Linux-Advocacy Digest #774, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 15:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] ("freddieV")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (josco)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (josco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "freddieV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:45:41 GMT
I would prefer an OS that I can use regularly, even if it does crash from
time to time, instead of an OS I regularly attempt to install but then
won't. And so far, no amount of support has answered any questions to my
install woes...and I hate Windows BTW.
Eric Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bd9l2$sln$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nope. You got it backwards.
> Windows sets up fine (usually) but then crashes a lot when you try to run
> it.
> Linux is (still) tough to set up properly, but once it is, it NEVER
> crashes.
> Which would you prefer? Personally, if everything I wanted to run had a
> Linux version, I doubt that I would EVER boot Windows again.
>
> Eric Peterson
>
> Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3ApC4.63209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Funny, windows runs fine but linux takes 4 hours of setup to get a
printer
> > and a usb mouse working.
> > Become superior before claiming you are.
> >
> > ----
> > IBM: Iconoclastic Bilateral Monopoly
> >
> > "crashed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Just to clarify
> > > Windows 2000 has potentially 63000 bugs. This number was generated by
a
> > program
> > > auto-scanning the source code which also included 10000 lines of code
> that
> > was not
> > > used in the final release-
> > > I am by no means a Microsoft supporter but the distribution of FUD is
> > > counter-productive.
> > > Linux will eventually surpass Microsoft in the server market based on
> it's
> > own
> > > merits, not propoganda. The way it should be
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:55:47 -0800
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:33:11 GMT, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Having OS/2 as the installed OS is forcing customers to have OS/2.
> >
> >Since IBM lacked monopoly power in the PC OS market, IBM was
> >unable to force all PC buyers to pay for a OS/2 license.
>
> Because nobody wanted it.
Say it 10 times facing the east every morning.
We can now invalidate IBM's anti-trust testimoy and the facts the Judge
established which run contrary to your declaration.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:49:53 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:30:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo writes:
>
>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>
>>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
>>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
>>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
>>> power to maintain their monopoly.
>
>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
>> their hardware to push OS/2.
>
>Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
>a PS/2 to run OS/2?
Let me guess... that's Microsoft's fault too.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:56:39 GMT
Andrew J. Brehm writes:
>> George Marengo writes:
>>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>>>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
>>>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
>>>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
>>>> power to maintain their monopoly.
>>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
>>> their hardware to push OS/2.
>> Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
>> a PS/2 to run OS/2?
> I have never heard that before.
Doesn't change the fact that it was a common perception. It's even
been mentioned in this newsgroup on several occasions.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:59:26 GMT
George Marengo writes:
>>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>>>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
>>>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
>>>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
>>>> power to maintain their monopoly.
>>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
>>> their hardware to push OS/2.
>> Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
>> a PS/2 to run OS/2?
> Let me guess... that's Microsoft's fault too.
Does your "guess" prove that IBM was unwilling to use their hardware to
push OS/2?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:57:35 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:36:03 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:54:38 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:32:16 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tell me what you do with a spreadsheet and I could take a stab
>> at telling you whether or not gnumeric is there for you, or
>> staroffice. Not bother, and noone will be able to tell you if
>> even msoffice will do. As 'spiffy' as some people think it is,
>> even it has it's limitations.
>
>Embedding it in Wordprocessed documents and Presentations, live data links
These are going to increase the complexity of the document
for the target viewer. They are going to result in what
gives lipservice to components really needing to be something
akin to the 'huge big binary' that StarOffice or Applix are.
Others have criticised the utitliy of links as opposed to
simple snaphots/cut&paste.
>DDE between data and charts (various types), restricted access / entry,
Quite a few of the Unix spreadsheets brag about their realtime
acquisition features and have done so since ~ '95.
>teaching system (quizzes etc ) with images / macros, input validation, export
>to HTML, CSV, misc fancy formatting, and various other, lesser used but still
>needed stuff like print preview, spell checking, locked and hidden cells etc.
Exporting to HTML or CSV is actually quite trivial and you'll find
few spreadsheets in general that can't manage that.
>Good docs for the unobvious stuff are also always welcome. As is translation
>to British English and support for the Euro. Wizards and Templates for things
>like registers, travel expenses and like are also important.
>
>Extra flight sims are a bonus ;-)
>
>Gnumeric's obvious problem for the above is the embedding - it uses Gnomes
>immature object model, is the most mature of the various Gnome Office
>components and frankly, has nothing to embed itself into.
Gnumeric is just too new in general.
>
>Only the recently (3 days?) released WordPerfect Office 2000 with Quattro && WP
>is likely to offer enough flexibility in Embedding, and even then, only within
>itself.
In which case, you could just embedd various types of Applix docs
or StarOffice docs within themselves as well. If you treat the
office suites as 'one big binary' rather than discrete components
then msoffice isn't that remarkable in this respect.
>
>>>>>There is a reason why Miguel is shamelessly copying the UI and features of
>>>>>Excel in Gnumeric.
>>>>
>>>> He could be copying the current version of 123 or Quattro
>>>> and you likely wouldn't be asare of it.
>>>
>>>You seem unaware of of his recent interview - "I'm copying Excel becuase I know
>>>nothing about spreadsheets" is the gist of the quote.
>>
>> I would have to ask Miguel personally as I don't trust anything
>> that joker says. Even so, copying Excel might be equivalent to
>> copying 123 in the same fashion that copying Win9x is really
>> copying the MacOS.
>
>Nah, in that Excel has been a GUI spreadsheet longer than Lotus 123, ever
That doesn't matter. 123 has been a spreadsheet longer than Excell
has. The interface may have changed but that's only one aspect of
the whole program.
>since the early Mac, whereas Lotus was late to start the transition, and
>GUI Lotus lacked the dominance of its DOS forebear.
>
>Excel is actually often accused of being too easy to use - powerful things
>are tucked away to make it more novice friendly.
[deletia]
That's not 'easy to use', that is infact user hostile for the
power users and castrated. This also shows the sense in not
restricting everyone to 'one true interface' and having families
of applications that can all each read each others files.
Many people don't need Excel or MSword and a lot of what comes
with it.
--
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.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:01:18 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:40:29 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
>> their hardware to push OS/2. If OS/2 truly was a better DOS than
>> DOS, and a better Windows than Windows, the consumers wouldn't
>> have cared if OS/2 was installed.
>>
>> IBM had the means to increase the installed base of OS/2, they
>> had the money to do so -- what they lacked was the will.
>
>No crime victim is perfect. Blaming the victim for any possible
>imperfections is not a defense but a desperate act.
Yeah, poor IBM, hapless Microsoft victim.
>What is your argument - that whatever IBM did they could have
>done more - well Duh - and they could have done less.
They had the opportunity and the means -- all that they lacked
was the will to do so.
>There are an infinite number of things IBM could have done
>but you can't say these alternatives would have been fruitful nor
>is it reasonable to say there were necessary as part of due
>diligence on IBM's part.
I've never said that it would have made a difference. It might have
not made any difference, but I'm surprised it didn't upset you at the
time that IBM was pushing OS/2 on one hand and pushing Windows
with the other.
>IBM OS/2 was a victim. What MS did to IBM OS/2 helped established a
>pattern of abuse that the Judge used to estbalish facts in the anti-trust
>case. There isn't any credible alternative explination on which any legal
>decision will be based. You can hold any set of opinions and nonsense
>interpretations. We've all moved on to the phase of the case where the
>law is applied. Your assertion of fact is not correct.
Whoah bucko... I'm not asserting this as fact. To be clear, this is my
opinion... IBM was sending a mixed message by saying OS/2 was a
better DOS than DOS and a better Windows than Windows while they
were selling Windows. If they didn't even believe that OS/2 was a
better alternative than Windows, why should the consumer believe it
enough to try it?
------------------------------
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: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:05:05 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:59:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George Marengo writes:
>
>>>> Joseph Coughlan wrote:
>
>>>>> MS has acquired and abused monopoly power in the PC OS market.
>>>>> "Financial suicide" (as you call it) isn't a result of weak consumer
>>>>> demand or ISV support, it is a result of MS's illegal use of monopoly
>>>>> power to maintain their monopoly.
>
>>>> That's certainly a factor, just as was IBM's unwillingness to use
>>>> their hardware to push OS/2.
>
>>> Then why is it a common perception that computer users needed to buy
>>> a PS/2 to run OS/2?
>
>> Let me guess... that's Microsoft's fault too.
>
>Does your "guess" prove that IBM was unwilling to use their hardware to
>push OS/2?
The common perception that OS/2 needed PS/2 hardware wasn't because
IBM was pushing OS/2 on their machines. Gee... could it have been as
simple as the common '/2' ending for both? Naw... it must have been an
MS conspiracy.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:07:03 GMT
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:55:47 -0800, josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 03:33:11 GMT, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Having OS/2 as the installed OS is forcing customers to have OS/2.
>> >
>> >Since IBM lacked monopoly power in the PC OS market, IBM was
>> >unable to force all PC buyers to pay for a OS/2 license.
>>
>> Because nobody wanted it.
>
>Say it 10 times facing the east every morning.
>
>We can now invalidate IBM's anti-trust testimoy and the facts the Judge
>established which run contrary to your declaration.
Is Apple still around? Is Linux getting more popular? IBM gave up on
OS/2, and that's ultimately why it failed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:34:51 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Thu, 23 Mar 2000 05:27:45 GMT...
...and Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when The Ghost In The
> Machine would say:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, SetMeUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote on Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:43:06 GMT
> ><en9C4.1872$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>> What's wrong with Modula-3? ;)
> >>
> >> It's wrong that it is not C.
> >
> >Hmm..."Not C"...um...is that close enough to Godwinize this thread? :-)
> >
> >Mind you, I do know at least two operating systems (Apollo/DOMAIN Aegis
> >and older versions of MacOS) which were written in Pascal, or some
> >variant thereof, so I guess it could work... :-)
>
> The problem with Pascal, as distinct from the others, is that the
> design just wasn't made for anything more than education.
>
> a) It defines a single pass compiler;
> b) It provides no way of splitting projects coherently into multiple
> files;
> c) The typing system doesn't cope all that well with dynamic arrays.
d) No casts
e) No pointers to functions AFAIK
f) Functions can't return complex data types AFAIK
g) No equivalent to void * (typeless pointer)
h) No escape sequences inside string literals
i) No real equivalent to malloc() (you can't allocate an arbitrary
chunk of memory, just chunks that are the size of a defined data
type)
That are the issues I've had with Turbo Pascal, and I understand that
ANSI Pascal is even more anemic. However, I'm glad that I acquired a
fairly strict programming style with Pascal before I switched to C.
mawa
--
Manchmal fühle ich mich im Usenet wie eine Kreuzung aus Don Giovanni
und dem Zauberlehrling; während es um mich herum unkontrollierbar
wuselt, weil ich etwas losgetreten habe, möchte ich rufen "Genug!
Genug!", und darauf warten, daß der Teufel mich holt. -- mawa
------------------------------
From: josco <[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: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:19:09 -0800
On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, George Marengo wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 11:36:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >George, why are you trying to fight the facts the court determined to
> >be true based on the evidence -- Do you work for M$?
>
> The court determined that MS had a monopoly via preloading.
> They did not determine that OS/2 failed because of that.
The Court did.
> IBM could have decided to preload OS/2 on their machines
> -- Better Windows than Windows, right?
IBM did decide to preload OS/2 on their machines.
FIND of FACT:
119. Representatives from IBM and Microsoft, including Bill Gates, met to
discuss the relationship between their companies at an industry conference
in November 1994. At that meeting, IBM informed Microsoft that, rather
than enter into the Frontline Partnership with Microsoft, IBM was going to
pursue an initiative it called "IBM First." Consistent with the title of
the initiative, IBM would aggressively promote IBM's software products,
would not promote any Microsoft products, and would pre-install OS/2 Warp
on all of its PCs, including those on which it would also pre-install
Windows. IBM thus rejected the terms that would have resulted in an $8
reduction in the per-copy royalty price of Windows 95.
120. True to its word, IBM began vigorous promotion of its software
products. This effort included an advertising campaign, starting in late
1994, that extolled OS/2 Warp and disparaged Windows. IBM's drive to best
Microsoft in the PC software venue intensified in June 1995, when IBM
reached an agreement with the Lotus Development Corporation for the
acquisition of that company. As a consequence of the acquisition, IBM took
ownership of the Lotus groupware product, Lotus Notes, and the Lotus
SmartSuite bundle of office productivity applications. Microsoft had
already identified Notes as a middleware threat, because it presented
users with a common interface, and ISVs with a common set of APIs, across
multiple platforms. For its part, SmartSuite competed directly with
Microsoft Office. In mid-July 1995, IBM announced that it was going to
make SmartSuite its primary desktop software offering in the United
States.
121. Microsoft did not intend to capitulate. In July, Gates called an
executive at the IBM PC Company to berate him about IBM's public
statements denigrating Windows. Just a few days later, Microsoft began to
retaliate in earnest against the IBM PC Company.
125. IBM never agreed to renounce SmartSuite or to increase its support
for Microsoft software, and in the end, Microsoft did not grant IBM a
license to pre-install Windows 95 until fifteen minutes before the start
of Microsoft's official launch event on August 24, 1995. That same day,
the firms brought the audit issue to a close with a settlement agreement
under which IBM ultimately paid Microsoft $31 million. The release of
Windows 95 had been postponed more than once, and many consumers
apparently had been postponing buying PC systems until the new operating
system arrived. The pent-up demand caused an initial surge in the sales of
PCs loaded with Windows 95. IBM's OEM competitors reaped the fruits of
this surge, but because of the delay in obtaining a license, the IBM PC
Company did not. The PC Company also missed the back-to-school market.
These lost opportunities cost IBM substantial revenue.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
