Linux-Advocacy Digest #894, Volume #25 Fri, 31 Mar 00 20:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Nice link (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Giving up on Tholen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Nice link ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Linux vs Windows development man-hours? (Robert Morelli)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:36:27 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nice link
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:38:15 -0500, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >between the lines to figure that out. Of course on Linux using Netscape I got
>what I
> >would expect:
> >
> >Netscape is unable to find the file or directory named /c:/aux/aux. Check the
>name and
> >try again.
> >
> >Gary
>
> That's basically the same message I got using Agent so I fail to see
> what the point of this URL/directory or whatever is?
> IE 5.0 is my default browser BTW...
>
> Steve.
>
> "Use your Sound Blaster Live to it's full capacity... Run Windows"
Well, both IE and Netscape caused a BSOD upon trying to browse this non-existant file.
The
only way out was to hit the power button.
The standard 3-finger salute did not work.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:43:10 -0600
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I have real problems classifying NT as Multiplatform. two or three
tops.
> > > Multiplatform is something like netbsd. Linux, although originally
> > > developed for the x86, has been proven to be capable of being
> > > multiplatform. NT has only been ported to alpha, mips, and is Merced
out
> > > yet? Mips was dropped. The Alpha's port is on shaky ground (is it on
> > > again or off again this week?)
> >
> > NT wasn't "ported" to MIPS. It was designed on MIPS. It was then
"ported"
> > to x86.
> >
> > NT4 runs on PPC, MIPS, Alpha and x86. I've heard that a SPARC port was
> > done, but never marketed.
>
> Regardless of the state of the "kernel" a usable OS is far more than
> just the base. For NT to be portable, it must also support a programming
> paradigm that allows the application level programs to work as well.
NT does support such a "paradigm". If you don't use any assembler, you can
usually just recompile an app for the new platforms with minimal changes,
and then only in certain circumstances.
> The Win32 API does not do well when endian-ness and/or bit depth
> changes. The applications that run on UNIX, run just about anywhere.
> They are designed to be architecture neutral. The Win32 (win16 as well)
> API is not so. The Win64 API is different from the Win32 API. It is not
> a simply recompile.
Oh, and pray tell how Linux handles endianness in a neutral way. Write a
binary file to disk using 32 bit Linux on x86, then try to read that file
using 64 bit Alpha Linux using the same source code. Do you think it will
work?
Win64 is a superset of Win32. Win32 apps should be able to be recompiled
for Win64 without change, as long as they don't make assumptions about bit
width. The same is true of Linux. Even something as simple as memset() can
screw the pooch if you hard code the size of the data types.
> As for NT, being designed on MIPS. It is irrelevant, it's primary
> supported platform has been x86. There is no Microsoft dogs for alpha,
> MIPS, or PPC. Also, the amount of work it seems to take to port NT to a
> different platform indicates it should not be classified as portable.
> Perhaps capable of being ported, but hardly "portable."
And what do you know of the amount of work required? You have experience
doing so? The fact of the matter is that very few people had Alpha, PPC, or
MIPS boxes to recompile their code on, that's why there were next to no
programs running on it. It had little to do with the ability to recompile
programs under it.
> In addition, I have mentioned in other posts, how much NT code is pure
> C/C++? If you were to download the DDK, you would see a lot of x86
> assembler in the drivers. You will also see, scattered about,
> assumptions about the architecture.
Device drivers are, by definition, architecture dependant. Name a single
architecture independant device driver. Just one.
> No, when I see IE, MS Office, quicken, and "name your application here"
> running on a non-x86 NT, with the same code base, then NT can be
> considered portable.
Office is a special exception. It comes from a legacy of x86 DOS based
code. Applications written to Win32 generally have no assembler in them.
Even Visual Basic exists on Alpha.
I'm pretty sure that IE exists on all 4 platforms that NT supported. No,
not the latest version, but certainly IE2 (which shipped with NT4) does.
There is simply no incentive for software developers to recompile to non-x86
platforms right now. It has little to nothing to do with the ability to
recompile on them.
> Until then, it has simply been "ported," which is different.
Oh god. Another Mig definition that is different from the rest of the
industry. I doubt you will find any export to agree with you that NT is not
a portable OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on Tholen
Date: 1 Apr 2000 00:32:22 GMT
Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I cannot fail to note that this "rebuttal" wasn't posted from his
>> "university account." Could it be that he's afraid of yet another
>> reprimand? I doubt if "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" will respond to
>> this article.
>>> Jim "little boy" Stuyck writes:
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I see that there has been no response from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Did you see that there was a response from "[EMAIL PROTECTED]",
Stuyck (little boy)?
> No surprise there.
I see that you didn't answer my question about what difference it makes
which account I use to respond, Stuyck (little boy). No surprise there.
I also see that you didn't answer my question about whether there was
something wrong with my choice of account. No surprise there either.
I also see that you didn't answer my question about the basis for your
use of "another". No surprise there either.
I also see that you failed to acknowledge the significance of the
evidence I presented regarding the alleged actions taken following
Sutherland's complaints. No surprise there either.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:41:51 GMT
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:53:41 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:57:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8c06fp$14b0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > I have real problems classifying NT as Multiplatform. two or three
>tops.
>> >> > Multiplatform is something like netbsd. Linux, although originally
>> >> > developed for the x86, has been proven to be capable of being
>> >> > multiplatform. NT has only been ported to alpha, mips, and is Merced
>out
>> >> > yet? Mips was dropped. The Alpha's port is on shaky ground (is it on
>> >> > again or off again this week?)
>> >
>> >It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be
>profitable)
>> >to free OSes like that.
>>
>> An OS that is owned by the resident 800lb gorilla of the market
>> doesn't need to be profitable.
>
>An OS owned by any publically traded company has to be profitiable, AFAIK.
Nope. A publically traded company has to be profitable. That is
WORLD of difference. A functional PPC or Alpha port could merely
be a Research & Development cost, or something explained as
necessary to be able to strategically exploit new openings in the
market. There are certainly plenty of ways to make that little bit
of apparent loss seem palletable on the annual report.
The OS is supposed to be 'portable' after all.
>
>> Furthermore, MS could have used
>> it's clout to MAKE Windows on other platforms not just viable
>> but profitable.
>
>How, pray ? MS don't have that much clout in the x86 market, let alone
>outside of it.
They have marketshare, mindshare and marketing. They could exploit
the same PHB's they exploit on x86 on the other platforms. This
would likely serve to more easily grow M$'s markets in what are
typically Unix strongholds. It lowers the initial barrier of entry
for the customer, who will likely be a PHB.
>
>> As always, they chose the least effort path that
>> they thought wouldn't inspire mass customer defections.
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Its off again.
>> >>
>> >> They also dropped a PPC port a few years ago. Just when it was looking
>> >> quite nice actually.
>> >
>> >Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
>> >software ?
>>
>> Typically when MS Shills talk about 'running things' the first
>> things brought to the fore are Microsoft's own apps. So, that
>> certainly shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore, MS is the leading
>> devtools vendor. Certainly they could have made supporting other
>> CPUs quite trivial.
>
>The dev tools were available for all platforms IIRC. Again, if the platform
>isn't being profitable, it would be stupid to support it.
That's a tad shortsighted for a company that is touted for
'strategic vision'. It could very easily be marketed to the
shareholders in that respect. That sort of genuine portabiliy
is why Linux seems to be creeping everywhere lately.
>
>> >> Go figure.
>> >>
>> >> I guess x86 hardware is "superior" for some reason.
>> >
>> >In some ways. It's common, cheap and fast, relatively speaking.
>>
>> It's not relatively fast, just relatively cheap due to a
>> self-perpetuating process based on popularity.
>
>It's relatively fast considering what it costs.
No it isn't actually.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nice link
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:47:29 GMT
Ok I see.
Didn't happen to me using Agent, which would spawn IE 5 in the event
of a URL or Explorer (the file mangler) in the event of an executable
(crazy for anyone to do this, but Agent does post a warning).
Score one for Agent I suppose.
Steve
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:36:27 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:38:15 -0500, Gary Hallock
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >between the lines to figure that out. Of course on Linux using Netscape I got
>what I
>> >would expect:
>> >
>> >Netscape is unable to find the file or directory named /c:/aux/aux. Check the
>name and
>> >try again.
>> >
>> >Gary
>>
>> That's basically the same message I got using Agent so I fail to see
>> what the point of this URL/directory or whatever is?
>> IE 5.0 is my default browser BTW...
>>
>> Steve.
>>
>> "Use your Sound Blaster Live to it's full capacity... Run Windows"
>
>Well, both IE and Netscape caused a BSOD upon trying to browse this non-existant
>file. The
>only way out was to hit the power button.
>The standard 3-finger salute did not work.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:53:15 -0600
Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c2t5j$tsm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >And which protocols might those be? There aren't many of them. Even
many
> >of the protocols Microsoft developed or co-developed exist as RFC's.
PPTP
> >for instance.
>
> There are *hundereds* of them - maybe even thousands.
> All the code generated from the IDL files that define
> the protocols MS uses (running over DCE/RPC, which is a
> published standard) to manage NT domains, NT users,
> NT machines, Exchange servers... the list goes on.
That's ONE protocol, not hundreds or thousands. And it's not a proprietary
one, since it still understands DCE/RPC. You just can't use the extensions.
The protocol is the same many of those, they just use different data
formats. MAPI is pretty well defined for instance.
> All of these are used as hidden proprietary wedges
> to drive the adoption of Microsoft servers due to
> the fact that Microsoft clients only support these
> protocols. *That's* the real monopolistic practice
> that needs to be curbed by law.
They "only" support these protocols? How is it that Lotus Notes works then?
> In addition, the modifications to the DCE/RPC security
> system that MS made (to use NTLMv1, NTLMv2) need to be
> published. Yes I know Luke in the Samba Team has
> reverse engineered many of these, but that's not the
> point.
I see nothing wrong with them adding extensions as long as they still
understand the base protocols.
> MS should publish the IDL for these protocols, and the
> modifications made to DCE/RPC to support the Microsoft
> proprietary security protocols.
IDL is not a "protocol", well, only in the most nit-picky universe it is.
It's a data format. If you start calling all data formats protocols, then
file formats are protocols.
> That's what *I* mean by "full and open disclosure of
> the Windows API's" :-).
I see nothing wrong with Microsoft adding extensions. Everyone in the
industry does it. Sun does. HP does. IBM does. And often those
extensions are considered trade secrets.
> Someone once said that "if Microsoft had invented the
> Internet, we wouldn't have protocols, we'd have API's".
Probably.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:16:01 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Linux vs Windows development man-hours?
Does anyone have a comparison of the amount of development time that is
currently going into developing Windows versus Linux? I'd prefer not to get
responses that point out the obvious, that it's hard to make a direct
comparison. I know that but I still consider the question interesting,
because the bottom line here is which OS will evolve and add new features more
quickly.
To try to pin down the question a little:
1. Compare standard Linux with Win2000. Of course, there's been a lot of
forking in the Windows code base, which means redundancy in Windows
development. Since Win 98 isn't really comparable with Linux, and is
a dead end, it makes more sense to focus on Win 2000. There are also embedded
versions of Linux, etc., which shouldn't be counted.
2. Compare all components that ship with Windows to Linux counterparts.
Since Windows ships with a GUI, we have to include Linux desktop
environments, as well as XFree86. Since Windows doesn't ship with a
decent editor, we shouldn't count Emacs, even though it ships with
every major Linux distro.
3. Collapse redundant development. Since both KDE and GNOME have the
same purpose, they shouldn't be added to each other. On the other hand,
there is some sharing between the teams and there is an advantage to having
two systems rather than just one, so that should count for a little.
4. Count time commitment. A volunteer who spends 10 hours a week on Linux
can't be counted with the same weight as a Microsoft programmer who works 60
hours per week. There are also differences in the commercial environment,
where programmers sometimes work under extreme pressure and sometimes have
inflexible deadlines.
5. Count competence and devotion. This one is of course the hardest to
quantify. The popular press generally comes down on the side of Microsoft
on this one. Whatever the reason, the programmers that brought us MS-DOS
and who took 15 years to copy the Mac GUI interface, are often called
"whizzes." Gates himself is often mistaken for a genius, though his odd
behavior and apparent lack of imagination and moral compass are more likely due
to a subtle mental deficit like a mild case of autism. Linux developers on the
other hand are disparagingly called "hobbyists" and "hackers." I personally
know at least one Linux developer whom I would, not lightly, label an
intellectual genius. But he's just one of many and I don't have any sense of
the community as a whole.
The level of the average MS programmer is probably a matter of widely differing
opinion. The company has grown too rapidly to maintain a consistent level of
competence. It's likely that many of the people they took on board in the 80's
were pretty mediocre, while the more recent hires are more mixed. Not only is
the natural ability of the developers relevant, but also "The Cathedral and
the Bazarre" idea. When it began the NT project, Microsoft tried to hire a
lot of the leading OS researchers. Obviously, whatever talent they did hire
has not been able to flourish in that highly corporate environment, as the
evolution of Windows NT/2000 shows no evidence of creative daring. The most
creative people tend not to like to be herded, berated, and whipped into
compromise by marketeers, as seems to be the life of the typical Microserf.
Also, the freshest ideas will always come from the younger generation. That's
something that Linux taps into very well, while in a corporation like
Microsoft, conservatism and seniority rule. There's obviously too many
considerations here for any kind of a definitive judgement, but I'd be curious
what people have to say about this one.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:14:00 -0600
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c39ki$phj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <jiwE4.804$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8bt8jj$2vv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > IE does *NOT* ship with viewers for powerpoint,
> > > > word, or excel. You need to download those seperately.
> > >
> > > True, but a very large portion of this software is already
> installed
> > > into the standard windows distribution. The viewers are merely the
> > > "face" of the application that has already been embedded.
> >
> > Backpeddling already? You claimed that IE installed these controlls
> and
> > that it did so to make Office's footprint seem smaller. So are you
> now
> > admitting you were lying?
>
> The bottom line is that when Microsoft was forbidden to bundle
> Microsoft Office with Microsoft Windows, Microsoft bundled all
> of the DLLs, infrastructure code, and binaries required to
> implement Office, and then provided a free viewer - This is
> yet another attempt to maintain and sustain the "Applications Barrier
> to Entry". Microsoft attempted to userp the public standard by
> making it's proprietary standard freely available - as a viewer,
> making it's control of Office a strategic product - keeping the
> value of MS-Office artificially higher than it would have been
> if the public had widely accepted Netscape Communicator or other
> third party products capable of generating public standard formats
> such as HTML, SGML, and TeX.
So, in other words. You lied when you said that Microsoft shipped them with
IE.
> > > > And which protocols might those be?
> > > > There aren't many of them.
> > >
> > > TCP/IP, IP, DNS, HTTP, HTML, MIME, TCP/IP over PPP, Frame Relay,
> and
> > > ATM, arp, smtp, nntp, snmp - in all over 3000 RFCs covering
> everything
> > > from the IP address to multimedia.
> >
> > No, which PROPRIETARY protocols from MS would that be?
>
> Protocols and File formats which are sent across Internet links.
> These would include MSWord documents, Excel Spreadsheets, Powerpoint
> Presentations, and anything else capable of passing an executable
> OLE/COM object embedded within the document.
So now it's protocols AND file formats.
I'll ask again. which *PROTOCOLS* are proprietary only to micorosoft?
File formats are not protocols. And Microsoft itself publishes the specs to
it's file formats.
I know of very few that are MS proprietary. Consider that many of those
protocols were co-developed with other vendors.
> Again, in a competitive Market, customers wouldn't tolerate the
> passing of "black wire" - binaries that cannot be audited for
> the nature of the content. Even encrypted content can be audited
> once it is decrypted.
Oh really? You're assuming that most people care. They don't. The ones
that do would not accept it, true. But that is a small minority.
Trust me, if MS's customers started to care about these things, MS would
bend over backwards to meet their needs. Microsoft knows how fickle the
customer is.
> > > One of the reasons ARPA formed what is now the IETF in the first
> > > place was to prevent the unfiltered proliferation of executible
> > > binaries across the internet.
> >
> > Funny, I thought it was formed to promote open protocol standards.
>
> Actually it was both. The primary concern of ArpaNet was that
> if they couldn't control the protocols, that people would be
> sending messages designed to damage the system. One of the big
> contriversies was the TN3270 protocol. Eventually, the issue
> was resolved with the implementation of TN3270 under the BSD license.
The Tao of IETF mentions nothing about binaries. I can also find no
reference whatsoever to the prevention of binaries being a primary reason
for the formation of the IETF. So, are you lying again? Why doesn't the
documentation support your assertion?
> The real issue, for the purposes of a DOJ settlement, is that Microsoft
> uses it's file formats, whether stored on files, or passed across
> the internet, to protect it's Application Barrier to Entry.
Then why does Microsoft publish those formats (in fact, they've published
them since the beginning of the MSDN).
> In the competitive IT markets such as UNIX, most vendors conform
> to open and published standards. Microsoft refuses to conform
> to these standards.
Strange that Windows 2000 has more standards compliance than ever before
then. Given that, as you say "Microsoft refuses to conform to these
standards". How can it be that Microsofts security model is based on
Kerberos, a publishes standard. How can it be that Microsoft worked closely
with the standards body to extend Kerberos in a standards compliant way.
(And don't bring up the issue about not-documenting the data format of the
extension fields. Nothing in the standard requires that they do so, it's
merely a good will gesture).
> Microsoft must provide sufficient detail of the protocols and
> file formats to facilitate GPL reference implementations, and
> under the terms of the GPL - - especially if they want to
> put that format across the internet.
Which protocols fall under the GPL liscense that Microsoft is using? And
why "must" they do so?
> Again, the goal here is to create a competitive environment in the PC
> market that is as competitive as the current UNIX market, where
> Microsoft may be the dominant player, but is no longer a monopoly.
Haven't you heard? Judge Jackson says that the Unix market is not the same
as Microsofts market, and that Linux and others are not considered
competition.
> Once the competitive market is achieved, Microsoft can do whatever it
> wants. If customers would really rather pay $600 for an Office
> Suite made by Microsoft for the $400 Operating System made by
> Microsoft, in a competitive market (because it's easier
> to Learn and Use), it doesn't mean that those who want the $100
> Office Suite for the $40 Operating System will automatically be
> excluded from all corporate communication and economic opportunity.
So your answer is to require Microsoft to play by the same rules as Unix,
which has hampered the development of Unix for the last 20+ years. That's
stupid. The Unix market has been fragmented for years and took the creation
of bodies like Posix to make it even mildly interoperative. The IETF was
created because of Unix's fragmentation, not because of Microsoft.
> The key is that if Microsoft tries to return to "Black Files and
> Black Wires" in an environment where 60% of the market is using
> Open Standards and Open Source based products, Microsoft users
> would have a very hard time having that proprietary content
> accepted by Managers, coworkers, clients, customers, and vendors.
60% of the market? Wow. Where did you pull that figure from? The DOJ says
Microsoft has 90% of the market.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
