Linux-Advocacy Digest #439, Volume #26 Wed, 10 May 00 09:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Peter Ammon)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (John Poltorak)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Ammon <[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: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:33:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2000 at 11:41 PM,
> Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >
> > I believe it was encrypted in both the last beta (which was the first
> > place it was found) and in the release.
>
> No, it was not encrypted. The error message which displayed when trying to
> load the release version on DR-DOS can be found at offset 028DFD in
> setup.exe from the retail disk.
According to "The Microsoft File"
"...the way the code was attempting to obfuscate itself was
outrageous....Schulman viewed this as a deliberate attempt to thwart
discovery, the sort of thing one expects from a teenager writing a
virus, not from a multi-billion dollar corporation."
Although the error message itself might not have been encrypted, the
code that checks whether DR-DOS was installed probably was.
-Peter
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:31:01 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 09:39 PM,
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Then breaking MS into two would have minor effect. The two companies
> can hire between each other and still innovate.
I think the requisite Compliance Committees would prevent that since the
companies will be very closely monitored by DOJ for 10 years.
--
==============================================================================================
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: Peter Ammon <[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: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:35:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 05/09/2000 at 09:41 PM,
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > The message existed but was switched off in the GA version of
> > Windows3.1.
>
> No, it was just changed. I posted the offset from Setup.exe in another
> message.
>
>From "The Microsoft File"
"...Shulman noticed that the renegade code that produced the error
messages in the beta versions of the software was also present in the
final retail versions of Windows 3.1. But wait a minute! A single byte
had been added to prevent the message from appearing on the screen of
the final version shipped to customers."
-Peter
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 07:45:44 -0500
<jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)> wrote in message
> > news:L9BY9tzSDwrQ-pn2-d9UNCCpPQ8ZT@localhost...
> > > I have a Windows copy, a DR-DOS copy and a patch disk. What more
> > > evidence do you want? Engraved stone tables?
> >
> > What evidence I want is documentation by objective sources to back up
your
> > claim that the retail version of Windows 3.1 wouldn't work with DR-DOS.
> >
> What documentation by objective sources can back up your claim that
> the retail version of Windows 3.1 did work with DR-DOS?
There is nothing in the Caldera trial documentation that suggests that the
retail version didn't work under DR-DOS. And in fact, there is
documentation that states the beta worked under DR-DOS with the error
message being "non-fatal" and allowing the user to continue.
For instance:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
"So whenever I've heard accusations that Microsoft practices so-called
"cruel coding" to keep Windows from running on DR DOS, I look at the facts:
Windows 3.1 Enhanced mode does run on DR DOS. Standard mode does not run,
but that's because of a DR DOS bug acknowledged by Novell (see Undocumented
DOS, Second Edition)."
> > Windows 3.1 was released in April of 92 IIRC, your files are dated from
> > March. How would it have meant trouble for anything?
> >
> Really? Shouldn't that be '91?
No, 92. But as Bob Germer pointed out, the final build was dated March
10th, thus the final release may have been very close to the patch disk's
dates.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:45:05 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 09:10 PM,
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Your experience is counter to what the evidence suggests. There was a patch
> > disk, but it was to fix some bugs in DR-DOS memory management.
> Same lame argument used over and over.
Of course Erik Fuckinliar is wrong once again.
We were primarily involved in law office automation and/or replacing the
Wang word processing system some mid-sized firms were using in those days.
We were constantly experimenting with various versions of DOS, alternate
operating systems such as OS/2, QDOS, etc.
Once we patched DR-DOS, much of its speed advantage over MS or PC DOS
disappeared in our benchmarking tests. Now understand that our tests were
SPECIFICALLY tailored to opening, editing, and printing large WordPerfect
(primarily some of our clients had switched to WordStar) documents. Hard
drives were slow in those days for the most part. Many of our clients were
running Seagate 225's, 251's, and similar 65ms access time drives. Most
were running XT's and AT's with very few 386's. We sold memory boards for
XT's and AT's by the carload in those days of 120 and 100 ns dram chips.
In any event, we found that there was no advantage to DR-DOS as patched to
allow Windows 3.1 to run.
For a time, we recommended QEMM for our 386 equipped clients. And that
reminds me that there was a specific refusal to install with QEMM
installed in the Windows 3.1 setup. However, we got fed up with
Quarterdeck and stopped using or recommending QEMM.
Yep, shows up as does Bluemax in plain English.
There were also problems with Novell and Windows which MS could easily
have solved but refused to do. MS's recommendation when one called Redmond
was to switch from Novell to MS's lame networking system.
--
==============================================================================================
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!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:46:41 GMT
On 05/10/2000 at 08:33 AM,
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Although the error message itself might not have been encrypted, the
> code that checks whether DR-DOS was installed probably was.
As the late unlamented coach of the Eagles and Jets would say, "Without a
doubt".
--
==============================================================================================
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$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:49:36 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 09:00 PM,
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Care to explain the encryption?
> Or the flurry of e-mails about how they were going to explain it?
Oh, they will find some way to spin them. MS has plenty of practice in
lying and repeating the lies over and over until they seem to be the
truth. Furher Bill learned his lessons from Goebbels well.
BTW, Peter, you must be one lonely fellow. You are the first intelligent
person I've seen from Cornell on the Internet.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:51:19 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 08:46 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fae5b$hv1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > This very quickly brings us back to the question you dodged: if the
> > display of this error message and the test that caused it were an
> > innocent, justifiable part of the beta process, why didn't Microsoft want
> > anyone to know about it?
> I could really care less. The point of the matter is that no such
> message occured in the retail product.
You could care less because Chairman Bill tells you to say that. That
ain't peanut butter all over your face.
--
==============================================================================================
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$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 10 May 2000 12:55:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Poltorak)
In <H6aS4.372$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Invention and innovation are two different things.
Of course, silly me....
An invention is when something new is created.
An innovation is when Microsoft put there name on it and include it
in Windows.
Thanks for drawing my attention to this difference.
--
John
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:53:24 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 08:11 PM,
"Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What proof do you have that MS is still using undocumented API's in it's
> apps?
Your statement that they don't is all the proof anyone needs to know damn
well they do.
--
==============================================================================================
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$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:55:35 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 08:01 PM,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think we made the fatal error of using Windows PCs and Macintoshes.
> OS/2 PCs are the only things that could save us, right Bob? Not to
> mention kicking out all those E-Ville homosexuals and L*b*r*l
> D*m*cr*ts.
What a person does in private is not concern of mine. When a pervert
openly advocates an immoral lifestyle, he or she become anathema.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:49:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Mon, 08 May 2000 20:57:06 GMT...
> ...and Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm not talking about the KDE libraries (which are split pretty
much
> > > the same way as gnome-libs), but about Qt. Qt is a large
monolithic
> > > chunk AFAICS. GTK+ consists of three libraries minimum (not
counting
> > > libgthread, libgmodule etc.).
> >
> > If every app is going to link glib, gdk and gtk, what's the point
> > of having three libraries?
>
> Greater modularity, clarity of concepts, and besides linking to glib
> does not necessarily mean linking to GDK or GTK+, and linking GDK
> doesn't necessarily mean linking to GTK+. Lots of programs use glib.
> More will in the future, because we're going to move most of the
> non-GUI-specific stuff from GTK+ into glib (i.e. the object model).
Cool. Didn't knew that. Thanks.
> (One advantage of GNOME: We can actually work on the toolkit we're
> using without being peons of some company, we can fork it if necessary
> and it's equally free on all platforms. GTK+ 1.4 will be the first
> GTK+ 1.4 that will work on Windows unpatched.)
And then you have to say this. That "peons of the company" thing was
sooo rude and unneedd.
I could fork Qt tomorrow, if I really wanted to, and for most of the
last few months, Qt HAS been forked for KDE development.
> > > BTW, has KDE got any equivalent to the GNOME canvas (main reason
we
> > > link to libart_lgpl is antialiasing and affine transformations for
> > > canvas members) and the gnome-print architecture?
> >
> > Well, Qt applications have been able to print since Qt 1.2 or so, so
> > I don't know what you mean, exactly ;-)
>
> OK. So you're completely uninformed about what gnome-print is... I'll
> rephrase my question:
>
> Do you have an architecture that can render the content of a widget to
> any PCL or PS printer or a PS/PDF file (more backends such as for WMF
> are possible and may already exist or be in development) with pixel
> precision, that does zoomable antialiased page previews, that allows
> you to set your paper size etc. and that will eventually interact with
> common spool systems (interaction with CUPS is already being worked
> on)?
Yes. That's what I meant by "print". What did you think I meant?
Only that Qt already has the interaction with some spool systems.
> > As for the canvas, there is (or was) something called QCanvas
floating
> > around, but I have no idea if it's equivalent.
>
> Does it allow positioning arbitrary, layered objects on an infinite,
> zoomable and scrollable plane, doing arbitrary affine transformations
> on them and catching events on them? Does it do antialiasing?
As I said, I have no idea if it's equivalent.
> (The canvas and gnome-print are pretty much two parts of a greater
> "vision" as you can see. BTW I hate the word "vision" :)
>
> > > > KDE2's kicker has applets (in fact, everything in it is an
applet),
> > and
> > > > it is in the list above.
> > >
> > > I know that.
> >
> > Then I fail to see the point of what you said. That's probably just
me.
> >
> > > However, there's no stable released version of a KDE
> > > panel supporting applets.
> >
> > Sure. KDE 1.89. Or wait a couple of weeks.
>
> I talk about what is now. Is KDE 1.89 an official stable release?
It's a release, it is not a stable one. By my standards, GNOME 1.0 was
not a standard release either. Did you never claim to have applets
before October GNOME? Come on, be fair.
> > > Anyway it's interesting to see how both
> > > sides make cover versions of the other side's features. The
applets
> > > clearly weren't a KDE idea.
> >
> > Of course not, they were a window maker (or afterstep, or NeXT)
idea!
> > Or you meant they were somehow a GNOME idea?
>
> I request you to refrain from further speculating about the
> implications of what I write and instead focus on what I actually
> wrote.
Cool. You write that KDE does "cover versions" of GNOME features, and
then mention that applets are not KDE's idea. To me, it seemed to mean
that you said applets were a GNOME idea. That seems to me so strange,
that I could not believe you actually said that. So I asked for
confirmation.
If I don't assign a meaning to your words, there is no way to carry an
argument.
> Anyway, GNOME's applet concept differs from the "dock app" concept.
> Applets are not of a fixed size and they can dynamically resize,
> applets are started and controlled via CORBA, there is an applet API,
> there is a communications protocol that negotiates resizes between the
> container and the applet, Window Maker dock apps have nothing
> resembling the standard applet context menu (that works via CORBA, I
> think) etc. etc.
Extension of the concept.
> A dock app, however, is just a little 64x64 pixel application that
> gives some hints to the window manager and does it drawing in a
> certain standardised way (I think).
Not necessarily.
> GNOME applets are a huge step ahead of square little dock apps,
> however sophisticated those might be (consider Enlightenment's
> Epplets).
>
> This point will eventually become moot anyway since the applet
> concept, the GNOME MDI concept and the current Bonobo controls will
> all merge into one standardised GNOME embedding API.
You mean something like KDE's Kparts?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 12:59:51 GMT
On 05/09/2000 at 04:20 PM,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> They admitted the absence of a wall as far back as 1995. See James
> Gleick's 1995 article on Microsoft, which discusses this subject:
> http://www.around.com/microsoft.html
> > It is absolutely clear that Bill and the boys believe (even if they
> > have never admitted it to themselves) that there should be no other
> > software besides Microsoft-ware. Years ago, one of their top execs said,
> > and I quote: we want our fair share, and we think that's 100%. (Brad
> > Silverberg, IIRC.)
> Mike Maples.
Actually, the admission was in a book which came out well before 1995
called Hard Drive.
--
==============================================================================================
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$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 08:13:50 -0500
John Poltorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In <H6aS4.372$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >Invention and innovation are two different things.
>
> Of course, silly me....
>
> An invention is when something new is created.
>
> An innovation is when Microsoft put there name on it and include it
> in Windows.
>
> Thanks for drawing my attention to this difference.
>From merriam websters dictionary:
Main Entry: in·ven·tion
Pronunciation: in-'ven(t)-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : DISCOVERY, FINDING
2 : productive imagination : INVENTIVENESS
3 a : something invented: as (1) : a product of the imagination; especially
: a false conception (2) : a device, contrivance, or process originated
after study and experiment b : a short keyboard composition featuring two or
three part counterpoint
4 : the act or process of inventing
Main Entry: in·no·va·tion
Pronunciation: "i-n&-'vA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : the introduction of something new
2 : a new idea, method, or device : NOVELTY
- in·no·va·tion·al /-shn&l, -sh&-n&l/ adjective
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
