Linux-Advocacy Digest #244, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 11:14:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Be & Linux & Microsoft... ("Brian D. Smith")
Re: Binary Thinking ("Brian D. Smith")
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (abraxas)
Re: Be & Linux & Microsoft... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Be & Linux & Microsoft... (Mike Marion)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: RH linux stable?? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Jim Lewis)
Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I (JoeX1029)
Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system. (Ray)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Phil Earnhardt)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Ken Arromdee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Brian D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be & Linux & Microsoft...
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:45:14 GMT
I _DO_ hate jumping into the fray, but ...
While we all hold our own opinions of which OS is better (and I favor
Linux), the viability of that platform is determined by a number of
factors of the Total Cost of Ownership. To date, I cannot recommend
Linux in our environment. Not until there are a few more enterprise
tools (such as journaling file systems, ACLs, and perhaps better volume
management, at the minimum). Some of the TCO factors to consider are:
1. APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS. Advantage: Microsoft.
Yes we have StarOffice now, but transferring documents between MSOffice
and StarOffice can leave a little to be desired. (SO's Arial font
translation sucks). There are also a number of other office
applications that business have invested in (both in terms of licenses
and user training) including MS Project, Visio, VisualBasic, and a host
of non-Microsoft products. Before Linux is viable as a desktop OS in
the enterprise, we need the apps, or a decent windows emulator to run
the Windows version. (WINE isn't there yet).
2. Commercial support. Advantage: Microsoft. Recall that sometimes
accounts and non-technical managers end up making technology decisions.
Not a good idea, but you need to be able to support your choice of
platform. Yes, there is now commercial support from RedHat and
Covalent, so its not as much of an issue as it once was, but it's still
an impediment
3. System Administration Staffing, Recruiting and Retention.
Advantage: Microsoft. You can't open your car door on the highway
without knocking over an MSCE these days. We have a very tight IT labor
market, and Linux/UNIX expertise is harder to find and higher priced.
I've recruited and interviewed candidates for Linux/Unix admins, and I
speak from experience on this matter.
4. Office Productivity. Advantage: Microsoft. Every Larry, Curly, and
Moe knows how to navigate through Microsoft Windows, and Windows
Applications. It's in the schools, now. If you don't have windows
desktop (or something that looks just like), you'll have a steepr, more
costly training curve.
5. Cost of unscheduled downtime. Advantage: LINUX. However, Windows
is much better than it used to be, and, again, the bean-counters and
technophobe managers are comfortable with Microsoft, and tend to
discount the cost of Microsoft crashes
6. Licensing cost. Advantage: LINUX. No comparison. Less than $50US
for a commercial linux distribution for the entire enterprise, compared
to $4,000 + $85/user for Windows NT.
7. Importance of the Server to the business. Depends. Business
Critical databases don't tend to be put on Microsoft NT. or Linux.
They run under Sun Solaris, HP HP/UX, or IBM AIX (or AS/400).
There are more, but you get the idea. The bottom line is that the
choice of platform should be decision based on the business requirements
and cost of ownership, and the same answer doesn't apply to everyone.
If you have high uptime requirements and a 24x7 operation, you'll
probably prefer Linux/UNIX (at least for your servers). For others,
Windows NT may be the right answer. In either case, it's still
virtually impossible to justify anything other than Microsoft windows on
a corporate desktop.
Having said that, I see Linux in the same spot NT was about 5 years ago,
when it was the upstart OS against the dominant Novell. Now, its Linux
that has the momentum, and everyone's been jumping on the bandwagon. In
a few years time, many of the advantages that Microsoft now enjoys will
also be possessed by Linux, which will make it easier (and more common)
to justify it in the enterprise. I look forward to it.
-Brian Smith
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Davorin Mestric wrote:
>
> > Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Anyway you want to cut it, Linux is growing at a steady rate every year.
> >
> > windows has 95% desktop share, so it has nowhere to grow.
> >
>
> I will argue the percentage with you that Microsoft has only 88% of all
> desktops,
> you must consider there are companies which are running 98 and NT right now so
> 95 can't possibly have 95%. These are marketing statistics from 1 or 2 years
> ago.
>
> >
> > > The worlds population of P.C.'s right now have Microsoft OS's as the
> > > dominent OS but,
> > > every year they loose marketshare.
> >
> > not true, not even for servers. while linux server market share is growing,
> > NT is holding steady. linux is eating other big unix vendors.
> >
>
> In 1999, Linux was installed on 50% of all servers sold world wide.
> They account for a full 1/3 of the internet .com business right now.
> NT accounts for a small fraction, 12%.
> The balance are other Unix systems with FreeBSD taking a large chunk.
>
> These are again, today's statistics.
>
> >
> > when a market is shirinking this way, an usual consequence is that people go
> > to one major vendor, who sees a temporary increase in their share. this is
> > a case with sun right now. but soon, linux will kill sun also.
> >
>
> I can not argue that Sun is taking a hit. But when Compaq, Dell, and Gateway
> and
> other giants in the PC. manufacturing business report 50% of their servers have
>
> Linux installed on them, you can be this has little to do with SUN.
>
> Ultra Sparc and Sparc are Sun's mainstay.
>
> >
> > > In the last 3 years, Linux has been doubling.
> > > In 1999, according to market reports from companies like Dell and Compaq
> > and
> > > others,
> > > they report that 50% of their servers had Linux loaded on them when sold.
> > >
> > > The desktop markets show 21% of all desktop models sold had linux loaded
> > on
> > > them.
> >
> > they must be then erasing those linuxes and putting something else on them,
> > since linux desktop usage is measured at about 0.2% by statmarket.
> >
>
> As of last months statistics, based on world wide computer usage as of
> 1-1-2000,
> Linux accounted for 4% of the world wide desktop market.
> Their market has been doubling every year since inception.
>
> >
> > > Commercially designed and written P.C. operating systems will go the way
> > of
> > > the steam engine
> > > post 2006.
> > > The future will be in the hands of the free distributions.
> >
> > never, because open source projects are terrible at writting new things and
> > excelent at coping existing programs. this leads to a conclusion that open
> > source and free projects will never lead a category in technological
> > advances. free programs need comercial software.
> >
> > have fun
>
> I suppose it depends on which kind of technological wizardry you are refering
> to.
> If your talking about gimmicks and gadgets, then Microsoft has the lead.
> If your talking about items such as Clustering technology then it's going to
> be Linux. If your talking about fully redundant WEB serving, then it's SUN or
> Linux once again.
>
> But let's be frank. When the GNOME and KDE project produced material and it
> hit the market, the end of Microsoft's lead in teh gimmicks area is comming
> quickly.
> These groups and those who support them, are producing attractive desktop
> software
> 4 times more quickly than Microsoft is able to turn it out.
>
> While Microsoft still has a lead in pretty, Linux is only a couple of years
> behind and
> will surpass Microsoft.
>
> Linux has evolved with a core team to make it the best 18 wheeler in the
> business.
> It has more networking, driver support, clustering, web serving capabilities
> than
> any other UNIX or Microsoft product.
>
> While Microsoft lost the server market to Linux, they are sure to loose the
> desktop
> war next.
>
> It's a question of raw horsepower from programmers, and their community effort
> toward
> a one system world.
>
> It excites me as a programmer to finally have a one world operating system.
> One get's tired of re-designing all one's software only to be able to replicate
>
> the same pretty/wiz one had on the previous version of a Microsoft OS.
>
> Further, it's been an extreme pain for me to port commercial apps back and
> forth from say, Mac to NT to Unix. I'm sick of that and look forward to
> where all Sparcs, Mac's, Apples, Amiga's, and P.C.'s run the SAME operating
> system. Even the MAINFRAMES.
>
> Then we ALL can REALLY progress forward!
>
> I just wanted to say that so you would not get the notion that life in the
> commercial lane
> was just a ROCKET to the SKY!
>
> Linux is superior to those commercial OS systems as I don't have to throw my 3
> year old
> code away because somebody decided to redesign the entire OS.
>
> Give you an example. Try WIN api calls from 3.11. Then follow thru 95, 98,
> 3.51, 4.0 and
> finally Windows 2000. EEECK!
>
> On the Linux side, the X-server and the desktops are all jumping around.
> And they won't settle until at least another 10 years.
>
> Hey, you want a laugh. Go tune into the Debian project as I've done.
> You'll hear some bitchen about this X subject in there.
>
> Which libraries should we make this or that compatible with!
> It goes on constantly. I'm thankful that's all that's changing.
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Brian D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Binary Thinking
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:47:54 GMT
This is consistent with what I've seen from our outsourced NT support
organization. Many of these MSCE's have installed Linux at home, and
are asking my group Linux questions.
-Brian Smith.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Just read about a new IDC study that claimed that 40% of the WinNT users
> they surveyed also had Linux installed on their system. I don't know if
> this was restricted to home and personal use only, since I can't imagine
> that high a number had it included the corporate sector. Even if there
> were a large margin of error, it would still seem to indicate
> dual-booting is very much alive and well.
>
> When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like a
> nail.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: 24 Apr 2000 20:14:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Shall I go on?
Yes, please go on clinging to the back of the rotting whale of microsoft,
pecking at it like the wild vulture you are.
No, really.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Be & Linux & Microsoft...
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:25:21 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 19:45:14 GMT, Brian D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I _DO_ hate jumping into the fray, but ...
>
>While we all hold our own opinions of which OS is better (and I favor
>Linux), the viability of that platform is determined by a number of
>factors of the Total Cost of Ownership. To date, I cannot recommend
>Linux in our environment. Not until there are a few more enterprise
>tools (such as journaling file systems, ACLs, and perhaps better volume
>management, at the minimum). Some of the TCO factors to consider are:
>
>1. APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS. Advantage: Microsoft.
>Yes we have StarOffice now, but transferring documents between MSOffice
>and StarOffice can leave a little to be desired. (SO's Arial font
This is always going to be an issue, even with competing Win32
APPLICATIONS,APPLICATIONS, APPLICATIONS is a moot point if one
is solely limited to one particular dominant application amongst
what is sometimes billed as a sea of choices.
I only bothered installing SO 5.1 after finding out that 123 '97
couldn't manage a relatively mundane excell import.
>translation sucks). There are also a number of other office
>applications that business have invested in (both in terms of licenses
>and user training) including MS Project, Visio, VisualBasic, and a host
>of non-Microsoft products. Before Linux is viable as a desktop OS in
>the enterprise, we need the apps, or a decent windows emulator to run
>the Windows version. (WINE isn't there yet).
>
>2. Commercial support. Advantage: Microsoft. Recall that sometimes
>accounts and non-technical managers end up making technology decisions.
>Not a good idea, but you need to be able to support your choice of
What commercial support? Microsoft and the rest of it's cabal.
of consumer toy makers is a joke in this area. Throwing you in
the Cape of Good hope with a rubber duckie is not support.
...why even both with the rest.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be & Linux & Microsoft...
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:30:06 GMT
"Brian D. Smith" wrote:
> I _DO_ hate jumping into the fray, but ...
Oh come on... you wouldn't be reading COLA if you didn't get some kind of
enjoyment out of the discussions in here. :)
> 2. Commercial support. Advantage: Microsoft. Recall that sometimes
Man, I hope MS support isn't your idea of great support. I've heard of horror
stories about trying to get them to admit to a problem and/or help you in a
timely manner.
IMO, the best support I've experienced is from Sun. Then again, it's costly,
and supporting the hardware the OS runs on as well gives an advantage.
> 3. System Administration Staffing, Recruiting and Retention.
> Advantage: Microsoft. You can't open your car door on the highway
> without knocking over an MSCE these days. We have a very tight IT labor
> market, and Linux/UNIX expertise is harder to find and higher priced.
> I've recruited and interviewed candidates for Linux/Unix admins, and I
> speak from experience on this matter.
Your own comment explains why it's harder to find good Unix admins and why
they're worth more. There are so many people out there that are "certified"
who, in reality, don't really know what they're doing, it's scary. I must see
10 commercials at least every day on TV talking about getting Certified for MS,
or networking or some other IT job. When it comes down to it, if you don't have
good troubleshooting skills and can think logically, that certification isn't
going to get you very far. It does make it look like the labor pool is full of
plenty of decent people though, which drives down the money you can ask for.
> 4. Office Productivity. Advantage: Microsoft. Every Larry, Curly, and
> Moe knows how to navigate through Microsoft Windows, and Windows
> Applications. It's in the schools, now. If you don't have windows
> desktop (or something that looks just like), you'll have a steepr, more
> costly training curve.
Windows is not magically easier to learn. I've seen newbies have as many
problems with windows their first time as with any other OS. The difference is
that windows is the cheap OS that comes on a cheap PC... so it's what the vast
majority of people are first exposed to. _That's_ why they can sit down at
another windows box and use it with little or no more training.
If you trained a newbie from scratch on a Unix box, once they got things down,
they would be set. Whereas windows has drastically changed it's interface
before, and there's nothing to stop it from happening again. In X, I get to
setup the interface the way _I_ want.
> 7. Importance of the Server to the business. Depends. Business
> Critical databases don't tend to be put on Microsoft NT. or Linux.
> They run under Sun Solaris, HP HP/UX, or IBM AIX (or AS/400).
Can't really argue with that one. Though it's happening more and more
(companies using Linux).
> Windows NT may be the right answer. In either case, it's still
> virtually impossible to justify anything other than Microsoft windows on
> a corporate desktop.
Actually I disagree. I can see where a well planned Unix setup (Linux, FreeBSD,
whatever) using a standard image with a very user friendly setup would have many
advantages. You would have more fine-tuned control over the desktops: User
couldn't install a program that would write things into the registry possibly
causing issues with stability. Sure they could install a program in their
homedir, but it's not going to take the box down. I can tell you that just
being able to do that would lower many companies TCO when it comes to support.
A huge amount of calls regarding PCs result from users installing everything
from pointcast to games and such that end up making the system more unstable.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
President Grant: "Mr. West, not every situation requires your patented approach
of shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more and then when everybody's dead try
to ask a question or two." -- Wild Wild West
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:33:34 GMT
On 24 Apr 2000 19:33:14 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 21:36:59 GMT, Sierra Tigris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Craig Kelley posted Apr 22 re: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
>>>
>>>|Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>|
>>>| [snip]
>>>|
>>>|> In any case, it's rather nice that X allows such a range of
>>>|> taste across so many systems. Being able to have the
>>>|> argument at all is a triumph of the protocol.
>>>|
>>>|I totally agree. It's sad that people complain about having a choice.
>>>
>>> While I agree with the above sentiment, I must point out that in
>>>some cases having multiple enviroments/manangers can cause some problems,
>>>such as not being able to use an application because it requires another
>>>enviroment than the one you choose to use.
>
>> I run GNOME and KDE apps all the time without having either
>> 'enviroment' loaded.
>
>You do not do it without either environment installed on your machine
>however. They ARE there, and the programs you run do so nicely because the
>libs and suchness that they require are actually present.
That's true of any application, actually. Ever tried to sort out what
libraries a Win32 binary wants? It really makes you yearn for a Win32
of ldd.
Also, all the 'bloat' of the other 95% of GNOME or KDE is not present
and bogging your system down if the extent of your GNOME-bloat-problem
is a few extra shared libs and executables on your disk.
If it's not loaded into RAM, then it's not an issue.
>
>> Any app that cannot do that is broken
>> by design. The problem lies with the individual application
>> programmer and not with 'choice'.
>
>I really wish youd stop using linux. You're making the rest of us look
>bad.
You're the MORON not me. Whining about how you need to have 20 GNOME
libraries sitting on your disk is hardly compelling these days. Unless
you can demonstrate just what is the issue present when running the
GNOME panel or kfm all by their little lonesomes, then you are the
fool potentially embarrassing Linux users everywhere.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: RH linux stable??
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:36:53 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 18:17:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>
>> If an end user can't be bothered to explore a little bit, WinDoS
>> will suit them no better and they really should consider getting
>> an iOpener or somesuch.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> This is especially true when contemplating a microcomputer
>market
>> hegemony built on the utility of 'it runs everything'. Of what
>> value is that if you don't have access to genuine choices or
>aren't
>> willing to explore them?
>>
>> If you "can't be bothered" on an AltOS, it follows you "can't be
>> bothered" on the 'market leader' platform either. So, either
>such
>> a use is a hypocrite or WinDOS isn't suitable for them either.
>
>
>There is a difference between exploring software for functionality, and
>searching for something that works among a miryad of beta-quality
Which OS are you trying to with this 'beta-quality' crap?
Linux apps merely disclose more honestly. They are no more
or less 'beta-quality' than any other bit of software
(commercial or not) that's in a perpetual state of development.
>apps. This kind of "exploration" is simply a waste of time. I do not
>wish to be a beta tester for any OS.
>
>I guess the simple thing RedHat could have done to make my life easier
>is label the beta stuff as such, and exclude it from the default
>packages. But instead, they ended up folowing Microsoft's example by
>pushing beta-quality stuff into release.
It's really quite simple. The stuff that doesn't work, you don't
use any more. This is the value of choice. You can actually exert
that free will (that you don't have).
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Lewis)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 20:38:04 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8e1q5m$n8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> If, like me, you are concerned about the fact Microsoft has frozen
>> progress in every software industry segment they have entered, here's
>> good news:
>Hey, look at that, petilon spreading FUD, what a shock!
>Frozen each segment? Let's review, shall we?
>- OS software is more advanced, more usefriendly, and more stable now
> than ever. Apple is soon to release a finally-stable version of the
> MacOS. Linux is out and popular, BSD is gaining ground steadily, and
> Windows2000 is the best Windows MS has every come up with, and is a
> damn fine, stable, and advanced OS that competes with anything else
> out there.
> Windows ME and Whislter are not far behind and bring even more
> innovations and advancements.
>- Office Suite Software. The Office productivity market was floundering
> with old-fashioned poorly featured word processors and anemic spreadsheets
> until MS arrived. Lotus, Corel, as well as other less-known suites like
> ApplixWare and StarOffice have become better products because of some of
> the trends that MS has started. People compute in a whole different way
> because of the Office suites that MS has put out. People now do many tasks
> as opposed to just simply word processing with blue-screen WordPerfect.
>- Personal finance applications - With Microsoft providing stiff competition,
> Inuit has been pouring more and more resources into Quicken, making it a
> great and very complete product. They now include many features as well as
> allow people bank online, which is a very new innovation in the banking
> industry.
>Shall I go on?
>-Chad
No need for more! I am already down on my knees thanking heaven (or
Bill, same thing) for all the wonderful gifts that have showered down
upon me! What a relief. For a moment there I was almost believing
some of the anti-MS preaching!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I
Date: 24 Apr 2000 20:46:09 GMT
I've heard (OK read) Linus dosent care how you pronounce it as long as you like
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: on installing software on linux. a worst broken system.
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:13:06 GMT
On 24 Apr 2000 10:08:25 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Red Hat <> Linux. On my Debian system, to install Mutt, I just type
>>"apt-get install mutt". It fetches and installs any depends. automatically.
>
>But do you expect your Debian system to install RedHat-built rpms?
>That is the situation here - a non-RedHat system that breaks
>the expected name conventions trying to install a RedHat rpm.
I've used alien to install a few rpms but normally if I can't get a deb then
I just get the source and compile it myself.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: Phil Earnhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 14:27:43 -0600
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 13:01:18 -0500, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8e1q5m$n8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> If, like me, you are concerned about the fact Microsoft has frozen
>> progress in every software industry segment they have entered, here's
>> good news:
>
>Hey, look at that, petilon spreading FUD, what a shock!
Whether or not you agree with what petilon said, it's hardly FUD.
FUD is a statement made by a large manufacturer. Its intent is to
spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt for a customer that anything but
buying product from that large manufacturer is very likely the Wrong
Thing To Do.
FUD has a specific meaning. It doesn't apply here.
>- Office Suite Software. The Office productivity market was floundering
> with old-fashioned poorly featured word processors and anemic spreadsheets
> until MS arrived. Lotus, Corel, as well as other less-known suites like
> ApplixWare and StarOffice have become better products because of some of
> the trends that MS has started. People compute in a whole different way
> because of the Office suites that MS has put out. People now do many tasks
> as opposed to just simply word processing with blue-screen WordPerfect.
I am a casual user of MS Office; I could use anything that my employer
provided on my desktop.
One innovative thing Microsoft has done: with each new version of the
MS Office Suite (e.g. Office 98, Office 2000), they create new file
formats and they make the new file formats the default format for
anyone saving files. Even if the Office 2000 user has only used
features that are all available in Office 95, that file will still be
saved in Office 2000 format.
This is innovative: not from a technical perspective, but from a
marketing one. If you wish to manipulate documents from customers, you
had better have the latest version of the product. Each document
interchanged with other companies becomes a virus: they carry the
implicit message from marketing: "Time to Upgrade!" And, if you do
upgrade, unless you change the default file format, you also become a
vector for the virus.
>Shall I go on?
Yes. You could explain why Microsoft felt compelled to make
Microsoft-specific changes to Java and place them in the java.*
namespace rather than the com.microsoft one.
>-Chad
--phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: 24 Apr 2000 21:27:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could pry open that wallet and try a $20 PCI soundcard or
> $30 PCI SCSI2 card.
What PCI soundcards also work well under real mode DOS? (Requiring a huge
driver plus EMM386 is not 'work well'.)
(I really do need to know this, since I also have an ISA modem and if I ever
upgrade to an Athlon, not a lot of Athlon motherboards have two ISA slots.)
--
Ken Arromdee / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"Eventually all companies are replaced." --Bill Gates, October 1999
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
