Linux-Advocacy Digest #747, Volume #25 Wed, 22 Mar 00 09:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: I can't stand this X anymore! (Bilge)
Re: Producing Quality Code (n@p)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Paul Jakma)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (Donn Miller)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? (mr_rupert)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bilge)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: I can't stand this X anymore!
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:45:56 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>: Note there are a bunch of things going on here simultaneously, at least:
>
>: 1) Current XFree86 (and many/most commercial X servers) are buggy
>: and provide rasterized outline fonts when they should be providing
>: tuned bitmap fonts. This can be worked around in your font path.
>: Hopefully fixed in XFree86 4.0 (though I haven't checked).
>
>How do you fix that? By moving the unscaled fonts to the top of the
>FontPath, as specified in the Font Deuglification Howto ("FDU")?
>
Exactly. X will use the first font that matches what an application
requests. If the application requests:
-*
It will match the first font it finds EXCEPT an outline font (don't
know what the bug claimed in xfree86 does, but this is what should
happen).
Almost as usual a star matches any value. If you specifically WANT
an outline font, you MUST include all 14 fields in the xlfd name,
but you may leave some as *. You should designate the fontname
in either the app-defaults file for global use or in your personal
.Xdefaults file as follows:
-*-courier-*-*-*-* Will NEVER match an outline font
-*-courier-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-0-*-*-*-* Will ALWAYS match an outline font
-*-courier-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-0-*- Will be a syntax error
Ghostscript and the adobe Acrobat reader do not make use of the
X resources for document rendering purposes. They will use the
outline fonts located wherever the install procedure told it
to look.
>
>: 3) The rasterizers for Type1 need help.
>
>No argument there.
>
However, type 1 is superior to tt fonts. tt fonts only "attribute" is
somewhat faster rendering.
>I'm starting to understand that, but if the "standard" Type 1 fonts
>were adequately rendered to the screen, there'd be little or no need
>for TrueType (at least based on what D. Rebecchi has indicated, and
>he seems to be one of the more knowledgeable folks here on that
>subject).
>
The only need for truetype fonts was that adobe is just like many
other companies and are in general, a real pain in the ass about
patent issues. Since the same attitude leads to "lets develop a
poor substitue patent it and market it as an improvement", true
type was born.
>Yep. I would think that the desktop folks (KDE and/or Gnome) would be
>able to come up with a solution for apps designed for either
>environment, but ideally there should be a solution that all
>Linux/Unix apps could use, not just folks who have KDE and/or Gnome.
>
You can use all of your printing fonts on screen. Simply create
a directory to place in your fontpath and make links. The only
pain in the ass is that mkfontdir wont parse the .pfa or .pfb
files to create xlfd names for fonts.dir
>
>Since disk space is cheap, would it be possible to cache rasterized
>versions of fonts, so at least that performance hit would only happen
>once in a while rather than continuously?
>
Not really. For an outline font, you can speed up the process by
using the .pfb format rather than .pfa.
>
>Patent issues may make this problem moot. In which case I have little
>doubt that an equally good or better alternative can be found
>(assuming Type 1 isn't adequate, although it probably is).
>
It's rather straight forward to find additional type1 fonts. Almost
every postscript document will contain the complete set of fonts
used by the document. Each font begins with a %! and ends with
512 0's followed by cleartomark:
%% BeginFont: GillSans
%!PS-AdobeFont-1.0: GillSans 001.002 <--- here
.
.
. |
000000000000000... | 512 0's
000000000000000000...
cleartomark <--- to here
This is a .pfa file. Using pfatopfb will give you a binary if you'd
rather have that.
The way to fix everything and to even acheive TRUE wysiwyg (if I spelled it
right) is to implement display postscript. Then, all screen display
is just rendered postscript. There is supposedly a project to do this, but
I dont know if anything is going on with it currently. Display postscript,
as I understand it was given or (licensed with no real restrictions) to
the X consortium ages ago, adobe has a lot of documentation and example
code and DEC is at least one company that's used it.
------------------------------
From: n@p
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 22 Mar 2000 03:52:24 -0800
In article <8b9cp4$3g3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "by" says...
>> A good programmer does not have to know all the detailes, as long
>> as they have the brains to find out about it as needed.
>
>True, but they should understand basic algorithms (qsort, btree, etc) well.
>
Here where you are wrong.
programming is a very wide range, one can spend many years writting
software and never have to do a single sort.
You think a device driver engineer does btree and qsort all day?
If you interview a kernel engineer and ask them to tell you the big
O for qsort and to code a parallel version of it, they will most
likely not know right away. so what?
The point is, the details are not important, as long as the person
has some brains and the education in basic computer science and
the experience, that is good enough for me.
After you leave school, and work in the real world for few years,
the important skills become not the detailes of coding something, this
is something any one can pick up by reading few pages from a book.
The important things is how to approach a design problem, how to think
about solving a problem, and how to organize your thoughts and how
to do research. The rest is detailes.
Those who ask detailed coding questions about one specific area in an
interview are missing what it takes to make a good software engineer.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 07:53:28 -0500
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Can anyone remind me why the computing world needed a new server
> : OS?
>
> Why of course:
>
> - People were tired of having to acquire 90E10 different toolkits and
> C libs to compile and run the applications they needed for their
> businesses.
Hey, complexity happens. On Windows, you have to install
"redistributable" components, which upgrade the OS from an unknown
vendor. All in all, Linux tends to remain less complex.
As for needing a lot of tool kits, that's a bogus statement, and you
should know it. You only really need to use one tool kit (of your
choice) to write a program. What the end user wants to use is not, and
should not be, your problem.
>
> - Microsoft saw a need for standardization, where none existed (outside
> of POSIX).
Microsoft saw a threat to its Windows platform and is trying to strong
arm its way into the server market.
>
> - People wanted an operating system that their employees could
> work with, without having to smoke pot, grow a beard, and get
> fat on coffee and twinkies.
Hey, speaking from practical experience, the average office user would
rather work on Linux. All the "non-developers" in the company I am
currently at, want to run Linux. They are sick of rebooting and the
systems locking up at odd times. At least once a day I hear a secretary
scream.
>
> - Because UNIX stinks for desktop applications.
Quite the opposite. If you define a desktop computer as a tool with
which people produce or process information. Windows fails because too
much time is spent trying to figure out why it won't print, rebooting,
reproducing work because it locked up and you lost an hours work.
>
> : http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
>
> : "Why Windows NT Server 4.0 continues to exist in the enterprise
> : would be a topic appropriate for an investigative report in the
> : field of psychology or marketing, not an article on information
> : technology. Technically, Windows NT Server 4.0 is no match for
> : any UNIX operating system, not even the non-commercial BSDs or
> : Linux."
>
> So, by your logic, Kirch's viewpoints are immediately correct, without
> need for review? How "Dianetics" of you. You and Matt Templeton should
> seriously consider becoming bowling partners.
I wouldn't say that I "automatically" agree with anyone, but his points
have merit.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 12:58:35 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Intel demonstrated NT running on Merced at about the same time as Linux
> running on it.
>
yes, they demonstrated that NT booted, and they demonstrated a complete
linux running apache web server, etc...
> Merced is not done yet, or it would be shipping.
<sigh> did i say it was shipping? no. YOU said:
"IA64 only runs in simulation right now."
which is not true. Merced is in pre-production, and quite a few people
already have their hands on it. I pointed out that Merced silicon has
been demonstrated running linux, which would contradict your point.
> user address space. I repeat the question. How do you know what parts of
> hotmail run in 32 bit address space? Said another way, how do you know what
> parts of hotmail are running in user space and what parts are running in
> kernel?
are you trying to suggest hotmail is implemented in kernel?
Most likely it is implemented as traditional unix processes, ie
userspace. And userspace on FreeBSD/intel and Solaris is 32bit...
> > and given your previous statement that hotmail is just an application,
> > therefore we can make straight comparisons between the OS's and conclude
> > that NT mustn't be up to the job?
>
> I never said any such thing. You're trying to pretend that I said something
> I didn't *AGAIN*. Please stop it.
>
you said in reference to an article about hotmail, and i quote:
"She's talking about the architecture of the application."
and i asked you a question as to whether i could therefore draw a
certain conclusion based on the statements you have made. That is not
dishonest, and i havn't twisted anything that you have said, though i
shouldn't have added the "just". But is it fair to say that you would
refer to hotmail as an application?
So may i draw that conclusion?
> I said that the spokespersons comments were talking about Hotmail the
> Application and not the hardware and OS it ran on.
ok, so are specifying now that your use of "application" was in the
broadest sense. Accepted.
> You doubt it because it would invalidate your arguments. The fact is, you
> don't know.
no i don't. But neither do you!!!! So therefore it is just as incorrect
for you to use arguments about how "customised" solaris is for
hotmail!!!
Why is that you may make "strawman" statements to support your argument,
yet i may not speculate that from my experience of Unix, it is very
common to change kernel parameters/variables on servers?
> As such, any statements about what could be done on a 32 bit
> platform compared to 64 bit is meaningless since you lack the information to
> make any such judgements.
>
FreeBSD on intel is 32bit. Solaris is 32bit as far as applications are
concerned.
Hotmail uses solaris and FreeBSD.
ergo hotmail is quite happy with a 32bit enviroment.
corrolary: You therefore can not use arguments that Solaris has the
advantage of 64bit over NT. (only the hardware / low level OS is 64bit)
seems a reasonable argument to me..
> As far as references, MS has stated that they've customized the TCP/IP stack
> and file store, both of which are typically kernel level portions of code.
>
but as i've pointed out, "customising" could mean that they have changed
kernel variables/parameters. Which is a common thing to do on Unix. You
have been trying to infer that Hotmail has done extensive customising of
the Solaris kernel code - which sounds very unlikely.
However neither of us really know, (as you have pointed out). So
therefore either we may both make statements about the customisation of
Solaris, or we both don't.
Don't tell me "but they customised solaris" and then tell me "you don't
know how much they customised solaris" when i argue against you. That
WOULD be dishonest.
> > ermmm... before it became an embarrasment to MS, they made no secret
> > that they use /FreeBSD/ for the web servers.
>
> You didn't answer the question. How do you know they're running on Intel?
>
because you wouldn't run FreeBSD on anything else, as an another poster
explained.
> "The backend processing isn't quite the same."
>
> Which means that front-ends could be running on a million 286's and it would
> still work, but that would not work for the backend.
>
ok.. so your point is? That the frontend doesn't matter? Or that NT
isn't up to the delivery of the backend of things?
> > doesn't say in what capacity, the way it is worded it could refer to
> > Hotmail the company, rather than just the site. NT might only be used as
> > the desktop for non-technical staff, and that statement would be true.
>
> Do you always have such problems with reading comprehension? It says
> Windows NT *SERVER*, not Windows NT Workstation.
It still doesn't specifically say that they use NT Server to deliver the
hotmail application. My point was that NT Server might be used in the
office (eg printserver, office file server, etc..) and that statement
would be true.
-paul jakma
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:01:15 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 18 Mar 2000
11:32:25 -0500
> >The main thing I'm getting from all of this is:
> >Don't buy Gateway.
> >
> >--doc
> No, as many have correctly pointed out amidst many incorrect trollish
> statements, the majority of Gateways don't have such extensive problems;
Yeah, it could be just a 2600 problem. I don't remember seeing anyone else
commenting about Gateway in general, though.
And you do know that Norm wasn't just commenting from an angle of "look at
all the problems I've had with this particular Gateway" right?
If he had started the thread in that way, it probably would have died an
early death after a couple of us said, "Geez, that does suck . . . you have
our sympathy."
> most
> PCs are quite a bit easier to deal with and Gateway *usually* does a good
job
> of integration, AFAIK. I would not necessarily recommend their laptops,
but I
> wouldn't want to say that all their systems suck. After all, the only
thing
> that all PCs that have these kinds of problems have in common is Windows.
Of course, you know, for one, that correlative evidence isn't very strong,
and in cases where there are exceptions, it just about has to be discarded
entirely ("just about" because the smaller and more similar the number of
exceptions, the bigger the possibility that the exception is due to some
other variable (usually unknown)).
On the other hand, which other PCs are we saying one consistently has to go
through such a voodoo procedure for?
>It
> would make more sense to avoid buying Windows, but that's often outside of
>our
> control, isn't it?
I've installed Windows on hundreds of machines of different make and never
had problems like that. So I wouldn't say that it indicates that you
shouldn't buy Windows.
You can certainly have a hard time installing Windows in certain situations,
but what OS isn't that true of?
And for the second part, if you work for certain businesses, you have to use
Windows, sure.
--doc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 22 Mar 2000 13:09:57 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:58:52 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> files by accident. What business does root have typing "rm -rf" from a
>user's
>> home directory ?
>
>The classic example being that they are not in the directory they think they
>are.
The directory I'm in is part of the root prompt
How could I *not* know ?
>> directories ) first -- you can stop it before it gets to /home -- believe
>> me, I've done it before.
>
>Assuming you realize right away what you've done. Most people I know that
>multitask a lot will issue a command then immediately switch to another
>virtual terminal to do something else.
I multitask a lot. I don't think anyone will be this careless as root. If
they are, then why assume they'll be really careful enough to fix
the broken permissions in NT ?
>> 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".
IME, users are usually glad when they can recover everything up till the
last backup, especially since *in every case I've seen, it's the user
who deletes the files*
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Paul Jakma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 13:09:50 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> And which version of Linux does that ship with? Certainly not Red Hat.
>
ehmm, yes it does. linux 2.2 has capabilities and RH6.x ships with 2.2.
> but that admin can be set up to prevent accidental problems.
>
adn that's exactly the attitude of NT that i don't like.
> > Note though, If you use capabilities you can do the exact same thing on
> > Linux.
> And again, which distribution does that ship with?
>
any dist that ships 2.2.
> Useful for daemons running as root, but not useful when you simply want to
> disable the feature from accidental use.
>
oh god...
> > that's rubbish. Go talk to Jeremy if you want to be informed. (did you
> > read his post??).
>
> Yes, I did. He didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.
>
he said that the source to seclib might be an interesting read. Did you
follow that up? Also, do you know who Jeremy Allison is? He is most
certainly a guru in things related to NT permissions/file sharing/etc..
> The "tool" is the OS.
>
?
rm is a specific tool. If you don't like its quiet obedience, then use a
filemanager like gmc - which /will/ prompt you before deleting things
like directories.
my preference is for rm, your tastes may of course differ.
> > however, ACL's are over rated...
>
> Why?
>
because they add very little over traditional unix security.
> Given that you can take away the administrators rights to reclaim things as
> well, I don't see how.
>
thats not what jeremy said, and considering his track record, i think
i'll believe him rather than you.
> And you can explain exactly why it's secure, right?
>
of course. If i have a reason for removing a capability from root, then
i want that capability to stay removed.
not much point restricting root/root process for security reasons, if
root can take those privileges back at any point.
> Not really, only for a very few specific threads i'm interested in.
you're not as bad as that pimp Drestin or Chad, granted, but you're
close enough.
-paul jakma.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 22 Mar 2000 13:13:06 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:54:44 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>rm * .whatever (with an accidental space) is the most common one. And this
>can be done anywhere.
It can't easily be done from another users home directory because root
shouldn't be poking around in users home directories.
>> Name *one* that comes with bad permissions.
>
>Depends on what you call "bad". If you consider anything less than optimal
>security, then most distributions come with "bad" permissions. Isn't that
>one of the reasons OpenBSD exists?
OpenBSD primarily is about code auditing and integrated crypto.
It's *not* about permissions. The *write* permissions on OpenBSD aren't
substantially different to those on any other UNIX, because *all* UNIXs
at least have sensible write permissions ( unlike NT )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: 22 Mar 2000 13:15:34 GMT
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:50:24 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Demonstrate that they arent.
>
>Doesn't OpenBSD claim to come with much more secure permissions than other
>BSD's?
No, it doesn't. OpenBSD claims to ship from Canada, and hence ship with
better crypto than other BSDs. It also claims to have a superior code auditing
process. Permissions ( especially write permissions ) are an issue that
all the real server OSs sorted out a long time ago.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:16:09 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Bastian wrote:
.
> BTW, have you ever tried to format a floppy under windoze? Man, I wouldn't
> complain if this would run in the background (because it takes so long), but
> you can't even type something in a simple editor window.
Yep - had that problem with Win98. It was frustrating as hell. I
tried all kind of floppy disk ops under Linux, and the floppy was
being read from and written to transparently. About the only thing
that moves fast under Windows 98 while formatting a floppy is the
mouse cursor. And, I think that was slow, too.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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 13:18:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 22 Mar 2000 06:49:17 GMT <8b9qdd$lg8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <8b9pv7$8ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The reason why I dislike most UNIX variants, is because I understand them
>>all too well. It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has everything to
>>do with intolerance of cobbled-together antiquities, that cannot keep up
>>with innovation.
>
> WHAT innovations?
Arguably, the internals of Windows aren't all that innovative (in fact,
in the case of Win9x, they're downright stupid, and Windows NT
is slightly brain-damaged), but items such as Microsoft Office
might be; the idea of being able to drop an icon into a file
is at least worthy of mention.
Mind you, I don't know who did it first: Microsoft or Netscape.
But I do know that Microsoft supports it just about everywhere
in their OS, bad as it otherwise is: drag an icon from anywhere,
drop it on anywhere.
For what it's worth; it's not much of an innovation, but it sure
is convenient! :-)
The only other innovation, IINM -- and again, it's a little step -- is
a spreadsheet widget (ADO). And I wouldn't be surprised if someone
else was doing it, somewhere, prior to MS.
Microsoft has some interesting GUI, but it's built on a rickety
foundation and one can't inspect the crawlspace. :-)
>
>--
>Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
>My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_rupert)
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 13:18:59 GMT
Well said, Alan!
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 03:26:47 -0600, Alan Burns
<aburns@!SPAMTRAP.ebicom.net> wrote:
>In article <8b9pv7$8ql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The reason why I dislike most UNIX variants, is because I understand
>> them all too well. It has nothing to do with jealousy. It has
>> everything to do with intolerance of cobbled-together antiquities, that
>> cannot keep up with innovation.
>
>Can non-experts join in the fun here? :-)
>
>I'm not an expert by any means, and I'm sure most of the folks here know
>far more about a lot of this than I do, but I see the above very
>differently. I'm not a sys admin or anything, but I have used many different
>OSes a good bit as a hobby/side job, and from my "average Joe" perspective,
>NT certainly looks far more "cobbled-together" than any *NIX I've ever used.
>
>I guess the most prominent example would be the way NT handles multiple
>users. Under NT, you have software trying to write crap *all over* the
>hard drive, including the system root, because NT comes from a lineage
>of basically single-user OSes. You try to lock down the system root
>as read-only, and you break about 70-80% of your apps. It looks to
>me like they took a basic structure that was intended to be single-user
>and just stuck some user validation on top of it to make it multi-user.
>
>Am I wrong here? (I'm just waiting for somebody to say, "yes" :-)
>
>*NIX, in contrast, seems to me to be designed as multi-user on a very
>basic conceptual level. No application I've ever seen tries to write to
>/bin or /sbin or /etc, because *NIX has been multi-user for almost 30
>years, from the day it was created. Every configuration file, every
>preference, everything - in the user's home directory and *only* in
>that directory. That seems to me 1000% cleaner and better thought
>out than the NT model. Yes, it's old. But it was always intended to
>do exactly what it does, which makes it far better designed in my
>book.
>
>Again, this is just a layman's opinion, but if I were going to call one of
>these OSes "cobbled-together," it would be NT. In fact, based on my
>experience with NT, I'd even go so far as to call it a hatchet job - and
>a few other things that are unprintable. :-)
>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 08:26:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
On 03/22/2000 at 08:54 AM,
George Marengo, a wothless pile of Microsoft paid pondscum
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >It is FUD because IBM had no more choice than a restaurant owner who was
> >told by the local Mafiosi that he would install a cigarette machine, use
> >XYZ garbage collection company, and pay $100 a week "insurance". And you
> >know damn well that is the case.
> Oh please... IBM knew darn well the selling their PC's with OS/2 would
> be financial suicide for the PSP division -- that's why they didn't do
> it. If they really thought that they could sell their machines in that
> configuration, they could have told MS to pack sand concerning Windows
> licensing.
More pure FUD. Since MS was a co-owner of the OS/2 code per the terms of
the development contract, IBM still had to provide a portion of the
license fee to MS until they worked out a settlement on the fee. Had IBM
been a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization such as MS, they would
have just gone ahead without trying to work out a contract settlement and
issued OS/2 despite MS's objections.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.08 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
