Linux-Advocacy Digest #899, Volume #25 Sat, 1 Apr 00 04:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 1 Apr 2000 08:21:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
doc rogers allegedly wrote:
>
>Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> | The conversation was ease, or lack of the same, of installing Windows.
>> | Rescue Disks _do_ reinstall Windows by just popping the disk in and
>being
>> | prompted to stick the Windows disk in at the right time. Maybe your
>point
>> | was that they might install some extra stuff too?
>
>> From my experience, rescue disks are nothing more then the contents of
>> your hard drive as it came from the factory, compressed and put on a
>> CD with a little bit of software that will put it back onto the hard
>> drive. And while yes that does result in having Windows installed,
>> it debatable that doing that is "installing Windows," at least in the
>> context of this discussion.
>
>Well, you just there said, "it does result in having Windows installed."
>Yes, they do more than that, too, but they do it in just a couple steps. If
>we're talking about ease of installing Windows, it is easier to install
>Windows from rescue disks than with Norm's procedure.
Come now, you /KNOW/ that is not a reasonable comparison. An
/EMERGENCY USE ONLY/-fail-safe-on-CD-recovery-tool is NOT the
same thing as actually using the installer.
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours?
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:34:56 -0600
Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Your stated goal is to determine how many man hours are going into Linux
> > versus Windows. Not "How many man hours are going into Windows-like
> > features in Linux". As such, one would have to count all the work being
> > done for Linux, not just the work done that is similar to work done on
> > Windows.
>
> No. The goal is the "bottom line" which is which system will evolve
faster.
> The only way to estimate that is the estimate how many man-hours are going
into
> corresponding features. If 5 times as many man-hours go into features
X,Y,Z, ...,
> under Linux, it will probably evolve 5 times as fast. I'm not referring
> specifically to features that emulate Windows. X is not a Windows-like
feature of Linux,
> but it is part of the GUI which corresponds to the Windows desktop.
Evolution is going to have branches on each side. For instance, nothing
like MAPI, TAPI, or DirectX exists for Linux. Comparing only similar
functionality is meaningless to the "bottom line" as you put it.
> > The real problem here is that many of the things "for linux" are also
> > developed for *BSD's, Hurd, etc... Very had to pinpoint.
>
> Again, think of the bottom line. I'm trying to measure how fast Linux
will evolve
> compared to Windows. I don't care if something is used also for another
purpose.
Well, we can look at the work that has been done. Linux and NT started at
about the same time, yet NT is far more mature than Linux in many ways,
Linux in others. SMP for instance, as has been proven. Yes, I know that
Linux's SMP has been improving, and that 2.4 has made great strides, but no
benchmarks have yet been done to prove that.
> > No. This falls back to one of my complaints that has been discussed
before.
> > Redundant development slows down the evolution of Linux. You should
count
> > redundant development, because it's still man hours that are being spent
to
> > "get there".
>
> No. Again, think of the bottom line. I don't care per say how much
total time
> is spent. I care how fast the Linux code base evolves. If two people
spend 50 hours
> doing the same thing, only 50 hours of work is added to Linux even though
100
> hours of human time were spent.
Not true in the slightest, since they are *NOT* doing the exact same thing.
They're doing similar things differently, and work from both will be used in
other projects down the line.
What you seem to be doing is trying to concoct some mechanism by which to
say "See, Linux development is happening much faster than windows!" if you
throw away this and that and combine these statistics and ignore those other
ones.
> > Microsoft has some of the brightest people in the world working for
them.
> > Take a trip through research.microsoft.com for an example.
>
> It's only been in the past couple of years that Microsoft has tried to
establish
> pure research labs. For them, it's an afterthought and a publicity
stunt, like
> the philanthropy that also only began recently. Companies like IBM and
ATT have
> always had a strong focus on fundamental research. This difference is
very
> significant in terms of production. IBM and ATT were both once
monopolistic like
> Microsoft is now. But at least IBM has contributed countless innovations
in everything
> from CPU design to database technology. Microsoft is a monopolist, but
it hasn't
> redeemed itself with innovations. Whatever people they may have hired for
a showcase
> research lab in the last couple of years aren't a factor in the
development of Windows.
How long did AT&T and IBM exist before they began to become more research
oriented? Probably a lot more than the 20 or so years that MS had existed
before starting on that path. Something you fail to realize is that
research heavy houses have to have money to support the resource drains of
research. I've heard statistics that less than 1% of all IBM research ever
makes it to market.
> > Remember that MS-Dos had several overriding factors. It had to be
backwards
> > compatible, And it had to run in a 1MB architecture.
> >
> > Even so, MS Windows 1.0 was released in 1985, a mere year after MacOS.
> > Windows 95 was 11 years after MacOS, not 15. And you must realize that
> > Microsoft had legal contracts with Apple that prevented them from doing
many
> > things for quite some time (for instance, Windows 3.x didn't have a
trashcan
> > because of contracts MS had signed with Apple 5 years earlier).
> >
> > You cannot look at the effect and say "They must suck" because you don't
> > know the factors which led to the situation. Given the strangleholds on
> > them, the developers of Windows 95 *WERE* geniuses to be able to make it
> > work as well as it did.
>
> The entire Mac operating system and hardware platform were developed in a
few years
> in the early 80's by Apple. At the time Apple was in a precarious
condition
> financially. When the Mac came out, Microsoft immediately announced that
it would
> release a similar product within a few years. They probably really
thought that with
> more money and programmers they could do it. Even at that time, MS had a
great
> deal of influence; the PC was already the standard for business. If you
recall,
> at that time MS already forced Apple to abandon its own implementation of
BASIC
> and strong armed them into agreeing to allow MS to use Mac look and feel
concepts
> in Windows. But Microsoft had money, they had warm bodies sitting in
front of
> keyboards, but they didn't have the talent. Windows 1.0 was a
ludicrously inept effort,
> whatever far fetched excuses you concoct. It couldn't even overlap
windows, not because
> they were bullied by a much smaller Apple, but because their bit blitting
algorithms were
> too inefficient. Windows 1.0 wasn't Microsoft's only fiasco at the time.
They tried
> to write a spreadsheet, but it was too slow to compete with 1-2-3. They
tried to write
> a database called Omega, but after spending 20 million dollars, they
gave up. Microsoft
> tried to downplay the project, because nobody can explain why Omega
failed, apart from
> programmer incompetence. They tried to compete with NetWare. But,
NetWare was so
> much more efficient that it could access a network drive faster than DOS
could access
> a local drive. They couldn't write decent compilers for their own OS, so
Borland
> stepped in to fill the gap. ...
They were much smaller back then. In the early 80's, they had less than 100
employees. IBM had 10's of thousands and they couldn't even write their own
OS for the IBM PC.
The Macintosh was such a screwed up architecture, that it took them 15 years
to come up with a fully pre-emptive OS, and even then they had to buy it
from NeXT. Apple researchers spent the better part of a decade trying to
write a new pre-emptive MacOS. They failed over and over again. Meanwhile,
Microsoft converted it's co-operative OS to pre-emptive in just 3 years.
And it became quite successful at that.
> For another comparison, consider the Amiga. The original Amiga team had
only 4 members.
> The first commercial Amiga release was in 1985, after only a couple of
years of development
> with a very tenuous financial situation. All the way back in the mid
1980's the Amiga
> had preemptive multitasking, multimedia features like digital multitrack
sound, and high
> color depth. It was a graphical system that shipped with a mouse and
could display windows
> at different resolutions on the same screen (which Windows still can't
do). It could also
> load and unload drivers without a reboot (which Windows still can't do).
While it's true that Amiga began with 4 members, it certainly didn't come to
market due to the work of only 4 people. It was many more. In fact, at the
time of the investment by Atari (1984), they had something like 20 people
onboard. Although much of the Amiga's OS was written by a few people. And
some of it was bought wholesale (such as AmigaDOS (note the D)).
> Similarly, the OS/2 Workplace Shell, which is still better than the
Windows desktop,
> was developed by a small team in about a year.
A shell is hardly an OS.
> At the time Win95 was introduced, Microsoft spent more than 500 million
> dollars on just the marketing for the product release. The company had
billions of
> dollars and hundreds of programmers working on the task, which was simply
to implement
> what had long since become standard operating system features.
But, they had to be implemented in a backwards compatible way, or at least
as backwards compatible as possible.
> You think the MS programmers *WERE* geniuses? Sad to say, I pity you. I
am a researcher
> in pure math and I know some of the most brilliant researchers in the
world in that field.
> It's hard to convey to someone who doesn't know, the kind of depth and
creative power
> the best human minds are capable of. If you think that a team of software
mercenaries,
> hacking an imitataion of the Mac 15, or 11 years late, are geniuses,
there is something
> missing from your experience of life.
Anyone can come up with a cool idea from scratch and implement it. But if
you need to adapt one crappy product into your cool idea while maintaining
backwards compatibility with the crappy product, that's not anywhere near as
easy.
The point you seemed to miss from my statement was that *GIVEN THE
RESTRICTIONS* that the Windows 95 programmers were under, it's amazing that
Windows 95 worked as well as it did. It's truly amazing.
It was a feat that Apple (who you seem to idolize) was unable to do for any
cost.
> > How fast they grow has nothing to do with "maintaining a consistent
level of
> > competance". Microsoft has one of the lowest turnover rates in the
> > industry. They recruit and keep people, that's where you competance
comes
> > from.
>
> How fast they grow determines their demand for warm bodies. When you grow
too
> fast, you end up having to pluck people out of the subway to fill that
demand. I
> think that was a serious problem for them in the 80's. I venture to
speculate
> that that had as much as anything to do with why the Amiga's four cash
strapped, but
> creative, develpers could do in a couple of years what took hundreds of
Microsoft
> drones a decade.
Microsoft hires less than 1% of all the people that apply for them. They
have over 3,000 open job postings, yet they are still very picky about who
they hire.
> A company like Microsoft has lots of cash, so they can entice some good
people with
> that. But in general, the most creative people aren't going to want to
be herded,
> and they aren't going to want to sacrifice their legacy for a salary.
They'll tend to
> move out on their own. Many of the people on the NT team are now wealthy
from stock
> options. That's enough for some kinds of people, but not all of the most
creative.
> There is a big sacrifice in devoting your career to something like NT. NT
is a commercial
> success, but it lacks the kind of philosophical implications of something
like Linux,
> and as a creative and technological effort, it's an embarrassment. The
people who've
> contributed to the development of Linux gain more in their historical
legacy. Those people
> took part in something that is changing the software paradigm, and their
work will have
> a more fascinating place in the history of the world. That's the sort of
thing that
> drives a different kind of person.
You call Linux creative? All it's doing is recreating an OS that's been
around for 30 years. Name something creative that has come *SPECIFICALLY*
from Linux that has never been done on any other OS.
> > > 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.
> >
> > "Creative daring"? What's that supposed to mean?
>
> You'd know if it had any. Like most Microsoft projects, Windows has been
developed with
> the most conservative possible agenda.
In other words, you don't even know yourself, since you can't answer the
question.
> > Dave Cutler and crew answered only to Bill Gates. They were virtualy a
> > completely unique entity for many of the years of NT's development and
were
> > not part of the "Microsoft culture".
>
> Fine. You can argue whatever you want about the conditions he worked
under. But
> you still have to explain why after more than 10 years of development,
with
> incredible financial resources, the Windows NT line is still just copying
> established paradigms, and hasn't attained the same level of reliability
as other
> server operating systems. Cutler leaves behind an embarrassing legacy.
The
> question is why.
Not bad for only 10 years. Considering that Windows 2000 is far ahead of
Linux which started at the same time. Compare Windows 2000 compares
favorably to OS's with 20+ year track records like VMS and Unix. It may not
match them completely, but it's certainly favorable.
> > > 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.
> >
> > You have no idea what Microsoft is like internally. Try reading
something
> > like Microserfs.
>
> Actually, I used the term "Microserfs" here informally. Microserfs was a
work
> of fiction. What I do put some stock in is something like "Dynamics of
Software
> Development," published by Microsoft press and written by the head coach
of the Visual
> C++ team. It describes pretty well aspects of the Microsoft culture.
These people
> are so into the "culture" that they don't even realize how they come off.
You may
> be surprised to know that he admits in this book that under pressure,
their coders
> sometimes seclude themselves, frantically writing complicated code that
nobody else
> can unravel. There end up being long tracts of kludgy code that nobody
can tamper with
> because nobody understands them. It's obvious that nobody with a genuine
love of
> software would write like that except under duress. That sort of thing
doesn't happen for
> instance with the Linux or openBSD kernel. From another viewpoint, I
have read direct
> quotes from Microsoft administrators that actually tout Microsoft's
ability to squelch
> programmers' inclination toward producing "elegant" designs. It is
apparently a point of
> pride that they can keep their people focused on market share rather than
intrinsic notions
> of software value. In a recent interview, de Icaza described his work on
Gnumeric as
> "art." That's a totally different mentality.
Have you read Steve McConnell's latest book, After The Goldrush, which
favors liscensure of software engineers (ala Electrical Engineers)?
There are similar books to Dynamics about most major companies, such as IBM
(read Mythical Man Month for instance). All companies go through such
phases.
> > I find it interesting that in one breath you talk about Microsofts lack
of
> > "consistent level of competance" and then in the next you talk about how
> > "the freshest ideas come from the younger generation". You criticize MS
in
> > one side by saying they don't have enough hard experience, then
criticize
> > them by saying they rely too much on seniority (which is hard
experience)
> > and not new people.
> >
> > Make up your mind.
>
> I don't follow your point here. Where did I say they don't have enough
hard
> experience?
You claimed they couldn't maintain "core competance" which is saying they
can't keep experienced people around. Then you claimed they had too many
experienced people and not enough young blood (nevermind that Microsoft
mainly hires only recent college graduates unless you have a proven track
record in the industry. They do this so that they can train them how they
want them before they learn bad habits).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: BEOS 5 the new star in OS's
Date: 01 Apr 2000 08:31:44 GMT
The one problem I have with their 'free offer' is that it's not very convinent
for some people to fetch a 40Mb file, plus the development package. Pretty
much that's why I haven't gotten it yet, although I'm quite eager to try it
out. I'd be most interested in a CD containing the free edition, if offered at
Cheapbytes-style pricing. (Are you listening, Be?)
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 02:51:05 -0600
Jeremy Allison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c3l33$o5g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >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.
>
> The on the wire format used to control an NT Domain
> controller is *not* documented. That's a protocol in
> my book. As are the others. They are protocols layered
> on top of DCE/RPC, in the same way that DCE/RPC is layered
> on either SMB or TCP or UDP. But they're all protocols.
I would say that MS has a good excuse for not documenting certain security
oriented protocols. Let's not get into the argument of security by
obscurity, but the fact remains that It's much harder to crack an
undocumented protocol than a documented one given the same code. Even the
NSA prefers obscurity in addition to security, and they are the experts on
the subject.
> >They "only" support these protocols? How is it that Lotus Notes works
then?
>
> Lotus provides their own client and server programs.
> They work on other systems as well as Microsoft. But
> we're not talking about Lotus clients - we're talking
> about Microsoft clients - you're changing the subject here.
The statement was that Microsoft clients *ONLY* support Microsoft protocols.
That's not true. The existance of Notes and other client-side tools proves
that.
> >I see nothing wrong with them adding extensions as long as they still
> >understand the base protocols.
>
> But we're discussing punishment for a predatory monopoly
> as defined by law here. That's part of the punishment,
> publishing the extensions.
That may be the topic of the thread, but this sub-thread has ventured off on
a tangent. I still see nothing wrong with Microsoft adding extensions as
long as they still understand the base protocols. Judge White in the Java
case has even agreed.
> >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.
>
> Not true. IDL formats *are* over-the-wire protocols.
> NFS is defined this way, as is the portmapper protocol,
> nlm and other parts of NFS. The entire protocol is defined
> in IDL files with the extension of .x.
If that's the case, then every application out there with it's own IDL has
it's own proprietary protocol. Not very constructive.
> You are squirming here, as you are trying to get Microsoft
> off the hook of having to document their over-the-wire
> protocols. Doing so would allow competition in the server
> market - the one Microsoft is attempting to use their client
> side monopoly to take over.
I could care less. I simply don't think any company, monopoly or not should
have to expose it's trade secrets. Doing so is suicide. IBM was nearly
killed in the mid-80's because of the DOJ stranglehold on them in the form
of a consent decree.
> I don't understand why you don't want this. Don't you
> think it would be good for customers if they had the
> choice of buying a non-Microsoft domain controller, or
> Exchange-like server ? One that would interoperate
> perfectly with the popular Microsoft clients ?
Microsoft spent millions on the development of Exchange. I think they
should reap the rewards of that effort and not just give it away to anyone
that wants to copy it. That's why we have copyrights and patents. It gives
inventors financial incentive for inventing.
> What is the gain you get from not allowing this ?
> My gain in allowing this to happen is the further
> extension and use of Samba as server software, I
> have no problem admitting that. What benefit do you
> get by helping Microsoft prevent this ?
I'm not helping them do anything. I'm simply expressing my opinion. And
that is that as an inventor myself, I have the right to keep that invention
to myself and sell it without fear of anyone stealing it from me (without
legal recourse). I don't think that just because I have a lot of money, or
that my product is successful, I should have those rights stripped from me.
> >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.
>
> Sun, HP and IBM are not predatory monopolies being punished.
> Microsoft *is*. That's what we're discussing here (look at
> the subject title :-). Publishing these over-the-wire
> protocols is a fitting punishment to allow competition.
IBM was a monopoly, and was nearly killed because of government intrusion
into what they could and couldn't do. Sun wants to be another MS and HP...
well, HP is never sure what it wants ;)
> >> Someone once said that "if Microsoft had invented the
> >> Internet, we wouldn't have protocols, we'd have API's".
>
> >Probably.
>
> And that would be a *bad* thing, as far as computing progress
> is concerned.
Perhaps. Such "what if's" are an exercise in futility.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
