Linux-Advocacy Digest #293, Volume #26 Fri, 28 Apr 00 11:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Mr. Rupert")
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (Streamer)
Re: Humor: Microsoft Monopoly Split ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: MS caught breaking web sites ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS caught breaking web sites (Brian Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:02:21 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ebtjd$6mg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : When Windows 95 first came out, engineers put sniffers on the
> > : net to figure out why desktops were sending traffic between 1:00 A.M.
> > : and 4:00 A.M. local time. Furthermore, this traffic was going
> > : via UDP (thus bypassing firewalls).
> >
> >
> > Interestingly this is why I've banned all versions of Winblows from my
> > network. Prior to discovering NT's propensity to try to connect at
> > random times to nameless IP addresses in SE Asia, I had a lone NT box
> > behind a masquerading firewall. No more. It still exists in case I
> > have to open Office documents that SO or WP can't handle, but its only
> > connection to the rest of the network is via Sneakernet.
> >
> > Microsoft is NOT entitled, legally, morally or otherwise, to know what
> > is on the contents of my hard drive.
>
> It seems a lot of people like to make claims like this, but I don't believe
> I've ever seen a single one back it up with actual evidence. Do you think
> you could be the first ?
Does the ability to disable software on a user's hard drive qualify?
--
Mr Rupert
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:12:01 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> It's comming folks!
>
> Just look at all the little Wintroll's.
>
> They are so angry.
>
> I think that's just too bad.
>
> Charlie
Well, I should receive my Applixware 5.0 today. I have 4.4.1 and I
already know it is superior to MS Office, includes more, and is much
cheaper than M$O. At least I know I can trust the software much better
than M$O.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the competition and Linux programs
much better than the M$ standards. <Who made M$ standards the yardstick
to measure by anyways?>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Humor: Microsoft Monopoly Split
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 13:56:00 GMT
Went to this site (http://www.jokewallpaper.com) & about split my
side! Great content & enough wallpaper to keep the desktop "fresh" for
months!
Highly recommended for the latest in parody.
-A-
In article <8e9fc8$rue$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Will Mircosoft be spilt into two companies Friday? Is there humor in
the
> Microsoft DOJ decision? We think so.
>
> Our original free funny desktop wallpapers that pokes gentle fun at
the
> Microsoft vs. DOJ battle. Including the free
> CD-ROM program "Microsoft World Domination 99 Total Control Edition
> 1.0", "Microsoft Titanic 98:
> What Computer Do You Want To Sink Today?", and the new "Microsoft
> WinSplit 2000".
>
> Download for free at:
>
> http://jokewallpaper.com/msdoj.htm
>
> Have Fun,
> Steve Kremer
> JokeWallpaper.com
> http://jokewallpaper.com
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:15:01 GMT
Allow me Mark.
Mark Weaver wrote:
>
> Are you sure this is a good thing for Linux? So far, Microsoft has been
> neglecting Linux because it conflicts with their OS strategy. That has
> provided a niche for other ISVs to survive (StarOffice, Corel, Applix). If
> Office shows up in the Linux domain, why do you imagine that the other
> office suites would do any better competing against Office under Linux than
> under Windows?
Who ever said that Microsoft would be competitive?
But I think if they had to base it on Linux, it would even up the score
much.
They rely on their OS domination too much.
>
> To take it a step further, if the Microsoft Windows company (as opposed to
> the MS Office company) perceived a threat to the Win32 API in the porting of
> Office to Linux, might they not try to keep that from happening by
> developing their own version of WINE that uses the real Windows code
> (perhaps called WDE--Windows Desktop Environment) for x86 Linux?
And what if they do?
>
> You want to run Office (or other Win32 apps) on Linux? Fine, but you gotta
> buy yourself a copy of WDE which--surprise!--has the same OEM pricing as
> Windows 9.x.
It will be the shortest seller in history. Once people start using
Linux
and installation and usage is common, then people will begin to see that
there
ARE other applications which are just as good for me to use which are
free.
I don't hold Microsoft Office in the same lime-lite as everybody else
does.
Most people in an office simply need a word processor. Some need a word
processor with a spreadsheet. The bulk of these folks will end up in
the
free software market once their prejudice towards linux ends.
Since Corel, and Sun and Applix already have head starts, and two of the
three are native,
then Microsoft is going to be behind.
I'll put it another way! Do you ever look back and wonder why station
wagons disappeared
in this country?
>
> I suspect that if the breakup does happen and the pieces of Microsoft start
> turning their attention to Linux, Linux fans may find they preferred the
> good old days when Microsoft left the Linux market alone.
Well, here's how it's going to happen. This proposed breakup has
changed my model significantly.
Phase #1 will be the destruction of Microsoft Operating Systems
division.
That would have happened 6 years from now but will be
accelerated due to the breakup.
Phase #2 This is the transitionary period where Microsoft applications,
databases, development tools
will be ported to Linux.
What's interesting about Phase #2 is that Visual Basic will
most likely be scrapped.
That will leave the bulk of federal and local governments and a
great many business's looking
for another development platform. They can't take VB to
linux. There's too much to do now.
The databases could go, but their competion from Oracle and
PostGresSql will just end them.
Their databases are VERY proprietary with their OS and their
development platforms.
The key phrase here is proprietary. They have become Locked
into a situation they must
reverse quickly and sucessfully now. Or they will face a
sudden death.
The applications such as word and excel will be the first
candidates to actually suceed.
Microsoft Internet Explorer and all related items are
functionally a thing of the past.
Phase #3. The Databases and development tools are dying or dead. They
were not functional in
their bid to migrate to Linux.
Only the applications have survived. People saw no need to
PAY the COST to get the
same thing they found in native applications. Corporations
REFUSED to pay.
May I cite the big car companies, Siemens, several stock
exchange and banking functions have
already made the move to Linux for the same reason in the here
and now. Linux is the dominate
OS in their environments right now. They got off the
Microsoft game 2 years ago.
Microsoft has become an applications vendor.
>
> Personally, I'd like to be able to buy WDE which would run Office and other
> Win32 apps on top of the Linux kernel--but I suspect others here might have
> different opinions.
>
> Mark
As you said, they will charge too much for it and it will die.
There's really NO reason to have a proprietary Windows extension riding
on top
of Linux! Further, they can't even compile anything on Linux without
making it
a GNU based product! They've got too much to do! It's not going to be
the same
as with what Oracle experienced!
They will have to go GNU as they need to compile and link with too much!
So their enormous price, whatever it is, will be destroyed quickly.
I hope they don't plan on making a living on it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:18:56 GMT
Streamer wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > It's comming folks!
> >
> > Just look at all the little Wintroll's.
> >
> > They are so angry.
> >
> > I think that's just too bad.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> Well, I should receive my Applixware 5.0 today. I have 4.4.1 and I
> already know it is superior to MS Office, includes more, and is much
> cheaper than M$O. At least I know I can trust the software much better
> than M$O.
>
> Personally, I'm looking forward to the competition and Linux programs
> much better than the M$ standards. <Who made M$ standards the yardstick
> to measure by anyways?>
Oh! Is that out already!
I've heard something about it. Let's hear more when you get it
installed!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat Linux Backdoor Password Vulnerability
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:37:45 -0500
"Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BRdO4.71356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The code hasn't been examined by as many people as you seem to suggest. Yes,
> the availability is there to do so. There's no argument on that. However,
> most of the people are just using Linux and wouldn't even know how to look
> at the code. Then there are people who do know how to, but that's as far as
> they get. The next group of people can do minor changes and so on. Not many
> have the knowledge required to check the code for security flaws.
> More and more security companies starting to look at different versions of
> Linux, that's the good news. The bad news is that more and more security
> flaws they find. The following site lists vulnerabilities for SuSE, FreeBSD,
> etc...
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the 3rd party review that Windows 2000
has gone through (MS hired several top rated firms to review the code and test
for
security) is much more rigorous than the non-professional hobbyist review that
Linux has gone through.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 09:39:52 -0500
Mark Weaver wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It's comming folks!
> >
> > Just look at all the little Wintroll's.
> >
> > They are so angry.
> >
> > I think that's just too bad.
> >
> >
> > Charlie
>
> Are you sure this is a good thing for Linux? So far, Microsoft has been
> neglecting Linux because it conflicts with their OS strategy. That has
> provided a niche for other ISVs to survive (StarOffice, Corel, Applix). If
> Office shows up in the Linux domain, why do you imagine that the other
> office suites would do any better competing against Office under Linux than
> under Windows?
>
> To take it a step further, if the Microsoft Windows company (as opposed to
> the MS Office company) perceived a threat to the Win32 API in the porting of
> Office to Linux, might they not try to keep that from happening by
> developing their own version of WINE that uses the real Windows code
> (perhaps called WDE--Windows Desktop Environment) for x86 Linux?
>
> You want to run Office (or other Win32 apps) on Linux? Fine, but you gotta
> buy yourself a copy of WDE which--surprise!--has the same OEM pricing as
> Windows 9.x.
>
> I suspect that if the breakup does happen and the pieces of Microsoft start
> turning their attention to Linux, Linux fans may find they preferred the
> good old days when Microsoft left the Linux market alone.
>
> Personally, I'd like to be able to buy WDE which would run Office and other
> Win32 apps on top of the Linux kernel--but I suspect others here might have
> different opinions.
>
> Mark
If MS created anything on the Linux platform, it would almost be
garaunteed to be of the same buggy nature as most of thier current
Windows software. Especially that WDE idea. This could work two ways.
Either they purposefully make the WDE more buggy than the Windows
equivalent so that people will say "Linux sucks because WDE keeps
crashing on it.", or they would convince people that the only way to run
"real" Linux is to use the MS version of Linux. Hence, we would be
right back where we are now, MS would once again totally dominate the
market of OS's, and Linux would quickly become just another buggy OS.
Of course, the free/GNU versions of Linux would still be around (and
would be the ones that I would use) but the fact is that through pure
market power MS would be the version that most corporate and home users
would get. Personally, I feel Linux would be a lot better off if MS
just left Linux alone and stuck with thier Windows products. Windows
will some day disappear because of it's low quality. I know, it won't
happen soon, but it will happen eventually. If MS does Linux, that
could be just the thing needed to ruin Linux's stability and bring down
the power that GNU/Linux now has in the geek circles. I know I would
probably be quick to switch to a BSD or even go back to BeOS again if MS
started to dominate the Linux world. I was burned by Windows too many
times to want MS back in my computing life. (That sentence should earn
me some flames). For me, whatever MS does, I will avoid it. But for
the rest of the computing world, only time will tell...
Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:50:04 GMT
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>WHAT is new and different about Linux? It's old and copied! AND it's not
>what they'll be using in the real world or in their future.
The kids were 5 and 9, IIRC. That means they have about 10-15 years before
they are likely to hit the job market in earnest (assuming that they go
to college/university).
Do you really want to make a prediction about what *class* of user interface
will be common in 10-15 years, let alone which *instance* of that class?
The only prediction I could make with any confidence is "It will look
nothing like Win98, KDE or Gnome".
>it's not what is running in their schools and not what is running in
>businesses. Teaching them how to use a poor GUI is no substitute for
>exposing them to the predominant OS and GUI that they'll very most
>likely need to use in their own lives. Why not teach your son how to
>be the very best mechanic of 50s style engines, lotsa good that'll do
>him getting a job working on year '00 engines?
In fact, if the school was teaching them the intricacies of '00 engines,
I *would* get my kids to also learn the '80 engines, and the '60 engines.
It's called "providing enough data to allow abstraction, and thus
understanding". I don't know about you, but I don't want my kids to be
trained monkeys who can expertly do stuff without really understanding
what they are doing, and why.
Bernie
P.S.: Oh, and I think the kids will learn soon enough that the predominant
system offers far less protection from accidental screwups, and will
probably cherish the freedom they enjoyed on their dad's machine.
I mean, seriously --- would *you* give your 5 and 9 year old kids
full, unsupervised access to a Win98 machine that contains
important and hard-to-recreate data? How about one on which you
have a week-long numerical calculation running in the background?
--
But what ... is it good for?
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM
1968, commenting on the microchip
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:40:05 GMT
> As for "hard to install" yes, the XFree86 X servers are hard to
install,
> but lets face it, they run on WAY more hardware than NT ever will.
What's so hard about typing 'make World'?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS caught breaking web sites
Date: 28 Apr 2000 14:59:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
:> Heaven forbid that kids should be exposed to anything new and
:> different...
: WHAT is new and different about Linux? It's old and copied!
I love how "old" is always thrown in as some sort of insult.
As in, "it's old so it can't be good any more!" Marketers must
love to foster this attitude to keep everyone on the upgrade
treadmill.
Children learn all sorts of things that are old, such as
writing and mathematics. But as long as such things are new
to them, the experience has value.
And at present, Linux is certainly different from the normal
OS fair that accompanies store bought PCs and Macs.
: AND it's not
: what they'll be using in the real world or in their future.
With no way to validate or invalidate predictions, I can
say "Linux is the only thing they'll be using in the real
world in their future" with just as much conviction.
: it's not what is
: running in their schools and not what is running in businesses.
So which would you prefer, that children use Apple][s at home
to match what's running in an average underfunded school
or a commercial UNIX to match what does the real work for
businesses?
: Teaching
: them how to use a poor GUI is no substitute for exposing them to the
: predominant OS and GUI that they'll very most likely need to use in their
: own lives.
So you actually believe in 10 years time the predominant OS and
GUI will look like Windows98? The fact is, kids have been isolated
from computers for over 15 years now for the sake of adults too
unmotivated to learn anything about them. Where's the tools in
Windows to let kids write apps on their own? Why are we
condemning future generations to use the same systems dumbed-down
for the elder ones?
9 years olds can handle the power of a computer without the need
of a point & drool interface - without the OS bigotry.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
