Linux-Advocacy Digest #541, Volume #26 Tue, 16 May 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Craig Kelley)
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Paul 'Z' Ewande©")
Re: An honest attempt (Pete Goodwin)
Re: An honest attempt (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution (josco)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 14:45:45 -0600
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Look at the timeline. It's not a simple matter of documenting the
> > > > API, it's that Microsoft's application developers know about the new
> > > > OS hooks *before* anyone else. An example I keep thowing out: they
> > > > bundle IIS with NT, bump up the version number and add in hooks for
> > > > other Microsoft applications.
> > >
> > > And what IIS hooks are there in the OS for applications to use, other
> than
> > > the documented ISAPI?
> >
> > What part of the word *before* don't you understand?
>
> What part of the word "what" don't you understand? I'm asking you to name
> these mysterious IIS hooks you talk about that Office uses. AFAIK, Office
> doesn't use any such hooks, since doing so would make it not run on Windows
> 95.
http://www.microsoft.com/ISN/comhost/deploying_ose_com_host_environ_938.asp?A=0
> > > For that matter, which MS applications make use of IIS at all?
> >
> > Most of them. It's a touted feature of Office 2000. Read the
> > Halloween documents to see why.
>
> Ok, I've gone through the Office 2000 website, and the only thing I can find
> even remotely similar to what you're talking about is Office Server
> Extensions (part of the office resource kit, which is not part of the
> standard office distribution). OSE does indeed connect up with IIS, but as
> far as I can tell it doesn't use any proprietary API (other than the one
> between OSE and Office, but then since OSE is an add-on to Office rather
> than an OS component, that's to be expected).
>
> What evidence do you have that MS created special IIS API's for OSE?
You just quoted it.
> > > > Then, if they feel like it, they
> > > > document those hooks for other application developers *after* their
> > > > own solutions are done.
> > >
> > > MS had the Win2k SDK documentation available for almost 2 years before
> the
> > > release of Win2k. Similar with Win95 and NT4. Where do you get this
> stuff?
> >
> > Evidence, please.
>
> My NT5 Beta 1 SDK dated in 1998 that shipped with the MSDN.
You're claiming that Microsoft always tells application developers
two years in advance exactly what is going to be available? What
about the SQLServer documention cited elsewher in this thread?
> > That's one way to look at it. I suppose Microsoft is just "raising
> > the bar" on the competition then, but bettering Windows and their
> > applications.
> >
> > How come the competition can't do the same thing with Windows then?
>
> I'm sure if the competition wanted to give MS source code, they would
> consider adding it. But why would, say, Intuit want to give Microsoft the
> code for it's latest widgets?
And if they wanted to add a system call, or even use the sourcecode to
Windows while developing for it?
> > > No, if you break up the application and OS division, it means that 3rd
> party
> > > developers will no longer be able to take advantage of the Application
> > > division written code that MS rolls into the OS. This will put 3rd
> party
> > > developers at even more of a disadvantage.
> >
> > I suppose we simply disagree.
>
> You disagree that 3rd party application developers will no longer be able to
> take advantage of code from Office that MS has rolled into the OS?
>
> That's a no-brainer.
You snipped my side of the argument, obviously.
> > > The Office developers seem to have much more leeway in writing new
> features
> > > than the OS division does.
> >
> > Writing new OS features, that is.
>
> Writing features which eventually become OS features. Yes.
>
> Things like Personalized Menu's, which originally showed up in Office 2000
> and were later added to Windows 2000 (and probably Millennium).
>
> It's clear that these features are not OS features in Office, since when you
> turn them off in Windows 2000, Office is not effected. You have to turn
> them off there as well. Office does it's own thing UI wise, similar to
> writing complete custom widgets for X rather than using Motif or other
> standard widgets.
So Microsoft does have an advantage by allowing their application
group access to the Windows group. That's all were saying here.
> > > For starters, it's not a decision that Gates and Balmer can do. MS is a
> > > publicly traded company, and those decisions would have to be approved
> by
> > > the stock holders.
> >
> > Read "Barbarians led by Bill Gates" and come back.
>
> Neither Gates or Balmer have the kind of shareholder clout they used to.
> They've both sold off a great deal of stock. Unlike 10 years ago. Gates
> still has a significant amount, but the boardmembers no longer have a
> combined controlling interest.
Regardless, they still run the company.
> > > The interface is not secret. MS's Kerebos implementation is fully
> standard
> > > conforming. The standard allows for OS extension through the vendor
> > > reserved parts of the ticket. The standard does not require MS to
> document
> > > it in order to be standard conforming.
> >
> > Do you realize how stupid that statement is?
>
> It's a true statement.
So all standards must include the disclaimer: In order to remain a
standard, you must not use reserved space in a proprietary way.
Besides, Microsoft deson't even call it Kerberos anymore (at least
*they* know it isn't).
> > The *standard* doesn't require documentation in order to be standard
> > conforming?! How can I respond to this? It's insane. The interface
> > is a secrete for all intents and purposes of someone wishing to
> > implement it.
>
> The standard provides vendor reserved fields that are defined by the
> standard as being unique to a vendors implementation. The standard does
> *NOT* require those fields to be documented. That's fact. Prove me wrong
> by quoting the relevant part of the standard which contradicts me.
Here's the RFC:
http://info.internet.isi.edu:80/in-notes/rfc/files/rfc1510.txt
Why don't you show me where it guarantees that you'll have a standard
implementation even if you play around with the local fields. Why
can't Windows 2000 authenticate against a virgin v5 kerberos machine
if "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification" is kerberos-standard
(rfc1510) compliant?
How come dozens of other companies have implemented Kerberos without
any problems?
How come this is _exactly_ the practice described in the Halloween
documents?
> > > > If we want to go with Apple products, we'd have to double our hardware
> > > > budget and pay a hefty entrance fee. If we went with BeOS or Linux
> > > > (and even the Mac), we'd have to re-educate everyone and give up all
> > > > our specialty apps (the dearth of Facts and Comparisons would nail
> > > > that coffin right up). WE HAVE NO CHOICE. Microsoft knows that and
> > > > perpetuates the situation, not with innovation or superb customer
> > > > service, but with secrets.
> > >
> > > Name a single non-consumable product that you can jump to a competor
> without
> > > a significant cost.
> >
> > Pretty much anything written for UNIX. It took Apple a couple days to
> > get XFree86 running on Darwin.
>
> Great, but you can't run Apple applications under XFree without either a
> translation layer or rewriting the apps (both have significant cost).
That would be because XFree86 isn't MacOS... I was attempting to show
how portable UNIX is, not MacOS.
> > > > The sad thing is, Microsoft makes good products which could compete on
> > > > merit alone, if they'd only let them.
> > >
> > > Finally, something we can agree on.
> >
> > So why don't you push this agenda forward? Let Microsoft products
> > compete on merit, and not through Windows' monopoly status.
> >
> > Splitting the company up would be one method.
>
> Yes, and chopping off an arm to prevent gangrene from a papercut would work
> too.
That would create a larger papercut. Splitting up Microsoft shouldn't
hurt the company at all, if their application developers don't depend
on the Windows codebase (as you have asserted *many* times).
> I do agree that MS needs restrictions, I don't agree that breaking them up
> will do anything but give them a severe handicap to allow incompetant
> companies to compete. I (and many other people) can pinpoint the stupid
> mistakes just about any company has made to allow it to be overtaken by MS.
> MS doesn't make those kinds of mistakes (they make other kinds of course, as
> the DOJ has proven).
I don't even think it'll give them a handicap at all. This is
conjecture, of course, but look at FileMaker and Palm as good examples
of companies which need freedom to innovate. Apple spun off Claris
(which became FileMaker), and it actually started making money. 3Com
plans to spin off the Palm division (they may have already done so,
I'm not sure), because ever since they bought the company it hasn't
done as well.
Case studies abound about whether or not spinning of divisions will
help them out.
> Most of MS's competitors fell behind because they took "wait and see"
> approaches to new technology, such as going GUI based (Lotus 123 and
> WordPerfects downfall) or going 32 bit (Lotus again with WordPro and pushing
> 123 even farther back, Borland (for instance, Delphi did not go 32 bit until
> 1996), etc.
This is ancient history, but since you brought it up:
The Commodore Amiga ran circles around DOS, had cheaper hardware and
at least as many applications at it's peak. People didn't buy it
because IBM/Microsoft was the "safe" bet. The Amiga was better than
DOS, Windows, GeOS and any other x86 GUI that I had seen in *every*
category.
Microsoft isn't in it's position today because of excellent software.
> Many other companies took the stand of "Let's wait until the OS ships, so we
> don't have to follow a moving target", while MS was more than happy to
> follow the moving target with their apps.
LOL
Yes, that's exactly what Commodore did... *sigh*
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 14:53:52 -0600
Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> :> Second, drive letters have absolutely nothing to do with
> :> microcomputers. You are just displaying your ignorance of computer
> :> history by stating this. That great microcomputer system known as the
> :> VAX used drive letters (labels, actually) when running VMS. So did the
> :> PDP-11 operating systems such as RSX-11 and RT-11 (which, if you
> :> actually knew the basics of computing history, CP/M, and thus MS-DOS
> :> and Windows, were derived from). To continue my compelling attack of
> :> your fallacious argument, that great mainframe computer known as the
> :> Apple II did NOT use drive letters.
>
> : As if drive NUMBERS are all that different...
>
> : CAT,d1
>
> : Gak, I hated that. Of course the Commodore64 was even worse; It
> : started labeling at 8 (because of the biggest kludge in the universe:
> : the 1541).
>
> : [snip]
>
> The Apple II also numbered the floppy drives, most of which were
> attached to a controller on slot 6 (if memory serves). The scheme
> wasn't terribly complicated at the time.
>
> Linux *does* put letters on drive names, but the end user isn't
> expected to see them. (hda, hda1, etc.) Still, I think it
> would be much better to use the Solaris numbering scheme
> (/dev/dsk/c1t0d0s3, etc.) in order to make everything a little
> more ordered in /dev land.
Enter devfs in 2.4 :)
I've been advocating that for a _long_ time.
> Numbers good. Letters bad. Mount points very good.
I don't see how numbers are any better than letters. I'd say that NT
driver letters are just like the /dev directory under UNIX (although
/dev has some slight advantages). The beauty is, we hardly ever
reference the block device directly.
Mount points are excellent, of course.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 16 May 2000 14:55:31 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
>
> will usually do the trick quickly and easyly.
Which is why I run SCSI! :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 23:03:55 +0200
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
8fs6d9$2l1d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> They are claiming a max of 5000 connections now. The activity isn't
> exactly the same, but I don't see any single NT boxes doing anything
I'm not aware either of an NT box doing this kind of stuff. However,
according to Dr Download
[http://www.conxion.com/products/download/expert.asp] :
"Downloading With Conxion
Question:
How many people can simultaneously download a file from one of your
dedicated servers?
Dr. Download:
A Conxion server running Windows NT under optimal conditions can deliver
content up to 2,500 people at the same time."
Unfortunately, I didn't find the afore-mentionned server specs. I wonder how
Win2K would do.
> like that. With active content it is just a matter of spreading
> the load over enough boxes to handle it and mask the dead ones.
> The critical part is the backend database, but it doesn't have to
> deal with internet connections and in most cases probably isn't
> on NT either.
Yes, but in some cases, it must be.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:04:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Howso exactly? PCI,SCSI or USB autodetection is much the same under
> any OS that supports any of these buses. In terms of immediate
> driver availablity, Linux and FreeBSD will nearly always be ahead
> because of the infrequent release schedules of commercial products.
> In terms of actual 3rd party support, Win2K will be subject to the
> problem of 'not being DOS' and NT and WinDOS will still both have
> driver quality issues.
>
> Just ask any NT advocate that likes to use bad hardware to excuse
> all of NT's percieved instabilities.
Never heard of ISA?
>>I must have missed these on Linux Mandrake. I tried one of these 'shiny
>>happy gui' tools and it dropped me into a console prompt with a menu
>>based configuration. Hardly 'happy shiny gui'.
>
> You obviously aren't very motivated to look.
How would you know that, mind reader are we? I looked in the obvious
places.
>>> Yet, despite that, Linux continues to grow by leaps and bounds
>>> even undermining some of Microsoft's paying buisiness.
>>
>>I'd agree it's growing, I'm less sure about the leaps and bounds.
>
> Those that actually collect these statistics disagree with you.
Hmmm... there are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:06:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8fpq8p$189$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I might have agreed with you with earlier Windows but its improved a
>> lot. Linux is still playing catchup here.
>
>Nope.. Windows is doing the catchup here.. You try a bare install of
>any Windows and lets see.
On what, say? Got any ISA cards?
>> I'd agree it's growing, I'm less sure about the leaps and bounds.
>
>Its growing very very fast.. users are just tired of MS and other
>unfreed software platforms.
I doubt it has anything to do with 'free', just alternate.
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:16:17 -0500
Alan Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think you've missed the point - the API's come the otherway round.
> Microsoft adds a style to their application (Say toolbars with
> tooltips - or graded colouring in the top window bar).
Yes.
> These then become part of the Software Development tools and then
> (later) they become part of the operating system.
Yes.
> What this in effect does is leave the impression that the Microsoft
> Applications are compliant with the style of the operating system.
> What the competitors have to do is then change their applications to
> match the API's (as well as any innovative enhancements that they can
> use to stay ahead competitively).
As an example, Gradient titlebars were not easy to do. I've read lots of
articles in MSJ and online covering the issue. It's good that this was
added to the OS (since people seem to like it), because it just adds extra
complexity to programs that would otherwise not have to worry about it.
> I think you can see this with the new file open dialog boxes in Office
> 2000. I assume these will (in the fullness of time) be the default
> file open dialog box of the OS.
They already are with Windows 2000, and will be with Millennium.
Not really the "default" per se, but apps that know about the Win2k specific
API's can use them.
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 14:09:50 -0700
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > There isn't a conspiracy - MS openly admits they engineer undocumented
> > APIs in Windows which is how they innovate on MS Windows.
>
> Then please quote the statement that MS innovates with undocumented API's.
"The governments proposed regulations are
completely unwarranted and outside the scope of
the case. They in fact were proposing taking away
our valuable intellectual property and making us
disclose it to our competitors -- simply not
allowing us the R&D resources to continue to
invest in the kinds of innovations that have made thepersonal
computer industry so valuable to consumers.
> Wait, you just said they were undocumented. How could they be undocumented
> if MS documentes them.
The concept of time confuses you. MS designs and uses a new API in the
OS, at a later date they document the API.
> You're contradicting yourself. Are you saying they're only undocumented
> when Microsoft designs them? DUH!
Double DUH. When the MS Applications group designs the API for their
application it is an undocumented API - unless you can tell us how a
competior can have equal access. I'm sure your contorted explanation will
amuse us all.
------------------------------
From: josco <[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, 16 May 2000 14:11:40 -0700
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> And I can sell my computer (and OS) and the applications that go with it.
You do not OWN any MS application therefore how can you sell something you
don't own? You cannot not BUY MS software.
------------------------------
From: josco <[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, 16 May 2000 14:13:34 -0700
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> MS has denied the existance of a chinese wall since at *LEAST* December of
> 1991 when Mark Maples (MS's spokesman at the time) stated it didn't exist in
> InfoWorld. This was years before any DOJ negotiations.
>
> The Chinese Wall was talked about in the mid-80's, not in the 90's.
Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust investigation in
1989 - two full years before 1991.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 16:17:26 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Oh, so because I ask you to corroborate your statements, suddenly I
don't
> > want to have a discussion.
>
> You *honestly* don't know about Office 2000 IIS server extensions? I
> find that very hard to believe.
No, I didn't. I have looked this up now, but even so. It's just a client
application, it's not an OS extension.
Office is extending IIS, not IIS offering API's for Office.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Yet another backdoor in MS software
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 21:09:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Unekis) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The safest solution would, of course, be to permanently replace your
>windows software with Linux, which has not been
> succeptible to these viruses and hacks.
If you think UNIX is safe from viruses and hacks, think again. Or has the
sendmail virus been forgotten already?
>Second safest would be to replace IE with Netscape.
Netscape with Cookie Pal. I get to vet every cookie requested on my system.
Some I pass, some I reject. Cookie pal then silently works in the
background remembering the ones I accept/reject.
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
