Linux-Advocacy Digest #924, Volume #25 Mon, 3 Apr 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Rumors ... ("Chad Myers")
Re: which OS is best? (Robert Heininger)
Re: Rumors ... (Donn Miller)
Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux mail/news application questions ("Michael Faurot")
Re: Rumors ... ("Chad Myers")
Re: Win2000 kicks ass ("RCS")
Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly (Tim Kelley)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Rumors ... (Donn Miller)
Re: Win2000 kicks ass ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Jan Panteltje)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donn Miller)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Perry Pip")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 13:54:11 -0500
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >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".
influence. So what? So did all the OEMs, so could other OS manufacturers.
In fact, if you knew anything about it, the PC* recommendations are a Good Thing
and help keep PC manufacturers on the same page. They don't HAVE to adhere to it
if they don't want to, there's no law.
Besides, it's an open spec, and anyone can read it.
> >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.
Many state governments have executed "criminals" that were later found innocent.
Simply because the court of law finds in that direction, does not make it fact,
or even truth.
Judge Jackson has proven he doesn't have a full grasp on the situation,
that it was will be affirmed on appeal.
In fact, Judge Jackson has been overruled several times, even just in this case
alone, let alone other cases.
Considering he fell asleep twice during the hearing, I'm not sure he has a full
understanding of the situation, and therefore his rulings are to be taken with
a grain of salt. The Appeals process will be the determining factor here.
> >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?
Because it controlled all oil production and sale of oil. If you bought oil, you
bought it from Std. Oil.
If you buy a PC, you don't buy it from MSFT. If you buy an OS, you can buy it
from one of many sources. Go to your local BestBuy and count how many OSes you
can
buy for the PC, there are around 6 or so.
If you buy software, it isn't necessarily for Windows. You can buy ApplixWare
for
Linux, for example.
If you buy a browser (which most are free anyhow) you don't have to buy it from
MS. You can buy Opera for Windows, you can download Netscape for free, as well
as many others.
MS used some shady practices with strongarming the OEMs. The only power MS had
over them was that MS = lots of money to the OEMs. OEMs could've taken other
routes and not been as immediately profitable, but yet still profitable.
Apple is a good example. VALinux, Peguin Computing, and many others.
There was nothing stopping them from flipping MSFT the bird except for their
greed.
> >- 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?
ApplixWare seems to be doing fairly well. StarOffice wasn't too bad before
Sun took it over.
Many vendors are writing software for Linux now. What about them? There are
choices, and therefore, MS != Monopoly.
> 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.
The market leader in any market drives where the market heads, that's nothing
special, and it's also not illegal.
As far as incompetent competitors, Netscape, Novell, and IBM have all made
several compounding mistakes that lead to their ultimate demise (or near-demise)
in their respective markets.
However, Intuit, on the otherhand, was able to innovate rapidly, was
intelligent,
marketed well, produced and KEPT producing a good product and was able to beat
MSFT.
Netscape failed to innovate and keep producing good products. Novell was the
same way. Up until very recently, Novell's NOS, NetWare, didn't even have
protected memory, virtual memory, or any modern NOS features. They were
beligerant
and ignored their consumer's needs. Then MSFT came along with NT and blew them
away. THEN Novell started "innovating" (more like catching up) to keep from
going under.
Had Netscape or Novell kept innovating and driving the market and producing
new software, MSFT would've never been able to catch up with them. MSFT fought
long and hard to beat Novell. When people thought NOS, they though NetWare
(well,
most did at least). MSFT had to change their perception, and Novell did nothing
to fight this. No marketing, no better products, they just sat on their pile of
gold and plugged their ears and sang songs and hoped MSFT would just go away.
Netscape did the same thing. If anything, MSFT drives competition by forcing
these beligerant market leaders off their duffs and back to making decent
software.
NetWare 5 is a much better product than 4.11. Netscape 6 promises to be much
better as well.
Quicken continues to be a well-designed and intuitive product even when faced
with
OEM pre-installed Money9x or Money2000. People want their Quicken reguardless of
what MS throws at them for free.
>
> >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.
Sure, profit was a big driving force for Dell, and MSFT played on that, and
for that, they should be punished and forced to disclose licensing agreements
and level the pricing playing field.
I hope that the Judge sees the light and makes that the remedy. Breaking MSFT
up is just plain silly and irrelevant to the current situation.
> >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?
They could either use long distance, or not.
With MSFT, you can either use them, or use one of dozens of other OSes. You have
a choice, with AT&T, you didn't.
If you can't see that, then there's no point in discussing this with you.
> 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.
Std. Oil was bad. Very true, however, it's not even close to MSFT.
Software is a very robust thing. It's not like MSFT could buy up all the
rail cars, or buy up the land.
There is limitless ways to produce software, and limitless room for innovation.
The problem is, people like Netscape built a corner and placed themselves in it.
Rather than branching out and producing more software, they bet their whole
company
on one cheesy browser and didn't have the insight to see that there was more
money
in giving them the browser and selling the Internet access or the banner adds,
or
whatever. Give them the razor, sell them the blades.
> But hey, this sort of thing is all fine since nobody FORCED anyone to do
> anything at gunpoint. Lives and careers were ruined,
Because they were stupid and bet their lives on something that was very
shortsighted.
> customers paid more
Customers paid more at Netscape, not MSFT. MSFT was benefiting consumers by not
making it cost a fortune to simply browse the WWW. Netscape was profiting off of
something silly and shortsighted. Their market collapsed because of it, and they
were left with their pants down.
Fortunately, they got a clue and started selling the server software, which was
the
ticket. Now, they're getting the hang of it.
> >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.
If they want to make money at it, go for it. Just make a better product.
Make it easy for developers to write applications.
Make it easy for them to port their Win32 applications. Heck, even find a
way to make Win32 apps run on the system.
It's not that hard, it's just that everyone's too busy hating MSFT, then
out there innovating.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 19:02:56 GMT
On Mon, 03 Apr 2000 10:40:44 -0700,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `chrisjenkins' wrote:
>P.S. DOS it not the best OS, it has hardly any programs and
>is hard to use.
The last time I looked, there was an abundance of applications for Win9.X.
Win9.X is MSDOS, which utilizes an ugly graphical shell for the user interface.
Summary:
You are 100% correct, MSDOS is not the best OS.
--
Robert Heininger __
# / / __ _ _ _ _ __ __ #
(o- # / /__ / / / \// //_// \ \/ / #
//\ # /____/ /_/ /_/\/ /___/ /_/\_\ #
v_/_ # The Choice of the GNU Generation #
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:09:24 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Chad Myers wrote:
> Many state governments have executed "criminals" that were later found innocent.
Case in point: http://www.mugshots.org/misc/bill-gates.html
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 18:59:29 GMT
This is for the court, NOT MS, to determine.
.
.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://bero.exit.de/legal/
>
> - Donn
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Michael Faurot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 3 Apr 2000 19:16:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I'd love a mail program that can sort and search mail. One that can
: automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules.
mutt + procmail
: A contact list that integrates with the mail program so I only have to
: maintain one list of contacts/email addresses.
No ideas here.
: The news reading programs are very weak.
Hardly.
: I simply want the ability to select what articles I want to download,
: tell it to download, and have it happen.
Use leafnode with whatever mail reader you like for this ability.
: I'd also like the ability to have it automatically combine and decode
: messages.
tin + uudeview
Failing these suggestions, try looking at what applications are
available at Freshmeat:
http://www.freshmeat.net
--
==============================================================================
Michael | mfaurot | Hard work never killed anybody, but why take a chance?
Faurot | atww.net | -- Charlie McCarthy
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:18:46 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Many state governments have executed "criminals" that were later found
innocent.
>
> Case in point: http://www.mugshots.org/misc/bill-gates.html
Aww Donn, always the kidder with unoriginal and completely irrelevant jokes.
Do you have pictures of Bill Gates on your wall with the eyes drilled out and
"I HATE YOU" splattered on the wall in red paint?
Perhaps you should seek help, Donn?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "RCS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 21:25:24 +0200
Does not have a better GUI anymore!
RCS
Dirk Gently <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4sQF4.236$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Hello. What medication are you on? I think you had better stop eight
years
> ago. Windows CAN'T be better than Linux. Sure, it might have a better
gui
> and more programs, but it still isn't better
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft NOT a monopoly
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:35:19 -0500
Donn Miller wrote:
>
> http://bero.exit.de/legal/
>
>
> - Donn
I believe Gerald Holmes put this issue to rest a long time ago.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: 3 Apr 2000 19:43:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development.apps [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
Eh? All of them do that.
: automatically place mail in folders based on simple rules. A contact
That's what all of them do, either on their own or using procmail.
: list that integrates with the mail program so I only have to maintain
: one list of contacts/email addresses. Netscape mail really sucks. It
That's what I do. At least my alias list in elm is perfectly integrated
.. and accessible!
: has corrupted my archives several times.
I have no idea why people use netscape for news and mail.
: 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
Download? Why do you want to download them? Aren't you on the net?
: it happen. I'd also like the ability to have it automaticly combine
: and decode messages. Several windows programs, (outlook, agent, etc)
Combine and decode? Why would someone send you a coded message? If they
do and it's mime-typed, it will be treated in the right way
automatically.
: have these abilities. I'm surprised Linux still doesn't.
So am I, because unix, and linux, have always done so!
: 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
Use pine elm (my fave, but no one elses) mutt, and tin, slrn, etc.
: programs for a while; but I didn't upgrade to linux to use the same
: text based programs I used 10 years ago.
What's wrong with text programs? A letter is a letter. Text is what it
contains! If you want a gui to read mail, use a gui. But it's silly.
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:58:42 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Case in point: http://www.mugshots.org/misc/bill-gates.html
>
> Aww Donn, always the kidder with unoriginal and completely irrelevant jokes.
>
> Do you have pictures of Bill Gates on your wall with the eyes drilled out and
> "I HATE YOU" splattered on the wall in red paint?
Maybe you have one like that of Linus Torvalds?
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2000 kicks ass
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 20:11:29 GMT
In article <S%4G4.9499$Q5.33809@stones>,
"Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[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.
.
.
Gee, I see you got my point. The fact that ONE person has ONE month of
uptime is hardly impresive compared to the up time stats recorded by
Linux and Unix. The ONE month of up time DOES NOT rate calling W2K Kick
ass! Let's use a baseball analogy: a batter comes up to bat ONE time
during a season and gets ONE hit, That batter batted 1000 for the
season (A Perfect record). The fact that he batted 1000 does NOT mean he
is a good hitter.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Panteltje)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 20:17:16 GMT
You could give NewsFleX a try:
http://www.panteltje.demon.nl/newsflex/
My attempt to write an agent for linux.
And it works very well.
The search functions in the group lists are great (MS copied it from me I think).
It may not do all you need, but already people are having a go at it, so feel free :-)
Jan
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:22:21 -0600
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> It was the Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:26:20 -0700...
> ...and John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > George Richard Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > On 25 Mar 2000 12:07:53 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >I think Miles post sums up Linux and Windows perfectly.
> > > >
> > > >Miles I couldn't have put this better myself :)
> > >
> > > Any competent Windows image software allows for batch manipulation and
> > > conversion of images - without the need to learn to program.
> >
> > Sorry, but wrong again. Every interaction with a computer is
> > "programming".
>
> Nonsense.
Nope.
> "Programming" means creating a program.
Yep. As in, for example:
First, I'm gonna click on that button to do X, then I'm going to use
that slider to do Y, then I'm going to save this file as Z . . .
> A program is the incarnation
> of an algorithm
See above.
> and its respective data structures by means of a
> programming language that can be executed on computing machinery.
Right. See above.
Like I said, every interaction with a computer is programming.
> Writing HTML is not programming.
Yes it is.
> Recording a macro is programming.
Sorry, but again, yes it is.
> Painting a TIFF image is not programming.
Wrong again. . .
> Converting it to PostScript is automated programming.
. . . And again.
> Get it?
Yep. I get it. You don't understand.
Now, just what will it take to get you to understand that you need to
use a programming language that can be executed on a computer to do
*ALL* of the above?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 14:23:11 -0600
Matthias Warkus wrote:
>
> What's your point? JavaScript in an HTML tag is, well, JavaScript.
> That doesn't make HTMl a programming language.
According to your own definition, HTML is a programming language.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 16:35:01 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
> [Mathias Warkus wrote:]
> > Writing HTML is not programming.
>
> Yes it is.
I agree. I would consider HTML and {TeX,LaTeX} programming
languages. In html, you are programming a web browser to display
something. The browser acts as an interpreter for HTML. And, of
course, HTML is "Hyper Text Markup Language". Writing a TeX app is
also programming, in my view. You are basically programming a
typesetter when writing a [La]TeX document.
> > Painting a TIFF image is not programming.
>
> Wrong again. . .
Well, I wouldn't call creating an image programming. That's more or
less creating data.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 14:53:17 -0700
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8c7i3a$qa9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:7rCF4.1260$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8c3dhk$qvo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If the OS is not portable, stop
> > > > > > calling it portable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Portable does not imply ported.
> > > >
> > > > Portability is a claim that must be proven. If you can't prove it,
you
> > > > ought not claim portability.
> > >
> > > It's been proven in the past. NT was ported *to* it's primary
platform.
> >
> > Yes, it's been proven in the past. So that proves it *was* portable.
> >
> > You weren't try to say that it currently is portable were you?? The
> current
> > version, Win2K, has many new features and therefore it's portability
needs
> > to be reproven.
>
> Win2k *was* on ALpha until Compaq officially dropped hardware support.
So you are telling me that a single port that never got out of beta testing
proves an OS is portable?? Please.
>Just
> how many new features do you think got added between then and release ?
>
It doesn't matter, they dropped it because there were already enough issues.
Isn't it funny that Compaq can support on their Alpha chips a freeware OS
(Linux), Digital Unix (Tru64 Unix ), and a legacy OS (OpenVMS) but not an
"enterprise class" OS like Windows 2000!! It should be obvious to anyone
that a *decent* (i.e. 64 bit, stable, application compatible) Win2k port to
Alpha would sell more Alpha chips than Linux, Tru64 Unix and OpenVMS
combined.
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
