Linux-Advocacy Digest #863, Volume #25 Tue, 28 Mar 00 22:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism (Richard Robinson)
Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail (Cary O'Brien)
Re: Weak points ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Iridium Tech Support ("Colin R. Day")
BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (piddy)
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG (mlw)
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 17:05:38 -0800
>However, you greatly increase your TCO with a *nix desktop because the
setup
>time required by even the sysadmin to get *nix to achieve the usability and
>intuitiveness of Windows or MacOS would take a long time and possibly even
>involve re-writing portions of the GUI to customize it for your
organization
>or to achieve certain features that users like about Windows or the MacOS.
>Just because you have a sysadmin, doesn't make it easy, or even cost
effective.
Is having a sysadmin any different than needing a MSCE? Oh yes there is, a
good sysadmin can pick and choose from any operating system that serves the
needs the job at hand. Also, a sysadmin of unix servers doesn't have to run
from
machine to machine throught the organization's facilities, to perform his
normal
administrative duties. He could just use a login protocol like telnet to
access
each network unix host he needs to access to. It makes no difference if the
network in contained in one room, or one building, or one state, or across
the
nation, or across multiple nations. If the origanization had a branches on
the
moon or mars he could perform the admin functions for unix hosts at those
installation as well. Although the communications time lag across
interplanetary
distances would make interactive access a little slow. Can any Windows NT
solution support this?
>Again, a strawman. How would you run PowerPoint in *nix? See, strawmen.
>Yea! *nix can do text manipulation and email! Ok, when you're ready to
>do *real* business such as Sales contact management, product layout and
>design, art production, digital video editing and mastering, collaborative
>messaging (no, not sendmail and NNTP) even power-user word processing,
>then we can talk.
Many unix solutions for these already exist, others if they were ported they
would run. In the mean time there are emulators that can run Windows
apps on unix.
>oh boy! Text manipulation. They pay you a sysadmin salary for text
>manipulation? "But boss, I did it with one command line!"
Don't look not but your unix ignorance is showing. That was a end user
solution, none of those commands were sysadmin only commands.
I have presented the unix solution to that problem, please present the
Windows solution that would match the unix sollution in efficiency. With
the unix solution, even if the job required several hours to run, it would
take
no more than a minute or two of the users time to enter the command line
requiring any scripts or batch files. If run in the background, or as a
queued
as a batch job the user can logout and forget about the job, it will be done
when the system has free cycles to spare. Counter to your claim this was
not the disinformation tactic of the strawman, it was a demonstration of the
power of unix for the end user.
Since you thought that was a sysadmin task, I will present an example of a
simple solution for a common unix sysadmin: Consider two unix hosts the
first, hosta is four floors below you and the other, hostb is on the other
side
of the nation. You are required to copy a mirror image of a partition on
hosta
to hostb. You are also required store a compressed copy of the duplicated
partition on a tape that is installed on your workstation a third host in
this
equation.
>From your unix workstation enter this command line:
rsh hosta "gzip -9 </dev/hdb2" | tee /dev/ht0 | rsh hostb "gzip -d
>/dev/hdb2"
How would you handle that with Windows NT?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Robinson)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Opensource article first chapter draft for criticism
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:16:57 GMT
In article <8bqs2b$4k1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tom Steinberg wrote:
>
>If you can think of extra examples I could/should use for ideas I have put
>forward, please tell me. The more good examples, the more solid a case I can
>put for Opensource.
>
>
>
>Despite the community development process of Linux, Linux showed the
>important role of leadership in the practical maintainance of an opensource
>project....
Eric Raymond has an interesting point here wrt organisation; that coding of
a project doesn't scale linearly with the number of people to whom the project
is accessible (the "size of the internet"); but debugging does.
--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cary O'Brien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft takes gas on Hotmail
Date: 28 Mar 2000 20:35:10 -0500
In article <8bet62$m4d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mr. Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>: >
>: > mr_rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>: > > http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/hotmail.html
>: > >
>: > > Microsoft can't handle it! What more can be said?
>: >
>: > Why do you insist on posting the same article that's been posted hundreds if
>: > not thousands of times on this newsgroup? It's already 2 years old, and was
[snip]
>
>: The fact that the article is old and MS has still not migrated Hotmail to
>: NT/W2K I find to be quite embarrassing for MS.
>
>If they had done that, they would have interrupted a huge margin of users.
(what the heck...)
Why? I personally worked on an upgrade of an on-line financial
information system from a (get this!) Prime to an HP UX system. Most
of the users never knew they were switched over. If I can do it, why
can't those smart guys at Microsoft?
>Microsoft is smart enough to know that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
I thought the saying at microsoft was "Eat your own dog food".
-- cary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Weak points
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:35:30 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 22:05:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>
> Mind you, no one here should take YOUR word for what an SB Live
> can or can't be made to do under Linux.
Stop twisting it jedi, I never said it COULDN'T be MADE to do work as
well, I said currently it doesn't. Big difference.
And nobody has to take my, or your word for it they can simply try it
and find out.
Don't forget to toss that 3 CD set you got with the card in the trash
which includes a nice version of SoundForge XP BTW.
You have a difficult time dealing with facts jedi.
Steve
"Linux; The operating system that leaves the audience wanting less.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Iridium Tech Support
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:39:41 +0000
evilsofa wrote:
> In article
> <nnrD4.18965$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "bobsun"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Colin R. Day wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >ZnU wrote:
> > >
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry
> > >> McBride) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >The surface of the earth has an area of about 200 million square
> > >miles. As the total area of the world's cities is much more than 200
> > >square miles, the probability is greater than one in a million.
> >
> >
> > Greater Los Angeles has to cover several (5?) thousand square miles alone.
> > Phoenix is about 2000 sq miles.
> >
> > bobsun
>
> Incorrect. The largest city by area in the US is Juneau, Alaska, with
> 3,081 square miles. [1] The city of Los Angeles only covers 468 square
> miles. [2]
>
> [1] <http://geography.about.com/library/misc/bllgcity.htm>
> [2] <http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=02D4C000&page=2#s3>
>
> Okay, okay, if you want to get technical about it, the Los Angeles
> metropolis covers 88,000 square miles and 5 counties...
That's more than half the state of California. Are you sure it isn't
8,800 square miles?
>
>
> --
> The last words of General John Sedgewick, Union
> commander in the American Civil War:
>
> "They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist----"
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (piddy)
Subject: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 01:58:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BEOS 5 is ready for downloading, but the site is too busy.
Fortunately you can download BEOS at other places. Check the Beos
newsgroup.
Here's a fast site:
http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10108-100-1594977.html?tag=st.dl.10000_
103_1.lst.td
Btw, it's well worth taking a look at. It's fast, looks great, is as
easy as the Mac. Just click around and you can figure things out.
Don't count on it working with Win-modems and the off brand sound
cards though.
It defaulted to 640x480 on my computer, but in less than 5 minutes I
found a way to adjust it to 800x600 and changed the refresh rate from
56 to 72 to cut down on flicker. Try that with Linux! My wheel mouse
worked and scrolled most windows. I'm seriously thinking of getting a
different modem and sound card and using this for web browsing, file
downloading, and fun stuff.
If it had apps, I'd say it had an excellent chance to make it big.
piddy -- Linux now sucks more!
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:05:18 -0800
I think the original xenix could run on 8080 and Z-80 processors
or some other 8-bit processors, I recall seeing ads for Xenix
years before IBM released the original 8088 based PC.
If I am not mistaken the TRS-80 Model II which used two Z-80A
processors, ran either a "Business" version of TRS-DOS and
Xenix.
Robert Heininger wrote in message ...
>
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 23:11:33 -0500,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `mlw' wrote:
>
>
>{deletia}
>
>
>>: I have never seen an 8086/8088 version of Xenix. I have worked the 80286
>>: version. Could it be that qdos was a better choice because it resembled
>>: (the term 'port' may be appropriate) CP/M, and that Xenix could not run
>>: on the original real-mode '86 processor?
>>:
>>: It wasn't until the 80286 that the Intel P.C. line had an MMU. Although
>>: the 8086 segments were a poor man's MMU. It isn't as if it isn't doable,
>>: I guess, I just wonder if they did it.
>>:
>>: This is something I've always wanted to see documented. Computers were
>>: pretty small in 1979.
>
>
>I've asked this question before in another news group and got some good
>answers, but this seems like a much better place to get them because you
folks
>really know your stuff, :-) so I'm trying it again.
>
>Are there any non-MS OS's (ie. DOS) still available that will run on
>a 80286 machine that I would like to use as just an Internet gateway
utilizing
>ip forwarding, for a small lan? I have one of these 'lil 'ol boxes
collecting
>dust and desire to give it one last mission in life before it's finally
>retired to a scrap heap.
>
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>--
>Robert Heininger __
> # / / __ _ _ _ _ __ __ #
> # / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / #
> # /____/ /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ #
> # The Choice of the GNU Generation #
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:30:15 GMT
On Tue, 28 Mar 2000 04:01:11 GMT, someone claiming to be R.E.Ballard
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>> On Tue, 07 Mar 2000 23:46:36 GMT, someone claiming to be me" wrote:
>> I certainly don't call that proof that MS pressures hardware
>> manufacturers not to support any other OS,
>> which is the claim in this thread.
>In the Distributor License Agreement used for Windows 98, OEMs
>are forbidden to modify or alter the boot sequence from the
>initial power-up to the display of the initial desktop.
Which supports a contention that MS is pressuring OEMs as regards
other OSes ... how?
>This includes the installation of Boot Magic, the creation a Linux
>partition, or even the alteration of the primary boot partition.
>Once the installs the Windows 98 operating system, nothing on the
>hard drive can be modified.
Of course, they can always "create" another model line which would
support those features, if they figured it would sell.
>There have been two exceptions that I know of:
> HP demanded the ability to boot Windows 95 or Windows NT since
> Windows 98 didn't work on much of it's initial hardware. Microsoft
> wrote a modified version of the NT boot manager but would not allow
> HP to install a 3rd party boot manager capable of booting Linux.
Have you proof that HP * wanted * a 3rd party solution?
> Compaq reserves a few of the inner Cylinders for the equivalent
> of the OEM disk. This is installed as a separate partition which
> is "invisable". Compaq uses this to initialize some of it's
> hardware before booting Windows.
And your proof that these two were the only OEMs who approached MS
about making such modifications?
>This boot modification restriction also prevented IBM from installing
>OS/2 or Linux into any of it's machines as dual-boot systems. There
>are IBM and Dell machines that can boot Linux, but these machines have
>no Microsoft Operating System software.
Of course, the fact that the boxes IBM offered with OS/2 were very
large paperweights had nothing to do with their decision to agree to
these terms. It's all a plot by MS. Even tho they could still, as
above, offer a separate line differentiated by a different OS, if they
figured it would sell...
>At this time, I know of no OEM who has announced or offered
>a Dual-Boot machine that can run both Windows 98 and Linux -
>as a factory installed option. I believe VA Linux does have
>a machine that can dual-boot Linux and Windows NT.
And of course, this says nothing about the perception by the OEM of
the marketability of such a machine -- it's just MS strongarm
tactics...
>Certainly, if you can get a court order and have some of the OEMs
>disclose the terms of these contracts, you could confirm or
>dispute this information.
IOW, you don't have any proof of your allegations (not that they have
any bearing on the original claim anyway...)
>Remember Roger, nearly all of the assertions I made in 1998/1999
>were eventually disclosed in the DOJ case.
Care to start another thread on this topic? Shall we decide right now
that a better than 80% accuracy rate will support your contention that
"nearly all" your fantasies were bourn out?
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:46:30 -0500
Erna Odelfsan wrote:
>
> I think TSX runs on 80286, and that Xenix runs too; I've heard of a
> project to port Linux to 80286 CPU's, but never heard it again, not sure if
> it ever became to something or abandoned.
The 80286 was a cool processor in its time, sadly it is woefully
inadequate these days. Virtual memory based on 64K byte selectors. Yuck.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:48:46 -0800
>I've asked this question before in another news group and got some good
>answers, but this seems like a much better place to get them because you
folks
>really know your stuff, :-) so I'm trying it again.
What? You are asking around behind our back! 8-( (sniff, wipe, blow)
>Are there any non-MS OS's (ie. DOS) still available that will run on
>a 80286 machine that I would like to use as just an Internet gateway
utilizing
>ip forwarding, for a small lan? I have one of these 'lil 'ol boxes
collecting
>dust and desire to give it one last mission in life before it's finally
>retired to a scrap heap.
Since our last exchange on this problem, I remembered two other OS's
one was LiLnix and unix for the 8080 was supposed to be ported to the
8086/8088 (not sure if they ever finished the port), the other was
micronix-16 which was a 8086 port of micronix for S100 based Z80.
computers Note that micro in micronix was written with written as the
lower case greek letter mu. I believe there was some trouble between
Micronix Partners and both AT&T and Microsoft that caused Micronix
Partners to disolve. Just before their dissolution they made micronix
and micronix 86 public domain, source code and all.
Does anyone know were to find any of these?
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 02:54:59 GMT
In article <8brcf0$187$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Microsoft should have to seperate the Windows OS from Internet
> Explorer. Everyone should have the option to delete the browser
> (which you can't do with IE).
IE is a problem in several areas. First, it was used as a cover for
shipping most of the binaries for Microsoft Office, which would have
been treated as bundling. Most of the ActiveX controls bundled with
explorer, including the excel viewer, powerpoint viewer, word viewer,
and chart viewer, were effectively a thinly veiled attempt to smuggle
in the OLE and COM objects of Windows and make them memory resident.
This would then make Microsoft Office appear to have a smaller
footprint, but not a smaller price-tag. It would also assure
Microsoft of control of the underlying infrastructure, application
programmer interfaces, and run-time libraries.
Had Microsoft simply stuck with an enhanced version of Mosaic, and
complied with the original terms of the original NCSA license
agreement, I wouldn't have been terribly upset. But Microsoft's
use of an Open Source project to perpetuate it's own proprietary
technology without the consent of the thousands of people who
contributed freely to Mosaic and NCSA/Apache for the express
purpose of userping public standards with it's own tightly
controlled standards is unacceptable.
This is why I proposed an injunction preventing Microsoft from
interefering with, or preventing the publication of, industry
standards, especially when competitive standards have been published,
or the related standards have been published.
For example, the IETF publishes specifications for nearly every
protocol used on the internet, except for the proprietary stuff
used by Microsoft. There was a reason for this in 1982 and it's
just as valid today. It was believed that regardless of how good
the security system was, if traffic went across the internet that
couldn't be indentified, traced, and audited, then the entire
infrastructure was vulnerable to attack.
Ironically, by keeping the specifications open, including the
DES encryption technology, it became possible to manage the traffic
of millions of computers and to identify hostile users and dangerous
hosts. The CERT organizations has been able to trace and stop
numerous willful and accidental denial of service attacks, security
breaches, and publication of informtion like credit card numbers and
calling card numbers.
With the introduction of ActiveX controls, there have been more
breaches of security, more invasions of personal privacy, and more
examples of fraud and corruption by supposedly trusted people.
> No company or individual should be
> forced to use an operating system
> they don't want to.
This is currently out of the scope of the current litigation, but
the DOJ or the FTC should examine Microsoft's role in corporate
policies that mandate Microsoft Operating Systems, Microsoft
Office Suites, Microsoft Explorer as Browser, and Microsoft
servers.
Even in situations where the choice was required to go to a
competitive bidding process, the bidding process was ignored
and the contract was simply awarded to Microsoft. This includes
numerous federal contracts. Corel recently overturned one decision
when it was shown that a contract that required mandatory open bidding
was never even put through the bidding process.
These activities should also be investigated and prosecuted, possibly
under RICO statutes, but these issues were not presented during the
case, and may dependent on whether Microsoft is legally defined
as a monopoly. In any settlement, Microsoft must accept that it
currently is a monopoly and has used that position to extend that
monopoly into other markets. That one point is critical. It means
that Microsoft will be subject to all provisions of the Sherman Act
and the Clayton Act in all future dealings and operations.
The settlement should be a "probation", not an amnesty or a pardon.
If Microsoft violates that probation, the plea bargain is off, and
the full force of the law would be available.
If on the other hand, Microsoft is able to slide away without
accepting the Findings of Fact, all evidence gathered to this
point would no longer be relevant in any future antitrust case.
With Microsoft now extending it's monopoly into mass media (imagine
if Microsoft decided to merge with General Electric). Microsoft
already has strong ties in the form of MSNBC, CNBC, and all NBC
web sites. Microsoft/Bill Gates also has substantial interest
in Primestar, which is now part of Dish Network, and in several
cable companies. In most cases the percentage held is enough to
be influential, and enough to start a proxy fight, but not enough
to show up on the SEC radar.
> There are too few types of computers readily
> avaiable that you can choose the OS that comes
> with it or no OS at all.
Perhapse the best solution would be to install ALL of them on
the master disk, and then allow the user to format the partitions
that weren't needed. With 40 gigabyte drives, there's room for
about 10 different operating systems, and still have room for a huge
"common area" (a Fat32 partition?).
> Many people buy from chain stores and they come with Win98; and they
> would not think of putting Linux on there for you.
Many people buy their clothes at K-Mart too. This doesn't mean
that there aren't people willing to pay a little extra for tailored
suits, designer labels, and a bit more personal attention.
The same is true with Computers. Sure, there might still be a huge
market for CompUSA (the K-mart of Computer stores) but there might
be room for "botique" stores that would install Linux for you, that
would let you choose from a menu applicatons.
Certainly companies like Dell that give you your choice of video cards,
sound cards, hard drive sizes, CD-ROM speeds, and preinstalled RAM size
wouldn't mind spending an extra 30 seconds adding Linux (actually,
all disks could be mastered with Linux, but for Windows-only systems,
Dell would simply format the Linux partition as a "D:drive".
> For an open market companies and people need to be given a choice.
Actually, in a competitive marketplace - you might have several
choices. You could have several operating systems installed, and
perhaps even have them running concurrently.
> For all the criminal activities, Microsoft should pay a heavy fine.
The activities described in the findings of fact imply much more than
just civil (lawsuit penalties), but each executive involved would be
entitled to a jury trial. We have seen numerous examples of
fraud, extortion, blackmail, and racketeering within the summary.
Of course, the judge can only rule on the charges presented by the
prosecution. The judge could also add contempt charges.
Microsoft should probably do anything to prevent a final ruling which
would not grant conditional forgiveness of previous activities. We
have several examples of perjury, admissions of extortion, and
justifications for blackmail. Ironically, in many cases, Microsoft
didn't even deny the activities, but merely attempted to justify
their acts as necessary or typical.
It is unlikely that anyone would be prosecuted for perjury based
on testimony given in a civil case (it almost never happens). But
it would be appropriate to determine whether criminal activities
have been committed (again - with the goal of probation rather than
prison).
Ultimately, Microsoft must accept a plea-bargain, not an exhoneration.
The DOJ and the AGs cannot and should not accept any settlement that
allows Microsoft to claim that it did nothing wrong. If Microsoft
want to take it's chances with the Supreme Court, then Microsoft
should stop stalling and accept the ruling, and realize that their
next appeal will be directly to the Supreme Court. Microsoft has
been stalling and delaying long enough.
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
