Linux-Advocacy Digest #584, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: HP-UX vs. Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: HP-UX vs. Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (tinman)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (josco)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 18 May 2000 15:48:08 -0500
In article <VLQU4.72293$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why are you so willing to let a vendor take away your choices?
>
>Microsoft is not doing so. If they were I would be less
>sympathetic.
But you still haven't shown how some other vendor can or
does provide the same services as NT or W2k controllers
or active directory. If you have a client that needs
these and nothing else can provide it, your choice has
been taken away.
>> I'd prefer that they improve the functionality instead of
>> the lack of interoperability.
>
>They do; you can jump up and down and *say* they keep
>reducing the interoperatability of Windows, but it just
>aint *so*.
OK - take two win2k boxes. Set up automatic directory
replication between them *without* an active directory
server in the picture. Let me know how you did it.
(I loaded rsync and used a unix box as the master...).
>> So, should IBM also have been exempt from antitrust laws,
>
>Yes. Those antitrust laws did *no* good when applied
>to IBM; they merely gave them an excuse to raise prices
>by unbundling their apps.
>
>This did nothing to enhance the position of IBM's competitors
>because the notion that IBM's success derived from
>unfair business practicies was fantasy to begin with. IBM
>gave its customers what they wanted- but that was service,
>mainly.
>
>Antitrust law had *nothing* to do with IBMs fall from grace.
It is hard to establish cause and effect here, but somehow
I really had the idea that IBM was perfectly capable of
writing their own PC operating system. I think that the
years of litigation over bundling hardware and operating
systems had more than a little to do with the decision to
license from third parties. Without which, no one would
even remember Microsoft's name.
>> and AT&T allowed to sell operating systems and not
>> broken up?
>
>IHMO Unix would be a better OS today if AT&T had
>treated it like a product rather than some sort of
>fungus. :D
Maybe - as it worked out it mostly got the features
people needed instead of things that look good on
a marketing checklist.
>But I'm not sure that that can be laid at the feet of
>antitrust law.
>
>> These events put Microsoft where they are,
>> the rules should still be the same.
>
>I do not agree that Microsoft has in any real way
>benefited from antitrust laws being applied to IBM
>and AT&T.
Is there some reason to think that IBM would not have
done their own DOS without the antitrust business?
>One can, *at most* argue that AT&T would've
>somehow brought Unix to the desktop very early had
>they not feared antitrust intervention.
>
>I'm not sure that's convincing; technically it would have
>been very challenging. 8086s and 80286s are not
>real Unix-friendly.
AT&T had their own CPU designs and manufacturing facilities.
I doubt if they could have matched Intel on price, but
we'll never know now.
>But if it is true, I'm also not convinced it would have
>been a *bad* thing for AT&T to do this.
Maybe - they weren't that great as a monopoly either, but
they did have some basic competence. I don't think they
would ever have designed something as fragile as DOS and
Win 3.1 or even Win95.
>You may *want* to replace the server without writing any
>Windows code, but MS is hardly obliged to indulge you in this.
>
>You need to write a network client to do that.
I'm obviously missing some basic concept of interoperability
here. You claim they interoperate, yet I have to replace
things at both ends in order to do so???
>But honestly, I'd think you'd be *glad* that you can use
>Windows, but replace bits of it. If you don't trust MS's domain
>controllers, why should you trust their client modules?
Clients are disposable - the server has to keep working.
>> >I get the feeling you use "monopoly" as an curse.
>>
>> Only because it is illegal.
>
>That would be news to a lot of people, I think. :D
Fortunately, not the ones in charge of investigating the infractions.
>Had MS stuck to your wire protocols, they'd support Unix
>fine, but not NetWare or SNA or AppleTalk...
Say what? There are non-native-platform implimentations of
all of those protocols. There is no reason MS can't document
theirs as well.
>You are blaming the wrong people. You certainly may avoid
>Microsoft because they don't do things you would expect,
>but you really need to understand that "standards" is just
>the way Unix does it. You do *not* need to standardized
>wire protocols to have interoperability.
I'm glad you don't design phone switches.
>> There is a simple name/password verification that anything
>> can access, but that doesn't let you participate in the
>> domain.
>
>Well, "participating in a domain" in that sense means participating
>in NT security; you aren't going to do that without support for NT's
>security model.
And where is that documented?
>> It isn't really my job to investigate them - others are doing that
>> and it is not hard to find the results. I only know about my
>> own experiences.
>
>You don't seem to have mentioned your own experiences
>as far as I can see. I do wish you *would* think it your job
>to investigate them, if you think it your job to *condemn* them.
There is nothing I can do about it personally other than try to
avoid repeating the bad experiences that I have mostly tried to
forget. Remember the nice little company that developed FoxPro?
This was a fairly good product for networked DOS machines and
they did a reasonable job of converting to windows in a way
that the same program could be re-used and access the same
data files. There was even something intellectually sincere about
the way it used its own tools internally with a database holding
the work as you ran the screen builder, etc. Microsoft bought
them, made a half-hearted new release, then publicly claimed
they were going to drop the product completely in favor of
Access. So, I had someone re-do the work in Access, which turned
out to be horrible with its one huge shared file model under
windows-for-workgroups and Foxpro turns out to still be around after
all these years. Then there was the Dell SysVr4 Unix release that
was pretty nice for its time and available bundled with their
hardware. They had obviously put a lot of work into it compared
to the base AT&T release so I expected it to continue to be
developed and supported. But, right at the time I needed some
support, they dropped the product out of the blue. Market forces?
Maybe - but the timing turns out to be precisely right for it
to have been the result of the business practices that Microsoft
is being investigated over with their demand to bundle windows
with every box.
>> Apparently the people doing the investigating have not been so
>> biased.
>
>I dunno; a lot of them seem just as biased as you. :D
Perhaps for good reasons, too.
>> Weren't you saying earlier that MS apps division didn't take
>> advantage of interal knowledge of what the OS people were
>> doing?
>
>Yes. The MS apps division did, at the time, use some internal
>knowledge they should not have- but not to *advantage*. It was
>a *mistake* MS made, and it *hurt* them.
Elaborate please? Are you saying that developing word and
office for Windows instead of OS/2 was a bad move?
>While this certainly suggests the Chinese Wall they spoke
>of was not real, I still haven't found any example where MS
>actually did cheat in the API department and benefit from it.
>
>It also has nothing to do with MS's advise to WordPerfect!
Telling them to develop for OS/2 when they weren't behind
it themselves is about as misleading as you can get.
>> Networking things that start to require active directory to work right.
>
>Hmmm. Why that, but not, say, a new Lan Manager protocol variant?
>They have produced such in the past, as you know.
Nobody noticed. They will notice when their software offers functions
that are visible but don't work without the AD server.
>> Client features should not depend on the brand of the server.
>
>That's ridiculous. Of course they should. Why on earth
>would we want to have servers *at all* if they didn't deliver
>features we wouldn't have without them?
Server 'features' shouldn't depend on brands. I can replace
a networked printer with a different brand, I can replace
a unix box acting as an NFS server with a NetApp. I can
replace my SMTP/POP/IMAP mail service with any other
without any client caring about the brand. Now why should
I ever introduce a new product onto the network that does
limit me to only using that vendor's product at the other end?
>> If they want to stay a monopoly, then we should have government
>> regulated pricing as in other fields.
>
>I disagree. Microsoft has been a *positive* force in this industry,
>and they have been *good* for consumers *and* developers
>*and* hardware manufacturers.
Indeed, we disagree. How were the many years where DOS maintained
it's 640K/32M limits positive for anyone? How was DOS 4.0 good
for anyone? How did DOS 5.0's new features happen to show up
immediately after a competing product had them?
>*Even if* they are a monopoly, they should not be stopped until
>and unless they do *bad* things.
OK, and when people point out the bad things?
>Bad as in harmful. Not as in might-make-MS-even-bigger. I
>don't have a problem with MS being bigger.
I'm concerned with bad as in keeping other people from
doing better things. Bad as in keeping hardware companies
from offering better choices.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 18 May 2000 21:00:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are very adept at using the tools taught by Hitler and Goebels in the
^^^^^^
BZZZZZT. You loose, germer. So sorry about that.
Goodbye.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:21:05 GMT
On 05/18/2000 at 09:00 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) said:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are very adept at using the tools taught by Hitler and Goebels in the
> ^^^^^^
> BZZZZZT. You loose, germer. So sorry about that.
> Goodbye.
Only in the eyes of stupid cowards hiding behind a false name. The opinion
of assholes like you makes not a whit of an impact on me.
> -----yttrx
Oh, and by the way, "using" is the proper spelling of the word. "Useing"
is totally, absolutely, horribly incorrect.
Go back to third grade and take Spelling all over again.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19ze Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:20:00 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 19:27:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>P.S.: Updatedb can also get kinda annoying when it gets to your newsspool.
> Especially when you don't expire news, and have directories with
> 100,000+ files...... Time to go Reiserfs ;-)
Many dists nowadays offer a tool called 'slocate', which is a more
secure replacement for locate and updatedb and will allow you to
exclude directories and filesystem types. Here is the command verbatum
from a RH 6.2 /etc/cron.daily/slocate.cron file:
/usr/bin/slocate -u -f "nfs,smbfs,ncpfs,proc,devpts" \
-e "/tmp,/var/tmp,/usr/tmp,/afs,/net"
-f excludes those filesystem types
-e excludes those directories.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:22:34 GMT
Good research Mig. Isn't it a shame though that advocacy has reduced
itself to exposing liars.
Perry
On Thu, 18 May 2000 22:04:53 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Full Name wrote:
>> After three Linux experiences, two on notebooks the other on a desk
>> top, our central computing supervisor has withdrawn support for Linux.
>
>Listen kid.. youre posting from 130.102.95.155 wich correlates to
>something near bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au .. Same IP is used by David Smyth
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. Posting style is even the same as yours.
>Conclusion youre David Smyth!
>
>Yore probably sitting in some room where students have access to PC's (i
>have sat in the same kind of rooms).
>Conclusion: Youre completely full of shit and do not work for any company
>even if you want to give that impression. Your company is some dorm with
>some PC's and has not a "central computing supervisor" .. youre just a sick
>kid sitting in a dark room!
>
>Any "computing supersvisor" i know would prefer Linux installed simply
>because there is less work for them with it and because the users of those
>systems normally are capable of resolving their own problems.
>
>David, go out with some girls and have sex.. its more fun than Windows
>computing.
>
>Cheers David
>
>
--
Show the code....or hit the road.
Perry Piplani [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: HP-UX vs. Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:39:07 GMT
On 18 May 2000 13:43:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ben Chaussé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Do you know what is best between HP-UX and Linux. We want to create a
>> web server, and we would like to know what is best does two one ????
>
>About the only thing HPUX is going to give you that Linux can't is
>obscurity (which can be a good defense against script kiddies).
>
HP 9000 V-Class servers running HP-UX scale up to 128 processors and
128GB of memory.
http://www.unixsolutions.hp.com/products/servers/vclass/overview/index.html
Linux can't do that. Nonetheless, if he needed that much power in a
single machine, I'd recommend he go with a Sun. If a PC farm will do
I'd recommend either Linux or BSD.
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: HP-UX vs. Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 21:52:44 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 21:39:07 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 18 May 2000 13:43:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ben Chaussé <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Do you know what is best between HP-UX and Linux. We want to create a
>>> web server, and we would like to know what is best does two one ????
>>
>>About the only thing HPUX is going to give you that Linux can't is
>>obscurity (which can be a good defense against script kiddies).
>>
>
>HP 9000 V-Class servers running HP-UX scale up to 128 processors and
>128GB of memory.
HTTP is a stateless protocol and thus ripe for loose clustering.
>
>http://www.unixsolutions.hp.com/products/servers/vclass/overview/index.html
>
>Linux can't do that. Nonetheless, if he needed that much power in a
>single machine, I'd recommend he go with a Sun. If a PC farm will do
>I'd recommend either Linux or BSD.
HP/UX might be useful for the RDBMS that's driving the whole thing.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 18:01:56 -0400
In article <3923ce7a$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 05/17/2000 at 07:40 PM,
> Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > In article <eAHU4.1644$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Fuckingliar"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > If I buy a new car, I sell my old car and all of it's accessories, since
> > > the
> > > majority of them will be specific to the vehicle. (for instance, a
> > > bugshield is typically designed for a specific car or similar cars, or
> > > many
> > > radios will not fit from one vehicle to another (full sized din radios
> > > found
> > > in most japanese cars won't fit in most half-din sized american cars)).
>
> > That's DIN, or Deutsche Industrie Norm. This is much like complaining
> > that a full-size drive won't fit in a half-height bay or that a
> > full-height PC card won't fit in a half-height PC card slot.
>
> Of course. Erik Fuckingliar cannot stop trying to obfuscate the obvious.
> He is a perverted, twisted, demented liar.
>
> Moreover, 99% of American cars (and every foreign entry I've seen) come
> with a radio as standard equipment. At least 3 aftermarket radio
> manufacturers have closed up shop in the last 5 years due to this.
Yes, a bad radio, with bad speakers, and non-generic connectors....
>
> As an aside, I always thought DIN meant Deutschelander Industrie Normen.
Not likely.
Now about that country club.....
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
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: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:08:30 -0700
On 18 May 2000, Jim wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > WHEN OLE was added to the OS MS said the correct defintion and
> > documentation on how OLE worked was defined by their Office
> > implementation.
>
> I am on thin ice here, because I don't remember the time frame, but
> wasn't OLE just another M$copy of an Apple technology--the Publish and
> Subscribe protocol? Anyone? (with actual knowlege, of course)
OLE evolved from Dynamic Data Exchange DDE. What I know of it comes from a
programmer/housemate who worked at SPC (Harvard Graphics) and considered a
platfrom abstraction layer for Mac/Windows (abstracting both
technologies). His opinion was they were different enough to make the
absrtraction difficult so it wasn't a copy in his opinion. As you might
have inferred, SPC never did ship Harvard Graphics for the Mac (I did test
it for them in Alpha form) FWIW heir HG for Windows 1.0 was a OS/2 PM/GUI
project that was moved to windows 3.0 in mid stream when Win3.0 took off
and SPC had serious competition from Powerpoint/Office for windows.
[...]
> > > I fail to see how access to undocumented API's would help a designer.
> >
> > Yet you'll argue undocumented APIs do not exist.
>
> I'd go farther and say that EF's statement above is transparently
> ingenuos for anyone who's had occasion to do a little design himself.
> And if he hasn't, he should keep his uninformed opinions to himself, if
> he wants to be believed.
I agree.
In the early 90's I knew of many programmers in "Silicon Valley" who
worked with windows doing program development. Today I know of none.
They have moved on to other kinds of companies, not involved with
development for MS technology aside from IE.
One fellow who started a sucessful software company said you never want to
be the only or overly dominate player in a market or it loses its
legitimacy - a la Windows. You cannot get financing to compete against MS
and it is hard to get $ to even work as an ISV for their OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
