Linux-Advocacy Digest #421, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (2:1)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (mlw)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tinman)
Re: Shithead Distribution? (Mike Trettel)
Re: Which OS is WORST?
Re: computer viruses on LINUX (Streamer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 09:48:05 GMT
In article <996M4.1935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Linux has been leading the way in such facilities actually. On a
> > Unix, the themeability of Mozilla is just a side effect of the
> > GUI toolkit in use. ...
> >
> > All Apple had to do was hire the right ad agency.
> >
> But who is going to "hire the right ad agency" for Linux?
There are numerous OEMS including IBM, Dell, Micron, Compaq,
Hewlett Packard, and a number of others who need the assurance
of protection from Microsoft "All or nothing" reprisals before
they can install Linux. Furthermore, they need permission to
install Dual-Boot systems, a practice currently forbidden
by most OEM Windows 98 licenses. The DOJ has addressed this
issue in it's remedy motion. Even IBM is a bit concerned that
Microft will suddenly "pull the plug" revoking Windows 98 licenses
and refusing to grant Windows 2000 and Windows ME licences if
they start installing "dual boot" systems. If IBM, a company
for whom the PC is a relatively small percentage of total
revenue, is worried about Microsoft, you can bet that Micron,
AST, and all of the other smaller computer makers are at least
as worried. They don't have UNIX, Mainframe, Operations, and
Consulting revenue to fall back on.
> Right now there are three software companies
Actually, there are more than that. Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera,
and TurboLinux provide core systems. Mandrake is a Red Hat
distribution configured for user friendly desktop usage.
Mandrake is published by McMillan Publishing. It's quite
possible that a number of publishers may begin backing and
redistributing versions of Linux.
> and a few more basically hardware companies
Nearly all hardware companies have made some gestures to
indicate their interest in Linux. These range from including
drivers for the major distributions to publishing Linux Servers.
> all fooling around with versions of Linux that,
The important thing is that each has infrastructure in
place to support Linux.
> to me,
As you say below, your experience with Linux is rather limited.
I've been using Linux since 1991, and have used recent releases
of each of the major distributions.
> don't seem all that compatible,
The "incompatibilities" are actually quite trivial. For the
most part it's simply a function of which package manager
is being used. In some cases, packages can be switched from
one type to another.
> but I'm a Windows person so maybe it's OK.
'nuf said ;-)
> "Netscape" is really AOL and has a lot of bucks
There are a number of Open Source browsers, and AOL
has been under threat from Microsoft for several years.
Paul Allen was one of the initial investors in AOL and
at one time held a 25% stake. I don't know what the
current stake is. I do know that when Microsoft
threatened to remove AOL from the "Internet Connection
Wizard", they put Netscape on "back burner". The only
significant enhancements since then has been bug
fixes to correct for Microsoft "Service Packs" (which
may have included torpedos designed to damage Netscape).
> to make some noise
Well, they certainly have some good media connections :-).
> plus they are the only one to
> benefit from that noise.
Hardly. The OEMs stand to make more profit. Third party
vendors get a new market that isn't controlled by the
Microsoft Monopoly, and customers get more functionality
at a lower price.
Microsoft will still be a player in the game, but
they will have to adopt more standards, and won't
be able to "extend them" with virus incubators like
ActiveX and VBA.
> All these versions of Linux actually compete with
> one another as well as with Microsoft.
Of course. Microsoft doesn't have to worry about just
one competitor, but 5-7 globally.
> I don't see where anyone is in there
> for the long haul.
UNIX has been using this strategy for almost 20 years
(since the first commercial versions of UNIX).
By having the support of a number of different vendors
and establishing a common set of baseline standards
that governs about 95% of the infrastructure (with the
remaining 5% being mostly a function of subjective
and aesthetic preferences), UNIX was able to dominate
several markets while still cooperating with legacy
proprietary systems and environments.
Microsoft has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent any
variant of Linux or UNIX from establishing a substantial
market share of the desktop market.
> These posts started with R.E. Ballard
> suggesting that Linux would get 30-50%
> of the desktop market in a (implied) fairly short time.
This is based on some historical precedents. The UNIX
operating system is a fundamental backbone of the Internet.
The internet, based primarily on UNIX technology, grew
from 2 million users in January of 1993 to nearly 60 million
by January of 1996, nearly 50 million users were on the
Internet BEFORE Microsoft ever released Explorer.
> My belief is that no one is investing in the
> promotion of Linux to the general public
The advantage of having multiple companies
competing to around the same platform is that
you make it harder for Microsoft to make
that company a take-over target.
Actually, the number of different Linux companies,
along with the number of different complex alliances
of OEMS, Content providers, ISVs, and service companies.
> who will
> have to have an acceptance of it or
> else the OEM effort will never occur.
Microsoft has worked very hard to minimize the coverage
of Linux and UNIX as much possible for 10 years. I've
posted their tactics in other.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 09:48:17 GMT
In article <996M4.1935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Linux has been leading the way in such facilities actually. On a
> > Unix, the themeability of Mozilla is just a side effect of the
> > GUI toolkit in use. ...
> >
> > All Apple had to do was hire the right ad agency.
> >
> But who is going to "hire the right ad agency" for Linux?
There are numerous OEMS including IBM, Dell, Micron, Compaq,
Hewlett Packard, and a number of others who need the assurance
of protection from Microsoft "All or nothing" reprisals before
they can install Linux. Furthermore, they need permission to
install Dual-Boot systems, a practice currently forbidden
by most OEM Windows 98 licenses. The DOJ has addressed this
issue in it's remedy motion. Even IBM is a bit concerned that
Microft will suddenly "pull the plug" revoking Windows 98 licenses
and refusing to grant Windows 2000 and Windows ME licences if
they start installing "dual boot" systems. If IBM, a company
for whom the PC is a relatively small percentage of total
revenue, is worried about Microsoft, you can bet that Micron,
AST, and all of the other smaller computer makers are at least
as worried. They don't have UNIX, Mainframe, Operations, and
Consulting revenue to fall back on.
> Right now there are three software companies
Actually, there are more than that. Red Hat, SuSE, Caldera,
and TurboLinux provide core systems. Mandrake is a Red Hat
distribution configured for user friendly desktop usage.
Mandrake is published by McMillan Publishing. It's quite
possible that a number of publishers may begin backing and
redistributing versions of Linux.
> and a few more basically hardware companies
Nearly all hardware companies have made some gestures to
indicate their interest in Linux. These range from including
drivers for the major distributions to publishing Linux Servers.
> all fooling around with versions of Linux that,
The important thing is that each has infrastructure in
place to support Linux.
> to me,
As you say below, your experience with Linux is rather limited.
I've been using Linux since 1991, and have used recent releases
of each of the major distributions.
> don't seem all that compatible,
The "incompatibilities" are actually quite trivial. For the
most part it's simply a function of which package manager
is being used. In some cases, packages can be switched from
one type to another.
> but I'm a Windows person so maybe it's OK.
'nuf said ;-)
> "Netscape" is really AOL and has a lot of bucks
There are a number of Open Source browsers, and AOL
has been under threat from Microsoft for several years.
Paul Allen was one of the initial investors in AOL and
at one time held a 25% stake. I don't know what the
current stake is. I do know that when Microsoft
threatened to remove AOL from the "Internet Connection
Wizard", they put Netscape on "back burner". The only
significant enhancements since then has been bug
fixes to correct for Microsoft "Service Packs" (which
may have included torpedos designed to damage Netscape).
> to make some noise
Well, they certainly have some good media connections :-).
> plus they are the only one to
> benefit from that noise.
Hardly. The OEMs stand to make more profit. Third party
vendors get a new market that isn't controlled by the
Microsoft Monopoly, and customers get more functionality
at a lower price.
Microsoft will still be a player in the game, but
they will have to adopt more standards, and won't
be able to "extend them" with virus incubators like
ActiveX and VBA.
> All these versions of Linux actually compete with
> one another as well as with Microsoft.
Of course. Microsoft doesn't have to worry about just
one competitor, but 5-7 globally.
> I don't see where anyone is in there
> for the long haul.
UNIX has been using this strategy for almost 20 years
(since the first commercial versions of UNIX).
By having the support of a number of different vendors
and establishing a common set of baseline standards
that governs about 95% of the infrastructure (with the
remaining 5% being mostly a function of subjective
and aesthetic preferences), UNIX was able to dominate
several markets while still cooperating with legacy
proprietary systems and environments.
Microsoft has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent any
variant of Linux or UNIX from establishing a substantial
market share of the desktop market.
> These posts started with R.E. Ballard
> suggesting that Linux would get 30-50%
> of the desktop market in a (implied) fairly short time.
This is based on some historical precedents. The UNIX
operating system is a fundamental backbone of the Internet.
The internet, based primarily on UNIX technology, grew
from 2 million users in January of 1993 to nearly 60 million
by January of 1996, nearly 50 million users were on the
Internet BEFORE Microsoft ever released Explorer.
> My belief is that no one is investing in the
> promotion of Linux to the general public
The advantage of having multiple companies
competing to around the same platform is that
you make it harder for Microsoft to make
that company a take-over target.
Actually, the number of different Linux companies,
along with the number of different complex alliances
of OEMS, Content providers, ISVs, and service companies.
> who will
> have to have an acceptance of it or
> else the OEM effort will never occur.
Microsoft has worked very hard to minimize the coverage
of Linux and UNIX as much possible for 10 years. I've
posted their tactics in other areas.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 11:06:04 +0100
JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 May 2000 18:15:54 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:08:26 -0400, proculous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
> >> >the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
> >> >system.
> >> >
> >> >Talk about a waste of time! I spent 2 weeks trying to install this
> >> >piece of shit and finally gave up. I have installed every OS under the
> >> >sun and moon since DOS 1.0 and could not get this piece of junk, Linux
> >> >to operate correctly.
> >> >
> >>
> >> WOW! You're a real moron.
> >>
> >> 1) put CD in drive
> >> 2) push reset
> >> 3) click OK at all the prompts.
> >>
> >> Total time to install: 45 minutes.
> >
> >?? 45 whole minutes?
> >Isn't it about time to ditch the 386?
If yuou could put a 54x CD on to a 386/20, it still wouldn't do much,
because the IO speed is determined by the processor.
-Ed
>
> It's the speed of the drive(s) 'Woz', not the CPU.
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 06:30:57 -0400
Boris wrote:
>
> > Given Microsoft's track record for sabotaging competitors, I would not
> > be surprised if there were plenty of APIs which revealed whether the
> > app was Microsoft friendly and if not, some random spurious msgs
> > would be generated causing that app to fail or perform badly.
> That's not true. If you take any major MS application, e.g. Office, you'll see that
>it
> uses documented APIs only. Any developer can see that. On Windows OSes all API stuff
>is
> inside MS-supplied DLLs. There are tools (like QuickView) which list dependencies
>for any
> EXE or DLL. It's easy to see that Office uses standard Win32 API calls only. Same is
>true
> for other MS software. 3-4 years ago some software utilities used undocumented APIs.
>Not
> any longer.
>
> Boris
I do not have a Windows system handy, at least not without getting a
disk tray from a closet, shutting down one machine, and trading disks,
however, in the past, I have looked at some office executables and .DLL
files, and they do indeed call entry points that are not documented.
Sometimes they import ordinal number entry points that are not part of
the Win32 API. This does not even address what they could do with
"LoadLibrary."
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 10:40:41 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 06:45 AM,
jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens) said:
> I still have here on my shelves both the copies of Windows 3.1 and
> DR-DOS 6, as well as the patch disk a friend gave me to make Windows
> run on DR-DOS. None of those copies is a beta. Windows 3.1 will indeed
> refuse to run on DR-DOS, unless the patch is applied. Explain?
Karel, you are absolutely correct. Windows 3.1 would not run under DR-DOS
6.0 without the patch to which you refer. I ran a very active BBS when
Win3.1 was released. The patch was one of the 10 most heavily downloaded
file several weeks in a row.
There were also problems with 4DOS/NDOS and Windows 3.1. And of course,
each new version of MS-DOS broke 1-2-3. By that time I was running OS/2
2.1 mostly and when I did boot to DOS, I used PC-DOS so I didn't have the
problems.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 07:22:15 -0400
In article <39179067$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/08/2000 at 12:25 PM,
> WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>
> > (Two bucks says Bob either ignores the above post or responds with more
> > or less what I just said.)
>
> I will ignore anything eminating from the sewer called Cornell. It is the
> National Enquirer of higher education.
>
> Being a Cornell graduate just got a prospective member of our country club
> blackballed. That's what we think of you slime.
>
So Bob, what country club is that?
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Trettel)
Subject: Re: Shithead Distribution?
Reply-To: Y'all have to fix this@nowhere
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 12:01:34 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 17:08:21 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>This is a serious qustion:
>Anyone any idea how well either would run on a 286 with 640K memory. I
>(might) soon have one to play with.
>Would thay have any kind of memory protection (can the 286 do that?)
>
>-ED
I ran Minix for a while on a 12 mhz 286 with 2 megs, it ran just fine once
I configured it properly. Minix is a pretty good piece of work
considering the rather limited hardware support available for it. As to
your second question, as I recall the 286 has the ability to do limited
memory protection, and can access up to 16 megs total memory. You'd
better look that up though just to be on the safe side. I later upgraded
to a whopping 4 megs of ram and installed OS/2 1.3EE on it. Full
multitasking with a dos box and GUI on a 286-the mind reels.
--
===========
Mike Trettel trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net
I don't buy from spammers. No exceptions. Fix the reply line to mail me.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which OS is WORST?
Date: 9 May 2000 13:05:08 GMT
Hey, Shithead (by the way, your name fits you
like a glove!!) have you considered the possibility
of you being to stupid a REAL OS?
Question: do you own a keyboard, or did you
asked for the non-keyboard model 'cause you
had windoze?
Get a life, a brain and LINUX !!!
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Linux of course....It sucks so bad, >has no
usable applications and is
>truely a nostaglic trip back into
>how computing was done in the 1970's
>Green screen city dude..... In short, >we
are not interested...
>
>Take your shit operating system somewhere
>else.
>
>Windows rulllezzz dude's.....And don't
>you forget it!!!!
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: computer viruses on LINUX
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 07:11:57 -0500
abraxas wrote:
> >>Gnome may be *decent* for extreme newbies,
That's rather extreme, and I can't agree with this at this time. I could agree on
previous Gnome releases.
> but its stability, reliability and
> >>consistency have been in question since its very first day. And deservedly
> >>so.
Yes, but at least you aren't telling us that the other alternative, KDE, is ultra
stable either. I don't know if you've noticed, but lately KDE apps can't seem to
make up their minds in using qt-1.44 or qt-2.1. Nothing is more frustrating than not
being able to run one or the other KDE apps simply because you don't have the
required qtlib version. And it is a pain to keep qt-1.44 & qt-2.1 seperated since,
linkwise, they conflict. I don't seem to have these type problems with Gnome.
> <snip>
>
> They really oughta switch to sawfish already.
Agreed! I've noticed that sawfish seems more stable...however, I've also noticed
that sawfish hasn't taken up any less resources than enlightenment in my system yet.
I'm looking forward to future sawfish versions that will, hopefully, cut the resource
usage down noticeably.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
