak
> this crap in here and not have every
> one spot it immediately?
You are claiming that nearly every piece of software
(O.K. you said the "VAST Majority" which could be 51% but it
was worded like you meant 95%) written for Windows 95 or
Windows NT (any version) runs unmodified and unpatched
on Windows 2000 unmodified and unpatched.
And you believe that people will buy that.
> I mean, people have bought and are using W2K
> every single minute of the day and they are
> the truth tellers and all over the world
> people are saying: hey, this damned
> thing works and works friggin' great.
As usual, the reviews are mixed. The reviews
on Microsoft's site of course are always glowing
and filled with unqualified and unabashed praise.
But we both know that many these customers have signed
special agreements which forbid them from making
disparaging remarks and obligate them to write
product reviews which must be approved by Microsoft.
It's not a problem. I've worked for some companies who
have signed similar agreements and written similar glowing
reviews. In fact, I watched one "industry analyst" cuss
and swear as he waited through a series of BSODs on NT 4.0
(Service Pack 1) while he wrote his "glowing review". He
showed me a copy and we both had a big laugh. Unfortunately,
his review was so good that his boss actually believed him
and he was assignet to manage a huge IT project based entirely
on NT 4.0 - 6 months later, he was 800% over budget and 500% late
and looking for a new job. The company had a crash course for
project managers to teach them not to make rediculous promises
and implemented a substantial risk management program.
Actually, the Windows 2000 release was very quiet, and get
the feedback from customers is that compared to any other
version of Microsoft Windows, Windows 2000 is pretty stable.
Applications vendors are grunting and growling over having to
release new versions of software for Windows 2000 when the market
is so small, but at least they don't have to scuttle Linux development
to make the necessary revisions.
MTS is also very nice. It isn't tuxedo, but it definately makes
programming servers much easier. It's ALMOST as easy as Linux
or UNIX.
> "doesn't show much promise of
> generating any significant revenue" - you
> somehow missed the fact that in less than
> one month W2K has exceeded even
> the most optomistic projected sales
> in the RETAIL market alone!
> Not even counting large corporate sales and
> worldwide sales of any kind.
Given that Microsoft had pre-sold nearly 5 million copies
with NT 4.0 to corporate customers and certain retail customers
who jumped through the right hoops, I'm not terribly surprised.
Unfortunately this didn't generate any REVENUE.
Microsoft's venture with Anderson indicates that Microsoft is
looking to follow the Linux revenue model. By getting a piece
of the consulting and outsourcing pie, they can generate a
revenue stream based on support. It's actually a pretty good
model, but it also means that Microsoft is now competitor to
a number of consulting firms.
> I mean, MS and not even a winvocate like myself
> ever predicted great sales in retail
> (W2K is a business OS, we say) but, bingo
> it's so fantastic and so many
> people are using it and telling everyone they know;
> "Hey buy W2K, it never crashes and is faster and
> much better than anything else I've ever used"
Thanks to input from the C.O.L.A. group. :-)
Again, when you are used to having Windows 95 or Windows 98
crashing every day and you suddenly can get Windows 2000
which can go for abouth a MONTH without crashing (which is
really quite excellent - nearly 99.98% availability (as published
by Microsoft) about 10 minutes of down-time per month.
It requires some hardware upgrades. A pentium II 300, 128 meg,
and a 6 gig drive are strongly suggested - even then you will
need to allocate a very large page file.
> that it's actually breaking sales expectations in retail.
I've always said that if Microsoft made NT available to the
general public for around $100, that NT would get much more
of the Windows market share than it currently gets.
If the $198 retail price for Windows 2000 professional upgrade
from Windows 95/98 I saw at CompUSA is a real price, I'm
not suprised that people are curious, even plopping down some
cash. I still use Windows 95 occaisionally and if, as you say,
I could just instally Windows 2000 and get NT reliability without
trashing Netscape Communicator, Lotus Notes 4.5, SmartSuite, and
all of the other third party products - I'd certainly be willing
to give it a shot. But I'm backing everything up with ghost
before I even think of trying it. The last time I tried converting
a Windows 95 system to NT I was very sorry. The attempt to convert
from Windows 95 to Windows 98 was also "entertaining".
What service packs have been issued?
> You are really something Rex ol'boy...
> but no one is buying it...
> the crap you shovel that is...
I'm a volunteer. You get paid to do what you do.
> > Why create a database server to compete with SQL Server bundleware.
> > Why create an Office Suite to compete with MS-Office bundleware.
> > Why create new products for Win2K when Microsoft will put you out
> > of business by feeding your trade secrets to a
> > third-rate competitor.
>
> Why start any new car company?
But would you want to start a new car company if you
knew that no dealer would dare to carry your product
for fear of reprisals from Ford, GM, AND Chrysler.
> Why start ANY new dot.com company?
The Internet is a wide-open market - heavily competitive
(no thanks to your boss). The biggest challenge is getting
and keeping a user's loyalty.
> Why start any resturant?
But why start a burger stand on a corner where Burger King,
McDonalds, Taco Bell, and Kentucky fried chicken have already
established the market - and where the local franchisees have
managed to get the only available slot rezoned into residential
property - the health inspector is the McDonald's owner's brother,
the Mayor is the Burger King owner's sister, and the local Sherrif
also owns the Taco Bell. And the Kentucky fried chicken is owned
by the leader of the local Biker gang.
Go ahead - get the capital, get the investors, mortgage your
house, and then try to explain why two months after your doors
opened, the health inspector shuts you down, the bikers burn you
down, the sherrif arrests you for arson, and the mayor seizes all
assets to cover the cost of putting out the fire.
> Why make any independent movies?
If you have theaters and cable channels to show them in, it's
a good business - made even better with the ability to offer
teasers and downloads via the internet. But what if the FCC,
at the prodding of NBC, Time-Warner/AOL, and CBS suddenly decides
that only "approved networks" can publish movies - and the
networks have mega-mergered to gain control of all television,
cable, radio, movie theaters, and then in a series of mergers,
the entire organization ends up under the control of one person
who has publicly stated that his mission in life is to destroy
the subversive independent film makers who challenge "Family Values".
He also has a confederate flag hanging from the balcony of his
mansion, and wants to repeal the 1st and 14th amendment.
> Why should anyone trying to
> do anything that anyone else has done well?
Ask the people in Alphabet City what it was like to have
Mayor Gulianni evict them from the "Squats" and turn
the property over to one of his largest contributors instead
of letting the condemed buildings (for which the repairs had
been made by the squatters) be settled under the urban homestead act.
Many of these people were "starving artists" who were suddenly in
very high demand for the creation of web pages and web content.
They had wired the buildings for ethernet and even installed
redundant generators.
The third party software developers like Borland, DBASE, WordPerfect,
Lotus, ButtonWare, Stacker, QuarterDeck, and others spend millions
of dollars and thousands of unpaid hours to create software that
made MS-DOS, OS/2, and Windows 3.x look outstanding. And Microsoft
thanked them by telling the OEMs that if they installed anything
other than Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Internet
Explorer, and Microsoft utilities, that they would lose their right
to sell Microsoft Windows.
IBM was even told - after paying several hundred million dollars
for OS/2, that unless they stopped selling Lotus Notes, Lotus
SmartSuite, and OS/2 and sold exclusively Windows 95, Microsoft
Office, and Microsoft Explorer - that they would not only be unable
to sell ANY Windows 95, but they would also have to pay for several
million Windows licenses. Furthermore, IBM was told that unless
they cooperated, Microsoft would disclose that IBM had pirated
millions of copies of Windows (copies that were never shipped because
the machines were shipped with OS/2 instead).
Keep in mind that IBM gave Microsoft billions in funding, advertizing,
promotional support, honorable mentions in white-papers, access to
the finest researchers and their facilities, and support. And
Microsoft thanked IBM by witholding the Windows 95 license until 15
minutes before the grand release event. It cost IBM several billion
dollars.
> Let's just lay down and surrender?
It's a bad idea to try and kiss a Cobra. No matter how pretty
it looks, how still it sits, and how docile it appears to be,
once you reach a certain threshold, it's bite is certain and
nearly always fatal.
Microsoft has been consistant over the last 20 years. It is like
the snake that bites the man who tries to show it compassion.
Perhaps under Steve Ballmer, some of this treachery will be reversed.
But the actions of Microsoft's marketing organizations, and the
deals with Anderson indicate that the problem could get worse, not
better.
> Good thing people like you aren't in charge...
I have advised thousands of companies - most of the people who
followed my advice are now incredibly wealthy. They paid remarkably
little, in many cases, it was merely my hobby. I tought them how
to put a big hoop at the end of the stick, grab the snake from behind,
and smash it's head into the wall - then eat the meat.
I taught 3000 publishers to become webmasters,
portals, and e-commerce sites.
I taught 3000 BBS operators to become ISPs.
I taught them how to prototype using Linux and convert to
Solaris, AIX or HP when the job got too big.
When AOL was offering access to 1 million single-service subscribers
in exchange for 85% of all revenue earned and minimum guarantees -
I was offering acces to 8 million internet users in exchange for
1/10th of 1% (which I asked for but never bothered to collect) and
a $500 initial investment.
When Microsoft was demanding $4/month/user from each web site and
a $1 million minimum, I was offering tips on how to pool search
engines (FreeWAIS servers) so as to give access to millions of
articles - by this time, there were 20 million internet users,
Microsoft had 2 million.
When Microsoft was offering "Enterprise Sites" costing $1/2 million
per server with 99.95% availability, I was offering "Linux clusters"
costing $5,000/cluster and offering 99.999% availability (99.994% per
server).
When Microsoft was driving Netscape out of the PC market by offering
a free Browser, I was offering Jim Barksdale the opportunity to
include a free Operating System with his browser (two weeks later
he signed the first deal with Caldera, a month later, the deal with
Red-Hat).
> What remains? Specialty niche programs for niche industries?
That's what Microsofts has left to the third party developers.
> Custom solutions with more risk than
> a new venture start-up on a shoestring?
Most of the new development for the Microsoft platform has been
on a consulting basis, and many customers were demanding fixed-price
contracts. Many NT consulting projects were 800% over budget and
800% late (according to Gartner Group August 1997).
> > Most companies aren't even letting
> > their internal staff do development
> > work because they can't get and keep
> > the level of expertize required
> > for real enterprise solutions.
> oh really? you should get out more.
> more development is going on for W2K now
> than any other OS.
I suppose if you talking about number of salaried employees working
for Microsoft, you're probably right. What's Microsoft's developer
head count - including all subsidiaries? About 20,000? And then
you have the Anderson team.
> Programmers with W2K skills are so hard to get,
> we're offering stock, car, relocation, sign-on bonuses,
> vacation time up the wazoo
Sounds like the offers I get 5-7 times a week. It's actually
a bit frustrating to not be able to change jobs every two weeks :-)
Fortunately, I'm very happy in my current situation. I'm on
"vacation" all the time - fine hotels, new car (usually less than
5,000 miles), breakfast and dinner paid, and I get to spend my time
doing what I love to do best - solve problems using information
systems.
> - try looking in the real world
> for your answers - the truth is out there.
Last year I had 9 clients - all but one, Fortune 500, most Fortune 50.
I helped them solve problems involving billions in assets and
cash-flow. Every one of them considered NT a necessary evil, and
were interested in Linux as both servers and workstations.
Linux scales pretty well (DejaNews). But the Workstation is still,
very new. Linux has really only been in the workstation market for
about 9 months, and it's still very difficult to find fully
configured Linux workstations on a retail floor. Dell, IBM, HP,
and Compaq all offer them, but they are still worried about reprisals
from Microsoft. IBM and Dell are very aggressively going after the
Linux Server market, and Sun does a good business on upgrades from
Linux.
> > Creating a pretty VB display is relatively easy. Creating servers
> > capable of providing compliance with government regulatory agencies
> > at national or international capacities requires something special.
>
> fortunately NT has long been up to the task...
Well, if you didn't have to reboot the system to replace the DLLs
and EXEs I might even believe you. The "Microsoft Solution" to
business problems is to have the user do things the Microsoft Way.
I'll be very interested to see how users of Microsoft's no tax
package do. It's probably quite good at doing personal taxes for
salaried workers who have relatively simple forms, but I'd almost
bet that users with businesses, investments, and complex expenses
either end up shortchanged by 5% or they end up getting audited
for taking shady deductions.
> > Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> > I/T Architect, MIS Director
> > http://www.open4success.com
> > Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> > and growing at over 1%/week!
>
> holy shit - what is this? a *** 50 % *** drop in linux growth?!
I'm being conservative :-).
Actually, according to recent figures, it looks like growth has
dropped a bit (fewer upgrades being released, more people settling
on a favorite release...) but their still growing at about 200%/year.
That's triple the number of users of 3/1999 nine times the 7 million
users of 3/1998, and 27 times the 2 million users of 3/1997. Of
course, that's only 54 million, I factored in the 270% growth of 1997
and fudged on the 250% growth of 1998. The growth rate is slowing
by about 20%/year, normal for the curve. I guess that means we
can only expect 180% growth in 2000, and 160% growth in 2001, and
140% growth in 2002. I'd guess that something like BSD will come
along and take up the slack.
-
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:30:35 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 23:24:25 -0500, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>mr_rupert wrote:
>>
>> Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
>> OS?
>
>For the same reason we need yet another version of UNIX?
At the time Linux came about there was no sensibly licenced
or supported Unix for the x86 and the BSDs were entangled
in a legal quagmire. I would have been more than happy to
BUY Solaris or even NeXTstep when I was originally shopping
around for a replacement to WinDOS.
SCO, Sun nor NeXT were really interested in my business.
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Mar 2000 22:41:38 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip about `rm -rf /`]
> > In any case, all the users home directories should be backed up
> periodically.
>
> Doesn't help when you have to tell a user "Sorry about all the files that
> you modified today.. better luck next time".
And how would NT fare if the Administrator accedentally `del *` inside
%SYSTEM_ROOT%? Either way, you're headed for the backup tapes or
re-installing with downtime.
> No.. this has degenerated into an argument about one specific
> function, but that wasn't the original point. The original point
> was simply that Root != Administrator. Yes, they have similar
> functionality in many ways and you can essentially do the same
> things, but there are differences, and big ones at that.
How about this then:
The NT "System" account is equivalent to the UNIX "root" account.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 05:52:18 GMT
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 06:30:29 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Let's see you do streaming video in HTML.
>>
>> Two options:
>>
>> -Use an external app-- provide a link to the file which the browser can
>hand
>> off to a viewer, or a line of text that says "Point Acme
>StreamingVideoViewer
>> at dracolisk400.example.net:4040"
>
>No different than using a plug-in.
>
The question wasn't plugins, but ActiveX
>> -Use a single image, and a page that refreshes itself.
>
>Wow. Talk about massively slow. I doubt you could get more than 1-2 frames
>per second this way, on a T1! Remember, streaming video uses compression
>and delta imaging (only transmitting the changed portions of the image).
>You simply have to have client code executing to decode the video unless you
>build streaming video into the HTML spec.
How about a 1000x1000 table, with single pixel cells, only refresh the ones
that change, course, there may be a slight hit on the processing end
at the browser :)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
