Linux-Advocacy Digest #923, Volume #25 Mon, 3 Apr 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Robert Heininger)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (Kim A. Sommer)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Hal Burgiss)
Re: which OS is best? (chrisjenkins)
Microsoft NOT a monopoly (Donn Miller)
Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES (or
MDI for that matter) (Richard Corfield)
Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES (or
MDI for that matter) (Richard Corfield)
Re: Rumors ... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Rumors ... (Robert Heininger)
Re: Rumors ... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Win2000 kicks ass ("Robert Moir")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:10:23 GMT
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:34:31 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' wrote:
>Just installed Linux Redhat 6.2 after a few years away from the OS.
>I'm stunned at how much is changed, but i'm beginning to miss the
>things which caused me to return to windows in the first place.
>I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail. One that can
>automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules. A contact
>list that integrates with the mail program so I only have to maintain
>one list of contacts/email addresses. Netscape mail really sucks. It
>has corrupted my archives several times.
>The news reading programs are very weak. I simply want the ability to
>select what articles I want to download, tell it to download, and have
>it happen. I'd also like the ability to have it automaticly combine
>and decode messages. Several windows programs, (outlook, agent, etc)
>have these abilities. I'm surprised Linux still doesn't.
>Are there any modern applications in development that meet these
>needs? Everytime I tried to search for an answer to this question, I
>found a lot of advice saying to use mail, trn, etc. Yeah, I used those
>programs for a while; but I didn't upgrade to linux to use the same
>text based programs I used 10 years ago.
>Thanks,
>CG
Well, I'm a Linux newbie too, and although Forte' Agent runs fine in WINE, I
scraped it in favor of SLRN, and recently ditched NS mail in favor of Pine.
After way too many years of using _butt_ugly_inefficient_doze_apps_, I'm
quite happy to be using proven and high quality text based applications again.
My $.02
--
Robert Heininger __
# / / __ _ _ _ _ __ __ #
(o- # / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / #
//\ # /____/ /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ #
v_/_ # The Choice of the GNU Generation #
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim A. Sommer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: 3 Apr 2000 12:17:38 -0500
Unless I'm mistaken, I do believe bob was actually being very sarcastic
about the 51 IP connection limit.
My theory is MS used its experience with PC interrupts and
programmed virtual interrupt controllers to handle IP connections. They
actually have 10K VIC's for a total of 80K VI's but all the internal
stuff in WIN2K only leaves 51 free.
FWIW,
Kim
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David D. Huff Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob a bigger moron I can't recall! You write this shit like you believe
>it! Do you expect someone to add another PC for every 51 IP addresses
>they administer? You are an ass Bob.
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I do not know why you guys are making a big deal of this issue.
>>
>> If an ISP expects more than 51 connections to come in, they
>> simply buy an additional copy of WIn2000 Server windows edition.
[snip]
--
=======
Kim A. Sommer
Humans do it Better! The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Burgiss)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:47:32 GMT
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 17:10:23 GMT, Robert Heininger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:34:31 GMT,
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `[EMAIL PROTECTED]' wrote:
>
>Well, I'm a Linux newbie too, and although Forte' Agent runs fine in
>WINE, I scraped it in favor of SLRN, and recently ditched NS mail in
>favor of Pine. After way too many years of using
>_butt_ugly_inefficient_doze_apps_, I'm quite happy to be using proven
>and high quality text based applications again.
Yes, agreed. Mail and news are essentially text mediums, so why weight
it down with a pretty face. The only limit to what can be done with
mutt + procmail is imagination.
--
Hal B
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
------------------------------
From: chrisjenkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 10:40:44 -0700
So Windows might be sort of slow but it is getting better,
although it may have some not so good programs it also has
some realy good ones and it certainly the best OS.
Chris Jenkins
P.S. DOS it not the best OS, it has hardly any programs and
is hard to use.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web
Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 13:57:42 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft NOT a monopoly
http://bero.exit.de/legal/
- Donn
------------------------------
From: Richard Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES
(or MDI for that matter)
Date: 02 Apr 2000 18:10:29 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) writes:
> [Combination of UNIX tools]
> Actually I think I must have a "IDE" as these seperate tools, CVS, TKCVS,
> make, and Elvis, are well integrated into my design environment ;-)
>
Thats the conclusion I came to though I suppose strictly what you have
is a "Development Environment", or even better an "Open Development
Environment". I could come along to your system with XEmacs, plug in
to your CVS repository and edit your files without problem. I'd also
be able to use your Makefiles and use Emacs' way of reporting
compilation errors. I could switch to GVIM to edit if needed. I could
use any of a veriety of debuggers.
I don't think the fully integrated environments offer any advantage
over that. They just reduce freedom and in the case of project file
based systems they seem to introduce problems.
- Richard.
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_/ _/ _/ _/ Web Page, CV: http://www.littondale.freeserve.co.uk
_/_/ _/ _/ Dance (Ballroom, RnR), Hiking, SJA, Linux, ... [ENfP]
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ PGP2.6 Key ID:0x0FB084B1 GPG/PGP5 Key ID:0xFA139DA7
------------------------------
From: Richard Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: OT:RANT:Long: If anyone develops an IDE for Linux PLEASE NO PROJECT FILES
(or MDI for that matter)
Date: 02 Apr 2000 18:12:12 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> True, these are very minor nits, as things now stand.
>
> (Although thanks for the -e suggestion. Might be helpful,
> if ugly. :-) )
I remember trying to explain to someone at work the wonders of
javac $(find . -name '*.java')
- Richard.
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_/ _/ _/ _/ Web Page, CV: http://www.littondale.freeserve.co.uk
_/_/ _/ _/ Dance (Ballroom, RnR), Hiking, SJA, Linux, ... [ENfP]
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ PGP2.6 Key ID:0x0FB084B1 GPG/PGP5 Key ID:0xFA139DA7
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: 3 Apr 2000 18:20:12 GMT
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:57:34 -0500, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The barriers are there, they are real (not at all intangible or
>> abstract) and have nothing to do with market share or financial power.
>>
>> The barrier here is closed, proprietary data file
>> formats/protcols/API's/encodings . . . in short, the barrier here is
>> "secret information".
>The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
They don't? What is PC99 and its predecessors then? Maybe "control" is
too strong a word, but they sure do have "influence".
>MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not make
>it a monopoly in the OS market.
A court of law disagrees with you. It seems likely that this will be
affirmed on appeal.
>For example, Exxon has a monopoly on it's own gas pumps, but that doesn't
>make it a monopoly.
Was it a monopoly when it was part of Standard Oil? Why?
>- There is nothing preventing application vendors from writing software for
> other platforms.
Except the network effects, secret information, and exclusive OEM preload
deals that locked competitors out of the preload market. Sure, you can
write it, but will they come?
You will note that there has been no successful challenges to MS's market
control until now (and the jury is still very much out on what the effect
of free Unix will be). In any case, the challenger OS had to be given
away free while MS was being restrained in court in order to make any
inroads. It seems to me that would indicate some degree of market control
by MS. I don't buy your argument that all potential competitors have just
been stupid.
>but at no time were the OEMs FORCED to go with MSFT, they could've used a
Yup. As far as I know, nobody put any horse heads in Michael Dell's bed.
But if you don't recognize any sort of economic force, then there's no
point in discussing this with you.
>The problem with the AT&T analogy, was that AT&T had the only phone cable
>network.
>They also had the monopoly on long distance (i.e. no one else could provide
>long distance).
Why not? Nobody was FORCED to use AT&T. Customers could always lay their
own cable! What was stopping them? Surely some contrariean banker would
loan the money for such a project! AT&T would never have pressured
investors or potential customers of a competitive system, that's all a
lie! It is indeed unfortunate for Ayn Rand's theories of capitalism that
there are 1000 Jim Taggarts for every Hank Reardon in business.
Standard Oil once bought up strips of land in the path of a competitive
pipeline in order to drive up the cost and force them out of business. In
another case, they leased all the oil tanker cars near a competitor's
refinery so he couldn't ship any oil, then offered him a lowball buyout
deal. If a store carried competitive products, Standard Oil agents would
show up to tell the owner of their plans to finance a big new store down
the road unless he cooperated by signing an exclusive deal. I hope you
can see the analogy here.
But hey, this sort of thing is all fine since nobody FORCED anyone to do
anything at gunpoint. Lives and careers were ruined, customers paid more
than they should have, but that's a small price to pay for the good of the
shareholders. Right?
>Also, there is no barrier to entry, as anyone even a foreign college
>student (Linus) could cook one up in his dorm room.
So, what you're saying is that anyone can gain market share, they just
can't make any money at it, but that's not a barrier to entry. Ok,
whatever you say Chad.
>MSFT does not control both the hardware AND the software, and is therefore
>not a monopoly, any more than Exxon is not a monopoly over it's own pumps.
You can keep saying that all you want. In spite of your opinion, the
court has ruled that MS is a monopoly. Later today the court will rule on
whether the MS monpoly broke any laws in getting monopoly status.
Perhaps you can file a brief in support of MS when they appeal? Not that
it will do any good.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:29:39 GMT
On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:57:34 -0500,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Chad Myers' wrote:
>
>"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> I'd disagree with you both.
>>
>> The barriers are there, they are real (not at all intangible or
>> abstract) and have nothing to do with market share or financial power.
>>
>> The barrier here is closed, proprietary data file
>> formats/protcols/API's/encodings . . . in short, the barrier here is
>> "secret information".
>>
>> Imagine, if you will, that AT&T had implemented the telephone system
>> using "secret information" (protocols, specifications, signaling
>> profiles, etc.). Just making the bare "wires" available to the
>> competition would then have done *NOTHING* to solve the monopoly
>> problem.
>
>The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
>MSFT controls it's own OS. There's NOTHING preventing someone from writing
>their own OS and applications/APIs, etc for their own OS, as evidenced with
>*BSD, BeOS, Linux, CP/M, DrDOS, and every other x86-based OS.
>
>MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not make
>it a monopoly in the OS market. For example, Exxon has a monopoly on it's
>own gas pumps, but that doesn't make it a monopoly.
>
>- There is nothing preventing application vendors from writing software for
> other platforms.
>
>- There is nothing preventing OEMs from selling other software than Microsoft's
>(MSFT discourages it, and did some bad things, for which it should be punished,
>but at no time were the OEMs FORCED to go with MSFT, they could've used a
>different
>OS at any time, i.e., MS wasn't the only OS that could be run on PCs. Likewise,
>it wasn't like PC hardware was developed to ONLY be run with MS Windows)
>
>- There is nothing preventing consumers from buying a different OS, or buying
> from an OEM that doesn't preinstall Windows.
>
>The problem with the AT&T analogy, was that AT&T had the only phone cable
>network.
>They also had the monopoly on long distance (i.e. no one else could provide
>long distance).
>
>If MSFT control both the hardware (the phone cabling) AND the software (long
>distance
>server) and wouldn't let anyone else tap into their cables or service
>(proprietary
>APIs) then that analogy would be relevant, but it's not, so it isn't.
>
>A more relevant analogy would be that there were many different phone cabling
>that long distance providers could use, and consumers could choose from.
>
>MS happened to own one of the cabling infrastructures and would only allow long
>distance
>providers that it wanted to onto the wire and would disallow others.
>
>MS happened to have the best cabling infrastructure, so others wanted on, but
>MSFT wouldn't
>allow it.
>
>The LD providers had many other cables to choose from, but they wanted MSFT's,
>since it
>was the best.
>
>MSFT is not a monopoly, it just owns the best cables. It's call "competition"
>and
>"capitalism".
>
>> The same thing is true here . . . until such time as MS is forced to
>> release all interface information as both open, *AND* standardized . . .
>> they can and will retain their monopoly.
>
>They're not a monopoly. There are other OSes that open source, even.
>
>Also, there is no barrier to entry, as anyone even a foreign college
>student (Linus) could cook one up in his dorm room.
>
>MSFT does not control both the hardware AND the software, and is therefore
>not a monopoly, any more than Exxon is not a monopoly over it's own pumps.
>
>> For examples, look at Samba. The biggest problem with developing Samba
>> is aquiring the neccessary information to be MS compatible.
>
>What's wrong with using one of the other billion file systems or networking
>file systems? Why do you HAVE to use samba?
>
>Simply because MSFT doesn't allow 3rd parties to integrate with SMB, does not
>make it a monopoly.
>
>Use *nix and NFS if you don't want to use MSFT. Use Novell and IPX, use
>MacOS and AppleShare. You have many choices. MSFT != Monopoly.
>
>> > However much I dislike regulation... the invisible hand has been
>> > battered into unconsciousness in the computer industry.
>>
>> I despise regulation. I would suggest breaking the company up (Ala Ma
>> Bell), and forcing them to make *ALL* the code for *ALL* versions of
>> Windows open, and to *KEEP* it open for a minimum of seven years, with
>> *NO* use restrictions.
>
>Then we would have to do so for NetWare, Solaris, MacOS and many other
>OSes, because they do the same thing as MSFT.
>
>> That allows for the creation of competition, only impacts one of their
>> products (they can keep everything else that they have never described
>> as "part of the OS" private), and gives the most bang for the least
>> buck. Since a huge part of their revenue comes from Office, this won't
>> impact their bottom line negatively.
>
>There already is much competition, it's just that MSFT's competitors
>are incompetent and can't seem to succeed when success slaps them in the
>face (Novell was the kind of NOS for quite awhile, but got beligerant and
>lost the throne, now they cry to the DOJ because of their lack of competency).
>
>-Chad
As somewhat of a casual observer of these os.*.advocacy groups, what I'm
wondering about Chad, is if you have ever considered doing stand up? This is
damned good stuff you wrote, as usual. Thanks for brightening my day once
again! :-)
--
Robert Heininger __
# / / __ _ _ _ _ __ __ #
(o- # / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / #
//\ # /____/ /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ #
v_/_ # The Choice of the GNU Generation #
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 04:41:14 +1000
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:57:34 -0500, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> The barriers are there, they are real (not at all intangible or
> >> abstract) and have nothing to do with market share or financial power.
> >>
> >> The barrier here is closed, proprietary data file
> >> formats/protcols/API's/encodings . . . in short, the barrier here is
> >> "secret information".
>
> >The fault in your logic is that MSFT doesn't control PC hardware.
>
> They don't? What is PC99 and its predecessors then?
Dismal failures, more's the pity. Or do you *like* having ISA and other
legacy crap still around causing trouble ?
> Maybe "control" is
> too strong a word, but they sure do have "influence".
So do 3COM, IBM, Dell, Intel etc etc.
Microsoft are a *long way* from "controlling" the x86 platform.
Controlled platforms have their advantages. Only a fool would claim
otherwise.
> >MSFT has a monopoly on it's own APIs and OS, true, but that doesn't not
make
> >it a monopoly in the OS market.
>
> A court of law disagrees with you. It seems likely that this will be
> affirmed on appeal.
A court of law that had to use a very contrived and arbitrary definition of
"market" to reach such a decision.
> >For example, Exxon has a monopoly on it's own gas pumps, but that doesn't
> >make it a monopoly.
>
> Was it a monopoly when it was part of Standard Oil? Why?
>
>
> >- There is nothing preventing application vendors from writing software
for
> > other platforms.
>
> Except the network effects, secret information, and exclusive OEM preload
> deals that locked competitors out of the preload market. Sure, you can
> write it, but will they come?
This is different from any other product and company how, exactly ?
> You will note that there has been no successful challenges to MS's market
> control until now (and the jury is still very much out on what the effect
> of free Unix will be).
Probably because there have been vary few viable challengers.
> In any case, the challenger OS had to be given
> away free while MS was being restrained in court in order to make any
> inroads. It seems to me that would indicate some degree of market control
> by MS.
It would seem to me to indicate a great deal of intertia, which is hardly
uncommon.
> I don't buy your argument that all potential competitors have just
> been stupid.
Most of them have. IBM, Novell and Netscape being some notable examples.
[chomp]
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 19:07:20 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8c8u10$il7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WOW A WHOLE MONTH WITH OUT A CRASH???? REALLY??? WOW!!!!!
> You MUST be a MS user to be impressed with a months worth of uptime.
> Unix/Linux are used to getting a year or more of uptime.
> .
If he's only had it for one month and got one month of uptime, thats 100%
uptime Matt, so that would be quite impressive if it continues. Let's see
what he says in 12 months.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
