Linux-Advocacy Digest #945, Volume #25 Tue, 4 Apr 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Rumors ... ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours? (Robert Morelli)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
BOOKS ON LINUX ? (Luca Marchese)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (Mark
S. Bilk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 17:45:46 -0500
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What about the dozens of other vendors (hardware and software) that
> > participated?
>
> Participation being, of course, a relative term.
How so? Do you have evidence to the contrary?
> > MSFT makes an OS for PCs that a lot of people use, wouldn't you think that
> > everyone would like to have their input?
>
> Of course! And don't you think that input will be designed, at least in
> part, to benefit MSFT?
Well, no one else has made much of an effort to standardize PCs. If MS wants
to put out a guide advising OEMs how to make things work better with their
OS, more power to them. No one is FORCED to use it, and MS software works
just fine on non-PC99 hardware.
Your argument is weak and only shows your anti-MS bias. The PC99 spec is
insignificant and, if anything, only makes things easier for everyone in the
market because OS vendors don't have to worry about supporting all this legacy
hardware, if they don't want to. They can just expect that modern PCs made by
major brand OEMs will be produced to a certain spec and it makes it much easier
for OS vendors to work with them.
MS has faught shoddy hardware vendors and OEMs throwing substandard hardware
into
shitboxes and then blaming the OS for quite a long time. Good for them for
finally
putting a stick in the mud and attempting to help get the PC industry on focus
and producing good, solid hardware that is widely supported.
> > What about 3Com,
>
> Nope. They create hardware that speaks to a standard network
> communications standard, one that many other manufacturers can, and
> already have, created hardware to speak to . . . in short, you can hang
> both a 3COM card and a Kingston card on the same cable, and they will
> talk to each other.
What about Wake-On-LAN? That was part of the PC99 spec. You honestly think
that neither 3COM nor Intel nor any of the NIC vendors had any say in how
that worked?
> > Dell, Compaq,
>
> Both of which make PC compatibles, right? Again, you kind of disproved
> your own point, here.
How so? Compaq, Dell, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, 3COM, and many industry vendors
got together and decided to write a spec as to how all the hardware would
function together in a modern PC.
Ditch legacy, more support for USB, etc.
> So follow along here:
>
> I can run the exact same copy Windows on any number of computers
> produced by different, independent manufacturers. Who else produces an
> OS that I can run the exact same copy of MS Office on as I run on
> Windows?
> In short, where Dell is Compaq's competitor in the PC compatible market,
> where is MS competitor in the Windows market?
You're not making sense. We're talking about the PC99 spec. It's for the
PC hardware industry. MS just brings in the OS/software point of view
to the table. If Linux vendors wanted to get together and write their own
spec, more power to 'em. They can even write it to exclude Windows from
running on the machine. It'd be stupid, which is exactly why MS doesn't
write the spec to exclude other OSen.
> > Anyone can join in the spec if you have something useful. Just because MSFT
was
> > there doesn't make them a monopoly.
>
> I never said that being there made MS a monopoly. I said that they were
> definitely interested in controlling the hardware.
Which is not true, and you have provided no good evidence to the support
this rediculous claim.
Control hardware, and help the PC industry get their heads out of their asses
are two different things.
MSFT is competing heavily with Apple now (despite the DOJ's rediculuos claims
that
Apple wasn't a significant competitor). MSFT needs to have IEEE1394, USB, and
several other devices into many PCs to compete with the iMac DV or higher end
Macintoshes.
It's in the entire PC Indutry's best interest to advance the PC spec and include
these new advances to prevent Apple from dominating the PC (generic) market
alltogether.
I'm still not sure how this is a bad thing, or how it's a bad thing that MSFT is
encouraging the PC industry to get it's shit together and innovate and compete.
> > So, MSFT has a monopoly over it's own OS, why shouldn't it? GM has a
monopoly
> > on it's cars?
>
> You missed the point: GM doesn't have a monopoly on the 1/2 inch nut, or
> gasoline, or the tire, or the steering wheel . . . the cost of switch
> from a GM car to a Ford is minimal, since all such vehicles conform to
> known, open specifications.
>
> Switching from Windows to some other operating system is like switching
> from a GM car, to riding a horse or flying a jet aircraft.
Not true.
How easy is it to get modern GM engines into Ford cars? Or even some GM engines
into other GM cars? It's not very, without significant cost or
creative-engineering.
Switching from Windows to something else is like switching from GM to Chrysler,
it's not easy, and there are some sacrifices to make when switching cars
(i.e., buying a new engine, buying a new transmission, buying new doors and
airbags, etc) (Note: GM is a monopoly because it bundles air bags with it's
cars,
and excludes other air bag manufacturers from producing them, according to the
DOJ's definition of monopoly)
Likewise, when switching from Windows to Linux, for example, there's going to be
some sacrifices. New drivers, different software (or having to purchase new
software).
Why should MSFT have to be responsible for making sure that their engine or
tranny
works on everyone else's chassis? It shouldn't. It'd be nice, but there's no
legal obligation.
> > Do you see Ford engines in GM cars? Or Crysler transmissions in Ford cars?
>
> Do you see both Ford's and GM's on the same road?
> On the other hand, do you see both MS and non-MS boxen acting as domain
> controllers?
That's not a valid comparison. I see MS and non-MS boxen filesharing (FTP),
browsing
websites (HTTP), and even monitoring each other (SMNP).
I don't see MS boxen being NIS servers, perhaps we should call all *nix vendors
monopolistic, then?
SMB is a Microsoft proprietary protocol and they have no responsibility to make
it
open.
Interoporability is not a legal requirement, just look at OS/2 or NetWare.
How come Novell hasn't been forced to open it's NDS services? Because it's
proprietary.
That's a rediculous argument.
MS is not a monopoly on the filesharing market. There are MANY MANY competitors,
the
most common of which is probably FTP and or HTTP.
> (Well, not yet, of course, but maybe soon, as the Samba
> team is pretty good at reverse engineering, never mind the fact that MS
> tried to get reverse engineering OUTLAWED!)
So did IBM, and countless other technology companies. MS's filesharing protocol
is one of the reasons that people buy MS products. Why should they be forced to
loose money on something they've invested so heavily on?
Perhaps everyone should be able to take Linux and bastardize it to however they
like without any respect to the GPL. Why is Linus a monopolist on Linux? That's
just as silly of an argument as you're making.
> > What about Texaco fuel pumps at Exxon's stations? Of course not.
>
> Can you use both Texaco and Exxon gasoline in the same car? Is the
> brand of car independent of the company you choose to use as your
> gasoline supplier?
Likewise, I can use multiple OSes (gasoline) on the same car (PC).
I can also use differnt brands of gasoline (OSes) in the same car (PC) on the
same road (Internet).
> You just don't get it: the ability to mix and match the way we do in the
> automotive field indicates at least some measure of competitiveness.
> This ability to mix and match is based on open, standard "interfaces".
There is no legal requirement for open standards. If MSFT wants to make money,
they will support open standars. They have, and they do. However, because they
need to make money, they must also have some proprietary software that would
cause people to buy their software over the next guy (NetWare, OS/2, etc)
You argument is weak, your point nonexistent.
> The *LACK* of ability to take a program from any random vendor, and run
> it on any random OS indicates a problem in our field.
I agree, but it does not make Microsoft a monopoly.
Interoperability is something that all industries strive for, however, it's
counter to captialism.
> The fact that there is *NO* other "road" that you may run your "MS Office"
vehicle
> on except Windows (please do not play red herring games re: Office for the
> MacOS, you know better), indicates a lack of competitiveness in the
> Windows market.
That's a very poor analogy. A better one would be that you can only use GM
engines
in GM cars.
It'd be nice if, when I purchase a new car, I could state that I want the best
engine
(Ford, for example, just for argument's sake), the best transmission (Chrysler),
the best mirrors (Jim-Bob's Mirror Emporium) and the best in-dash radio/Cdplayer
(Kenwood) but I can't. And, while this sucks, it doesn't make GM a monopoly any
more
than it makes Microsoft or Texaco, or Coca-Cola.
What if I wanted Pepsi in a Coca-cola can? There are limits to choice in the
market,
and it's just something we have to live with.
If you want a good office suite, you have to buy Windows. If you want a good TeX
to
PostScript renderer, you must get *nix. If you want a good NDS server, you must
get
NetWare. If you want GroupWise, you must get NetWare as well.
You can't call MS a monopoly simply because you can't get the best software on
every
platform.
Likewise, I can't call GM a monopoly simply because I can't get their engines
with
a Ford car.
> And, indeed, MS Windows must be defined as a complete, and wholly
> separate market precisely *BECAUSE* they control the "interfaces". Any
> other proprietary OS that uses proprietary interfaces (such as the
> MacOS) would automatically run the risk of become a monopoly if the
> vendor ever gained control over a significant market.
By your definition, GM is a monopoly because they make their Engine mounts
proprietary
so that _ONLY_ GM engines will work properly.
MS makes Windows, and MS makes the APIs.
There is no legal requirement for them to open the API. Perhaps it'd be better
business
for them, perhaps not, but that doesn't make them a monopoly one way or the
other.
The MacOS APIs are not full knowledge, is Apple then a monopoly? Hell, they even
control the hardware too.
Since the DOJ defined such a narrow market (Intel-Compatible PCs) then also
Apple Macintosh PCs is a market and Apple is completely a monopoly, and they
should
be broken up because of it! See how silly that sounds?
The fact is, the DOJ's rediculous definition of their very narrow market is
simply
incorrect. Because you can walk into BestBuy or CircuitCity and buy any number
of
PC OSes, applications that run on multiple OSes, Apple Macintosh computers and
tons of software that goes along with that.
Also, Microsoft does NOT have a monopoly on browsers, because you can get
several
browsers, and also you could get a Macintosh from a non-PC OEM that had a
different
browser alltogether.
> Apple was saved
> from being served papers by the simple fact that the MacOS market is not
> deemed significant, and the simple fact that the MacOS API is much, much
> more stable than that of Windows.
The iMac, iBook, G4, and PowerBook are heavy sellers. They even have significant
shelf space at BestBuy. Simply because the ignorant DOJ deems it insignificant
(to support their weak case) doesn't make them really insignificant.
> Unices, of course, do not and in general cannot be the subject of such
> attacks, as there is indeed a Unix market that includes multiple
> competitors. Note that what allows for a truly competitive Unix market
> is the existence of, and adherence to open standards, such as SMTP,
> TCP/IP, POSIX, etc.
As well, Microsoft adheres to most of these standards and can interoperate
fully with most modern Unices.
> Had MS adhered to open standards, and *STILL* gained control over a
> significant market, then I'd say that the DOJ suit was invalid. But
> since they didn't, they are most clearly a monopoly.
They have significant market, and they continue to adopt new standards,
and even help develop new ones (DDNS, Kerberos v5, etc)
> > MSFT should be able to control their OS however they like.
>
> Nope. Any business person will tell you that the government has a valid
> interest in regulating business.
To a point. However, the DOJ is far overstepping their bounds here for primarily
political reasons. The interest of the consumer has no significance in this
case at all.
>
> > If you don't want to
> > work with them, then don't.
>
> If you don't want phone service, don't sign up with ATT (before the
> break up, of course).
That's a worthless argument and you know it.
You could choose Linux, MacOS, *BSD, BeOS, QNX, and dozens of other OSen.
> True, but impractical.
Hardly, people in these very groups will tell you how wonderful linux is
how much hardware it supports, how many app vendors are supporting it, etc.
You and your ilk are so hypocritical.
> > There's nothing stopping you from working with any
> > of the other dozens of OSes or hell, even creating your own.
>
> Indeed. There was nothing stopping me from building my own telephone
> network, or prospecting for, finding, refining, and distributing my own
> gasoline, either . . . except certain well know financial facts, of
> course.
Yes, there was. There was significant cost involved with building a telephone
network. Also, many localities prevented multiple cables from being run.
Whereas an OS, is simply software. It's like writing. There is no barrier
to entry for writing books, likewise, for writing software.
With the Internet, you could easily market and distribute your new OS for
next to nothing costwise.
There is no significant barrier to entry in the PC OS market, as evidenced
by Linux.
> You sound like you don't believe that monopolies are even *POSSIBLE*.
> Is that the case?
As always you guys twist my words. Writing an OS and building a nation-wide
telephone cable infrastructure are two completely different things.
Many computer science students write rudimentary OSes for projects in their
classes.
How many world-wide telephone networks do they build for 3 or 4th year
studies?
> > It's not like a
> > national telephone cable network,
> > it's software. Anyone with a keyboard and
> > a compiler can make their own.
>
> Really? I invite you to demonstrate just how easy, fast and cheap it is
> to write an OS that is compatible, and there for competitive with MS
> Windows. . .
I didn't say it was easy. I'm not an OS developer. However, many 3rd and 4th
year college students seem to be able to write half-way decent, albeit
rudimentary
OSes every year.
Linus just spent a little more personal time and ended up with a more
respectable
one that he continued to develop. He used the Internet and internet communities
to assist him. He is a prime example of why MS is not a monopoly, and why they
do not have dominant control over the market.
The pure fact that OEMs and retailers are pre-installing and selling other OSes
is another prime example.
With Std. Old or AT&T, you had no choice at all. If you wanted oil or LD, you
used
them respectively.
If you want an OS, you have many choices.
If you want Applications, you have many choices. If you want the BEST
applications,
you have to use Windows. But that doesn't make MSFT a monopoly, it only makes
them
best.
And for some reason, the US likes to punish successful companies for being
successful.
> > The only barrier to entry is intelligence,
>
> You need to read the findings of fact in the US vs MS anti-trust case.
> There are more barriers to entry than simple skill or ability. And
> those barriers are quite high.
Yeah, I read the FoF. They set up a strawman and tore it down, big whoop.
Let me paraphrase:
"In this vary narrow, rediculously tiny market we've created in our minds, MS is
monopoly"
I can do the same thing too, watch:
"Texaco gas stations only use Texaco pumps and pump ONLY Texaco brand gasoline,
therefore
Texaco is a monopoly of gas"
Which is as absurd as the FoF and CoL.
> Once again: please post the URL, address, or telephone number (or any
> other contact information you might have) of a company that sells an OS
> that I can use to replace Windows on my computer, WITHOUT ALSO being
> required to replace all of my applications, and to convert all of my
> data files . . . please?
I can't. And I also cannot post a number of a company that allows you
to take all your previous Ford car parts and buy a GM car without those
respective parts and use your Ford parts in that new car.
It's just as absurd and neither MS, nor Ford, nor GM should be liable
for doing these rediculous things.
Please post a number of a company that allows me to run GroupWise on
an OS other than NetWare? How 'bout an NDS master server on an OS
other than NetWare?
How 'bout a StreetTalk server on something other than Banyan?
See how rediculous your claims are?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Windows development man-hours?
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2000 15:53:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > You still don't seem to understand the question. If Microsoft programmers
> are
> > working on features that Linux doesn't have, then that's man-hours for
> Windows
> > with no comparable man-hours for Linux. Since you seem to be struggling
> with this,
> > let me make it entirely clear: if that's the case, it's favorable to
> Windows.
> >
> > Mind you, I posted this question because I want a real answer. I would
> find it
> > very depressing to think that Windows will survive long term against Linux
> and
> > other open source projects, but if that is a reasonable expectation,
> I'll
> > accept it. I'm pefectly willing to include aspects of Windows that are
> still
> > unmatched under Linux.
>
> I simply do not understand what you are trying to accomplish here. You do
> not seem to want to compare development directly. It might help if you
> defined what the "goal" you are looking for is.
The goal, as I've already stated, is to estimate how fast Linux functionality
is evolving compared to Windows. You don't seem to be able to sort out what is
essential from what is superfluous to this goal. For instance, if I instruct
1 million people to all write the same 30 lines of code for Linux, then Linux
benefits by 30 lines of code. Your confusion is that you want to count that as
30 million lines of code because your mind can't seem to be able to filter out
irrelevant issues like productivity and efficiency. You get hung up on whether
features of Windows exactly match features of Linux. If the two systems
maintained equal sets of features, there would be no sense in comparing, since
they'd always be equal. You even get hung up on whether some feature of Windows
has any Linux counterpart, even though this is obviously an essential part of the
comparison. You get hung up on whether some piece of functionality like a CORBA
orb is or isn't on a Linux CD (by the way it is in the major distros) though the
media are obviously irrelevant to the goal. You are in a quandary about whether
to include the entire GNU community, because you can't filter out the irrelevant
fact that its members share the open source philosophy with Linux.
Etc.
Forgive me for being blunt, but if you haven't gotton it yet, you ain't got
what it takes. I'm trying to get a question answered, but for someone to answer
it they need to have the brain power to understand it.
I'm also clipping the rest of what was written, since your answers are too
confused to merit a continuation. Either you're out here to deliberately block
serious discussion, or you just lack the focus to address exactly what's being
asked.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Date: 4 Apr 2000 22:59:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Leonard F. Agius wrote:
>Sorry to burst your bubble, buckwheat, but the average small business owner
>wants an off-the-shelf solution like QuickBooks or Peachtree. And so do their
>CPA's. I live in a subdivision with at least three or four small business owners
>residing in it. A landscaper, a retailer, and a couple of service type
>businesses. None of them would ever consider a Linux solution, especially if it
>costs $2000 just for a friggin' accounting package. Give me a break.
Hey asswipe, have a look at C/BOOKS available in modules with source at 295
USD a module from Conetic Software Systems Inc who also do a Sun &
WinBlowjob version. for more info www.conetic.com. You have no clue...
>Chicken-or-the-egg, pal. Chicken-or-the-egg. Who the hell is going to buy a PC
>package for their business, especially a small network, without the immediate
>availability of every type of software solution they can conceive of?
Linux would save them from being locked in by one vendor.
>Again,
>give me a break. Why do you think, especially since the Y2K upgrades, so much of
>small business America uses Windows?
Because they are to fucking stupid and believe all the marketing drool the
rags put out.
>When the hell are you people going to realize that the mass market makes the
>rules now???
Well this does not mean the mass market is right...most mass market stuff is
for loosers who are totaly moronic and actually would be better of using
color crayons & paper...I actualy gave a crayon & piece of paper to a moron
manager ones who was giving some crap about not being able to do a task
while I showed him at least 100 times how he should do it, so I got fedup
and gave him a color crayon and a sheet of paper and told him if he was not
capable of using a computer to do it on paper plus I fired him the next day
because he was unable to cope. I think about 95 % of corporate personal
should be sacked because they are incapable to do their jobs right the first
time around. Ask anyone in a corporation to do something that is un-usual
and I can assure you that maybe by the third time they do it the way you
require it...but by that time you could have done the blody thing yourself
so why pay the cunt for doing a job wrongly if you have to spend time doing
it again anyway becuase the employee is a total fuckup.
Michael
--
Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
------------------------------
From: Luca Marchese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.alpha,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.powerpc,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: BOOKS ON LINUX ?
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:09:37 +0200
ALL THE BOOKS ON LINUX IN THE WORLD ARE HERE
SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHERS GUIDE
http://scientificpublishers.virtualave.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: 4 Apr 2000 13:11:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Both X Windows and Windows can also define custom cursors,
> complete with coloration if desired.
X can only use two colours in its cursors. Unless someone's eased
that restriction in a more recent version than I've got the docs for.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: 4 Apr 2000 23:02:13 GMT
In article <uroG4.36898$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>> >running.
>>
>> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>> at no cost.
>
>Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>either Windows or Mac.
You're forgetting about the WINE (Win32 emulator) system
that runs under Linux. It will run a lot of the non-
multimedia Windows software, without needing a copy of
Windows. Its development is being supported by Corel.
If memory serves, someone posted here months ago that
Quicken runs under it.
www.winehq.com
>For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
>available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>community to provide them.
Why do you say that?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
