Linux-Advocacy Digest #483, Volume #26 Fri, 12 May 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: An honest attempt ("Rich C")
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (Alan Boyd)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: An honest attempt ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:44:56 -0500
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The last two sentences are inaccurate. Windows apps that make heavy
> use of COM (these days that would be all of them) indirectly call
> LoadLibrary() (the Win32 equivalent of DosLoadModule()), making it
> very difficult to find out what DLLs they load. In fact, they may be
> different DLLs on different machines, and even on a given machine the
> set of DLLs may change from time to time. To load a COM class, you
> call CoCreateInstance() and pass in a 128-bit binary class ID. The COM
> library then looks up that ID in the registry to find (among other
> things) the name of the DLL that implements that class. I imagine that
> SOM does something similar in OS/2.
While this is true, there are plenty of tools out there that patch into the
LoadLibrary and GetProcAddress vectors and log what it does.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:45:57 -0500
Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >I still don't understand the question. A protocol is not an
> > >API. An API is
> > >an interface that a program running on a computer can call to
> > >get the OS to
> > >do something. A protocol is a stream of bytes sent via a
> > >network.
> >
> > Wow, and all these years I thought a stream of bytes transmitted
> > via a network was called a PACKET. Is this some
> > new "innovative" Microsoft definition? Do you know what you're
> > talking about?
>
> A protocol is a set of rules governing the interaction between two or
> more processes. For example, network protocols, security protocols,
> diplomatic protocols. You can implement a protocol as a set of APIs that
> applicaitons can use.
We're specifically talking about a network protocol here.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:42:23 -0400
"Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fh8go$b33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> After much hearing about how much better Linux was than windows, I tried
it.
> I installed Corel Linux first, but had trouble with it and didn't like it.
Corel is a little flakey still, I've heard.
> Next, I tried Linux Mandrake 7. In my opinion, out of everything Linux I
> have seen, Mandrake is the most straightforward, user friendly, easy Linux
> for the "Unix Illiterate Dummy" like myself. I had the easiest
installation
> I could possibly ask for (it did virtually everything).
Apparently not everything. Non PnP cards and PnP ISA cards are usually NOT
recognized by the automatic installation hardware.
>
> My system is a PII 350 with 128Meg Ram, a SB AWE64 card,
ISA? If so, you probably need to use PnPDump and ISAPNPtools to configure
the card. The utilities are easy to use, you just do a "PNPDump >
/etc/isapnp.conf" (don't remember the exact syntax off hand, and I can't
boot my Linux machine right now to check, but the details are in the
ISAPNPtools directory under /usr/doc.) Then you just edit the file. It is
pretty well documented.
> a Creative DVD
> Blaster, Creative Modem blaster.
If this card is ISA PnP also, put it in and use the same PNPdump utility to
create entries for that card as well.
> It is not old, nor does it contain odd
> hardware (maybe the modem blaster, so I tried removing it when I had
> problems). Anyway, I was still not able to get my sound card to work, the
> modem only intermittently and I cannot figure out how to do simple things
> like change the boot option from automatically loading the X login or the
> console login,
Since you have Mandrake, which I believe is based on Red Hat, which I have,
the following should work:
from a root prompt or terminal:
"telinit 5" will start X and change the default runlevel to 5, which boots
to the X login prompt;
"telinit 3" from a root terminal will kill the X server and return you to
console mode.
If an app locks up, CTRL-ALT ESC (KDE) will cause a little skull and
crossbones cursor to appear. Click this on the title bar of the offending
application and it will close. CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE will shut down the
X-server and restart it (such as after you run Xconfigurator and change your
X configuration.)
> install and use software (like Star office), etc. It had
> really neat games, was really smooth running and was stable. But, being
> used to Windows, I don't know how to DO anything else.
Buy the O'Reilly book, "Running Linux" and read it in your spare time. I
DON'T recommend any of SAMS books, they can be as circuitous as the original
Linux documentation.
>
> Anytime that a less-than-completely-dedicated Linux convert in the making
> wants to do anything, what we first need to do is to find someone who is a
> completely dedicated Linux person and pester them until they want to punch
> us with stupid questions like "Uhh... how do I uhh... what do I do?" and
> "Uhh... how do I say Linux?" Then when we have honest questions, we just
> get answers like "read the book." The problem is, the books don't answer
> those questions in a timely manner.
The problem I have found with Linux documentation is that it is all pretty
much designed as a reference tool for UNIX admins, which is fine, but it
doesn't help anyone trying to figure out how to *use* the software. There
ARE HOWTOs, but they usually cover a single example of a sometimes arbitrary
and obscure application, or else they become as vague as the original
documentation.
If you're not used to Unix, 80% of your problems will boil down to file
permissions and paths. Learn how to "su root," "chown" and "chmod" and you
will be all set.
>
> It all boils down to time. I get tired of Windows crashing and having to
> reinstall it!
Sometimes reinstallation is the less painful but longer route. Many times
Windows crashes because of bad drivers or other software that is loaded at
startup. Corrupt Active-X controls, for example can make IE and behave
erratically.
> I get more tired of Linux not working correctly unless I
> change my xconfigurator settings, my .whatchamacallit file and tweak the
> flux capacitor. In windows, it just works... now. I have a wife and
> children, so my days of playing with big toys, like Linux are over.
Then find the above mentioned Linux guru and PAY them a small pittance (many
of them will work for beer) to put up with your "badgering." Don't ask them
dumb questions; let them fiddle with your system instead (much more
rewarding.) Just pay attention to what they are doing. Go to your book and
read about it later.
>
> Unless a time effective solution can be found for us, you advocates on
> comp.os.linux.advocacy have failed to convert me. But, hey, at least I
only
> spent $25 to buy a Linux box set (I downloaded Corel for free).
When MS makes you pay YET AGAIN for another version of Windows that promises
to be more stable, but isn't, and promises to be faster, but isn't, you may
decide to drag that $25.00 CD out and try it again.
Oh, yeah! Since you "PAID" for Linux (Mandrake?) then you have already paid
for technical support. Did you avail yourself of it? If they can't help you
get your sound card and modem working, then they are pretty pathetic, and
you can tell them we said so. ;o)
>
> P.S. I am still open to trying Linux if I could just understand how... I
am
> just more skeptical now.
Ever use Windows 3.0? Linux ain't so bad for where it's at. And computers
were MUCH simpler back then.
>
> P.P.S. I am not stupid, nor lazy... don't flame me for that. I am a
> physicist who has better things to do than chase lost causes (not that
> Windows is not a lost cause... just the better alternative for me here.)
SOME of us understand. There is nothing REALLY wrong with Windows IF you get
it installed correctly, don't install anything that can corrupt the registry
or the system files, keep up with the myriad security updates and patches,
and basically run it in a bubble after you get it to run reliably. It's all
a matter of priorities.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:40:03 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > > > Actually it does whatever action is under the
> > > > "filetype\shell\open\command". In other words, if you change the
> > > > default to be "Edit", then that's what a double click in Explorer will
> > > > do. Double click in Outlook and you get a dialog to open or save. If
> > > > you select open, you get "Open" regardless of what the default is.
> > >
> > > No, you don't. If you double click an attachment in Outlook it does
> > > whatever the deafult action for that filetype is (defined in explorer).
> > >
> > > IOW, if you change the default action for .vbs files from "Open" to
> "Edit",
> > > double clicking a .vbs file [in Outlook] will open it in notepad.
> > >
> >
> > No, sorry, you're wrong. Or at least you are for Outlook 98 and NT 4.
>
> Possibly. With Outlook 2000 and Windows 2000 I'm right.
>
> Can some other people out there with different combos tell us what happens
> on your machines ?
>
> > With that combination the default action is executed when you double
> > click in Explorer. The Open action is executed when you open from
> > Outlook. Perhaps a different version of Outlook works differently.
> > Perhaps Win 9x or Win2K work differently. But that's what happens with
> > Outlook 98 and NT4.
>
> Do you have IE4/5 installed on your NT machine ?
IE 5. Oh, and it's NT4 SP5
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
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: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:50:43 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Uhh.. no. It's a protocol. Why would they write an API for something
that
> > the OS already does? The point of making a different domain controller
is
> > to do it on a non-MS platform, which means that an API is meaningless.
>
> That's a circular argument. Perhaps the word API is incorrect to use
> here, because it implies that an interface is explained to the
> programmer. How about this claim:
>
> Microsoft intentionally obfuscates internal calls to lock people
> into using windows.
That is not the argument here. The argument here is that MS is using hidden
API's in it's applications that give it an advantage over it's competitors.
Nobody has yet been able to prove this. It is proven that MS used
undocumented API's in the early days of Windows, but also proven that those
API's did not give them any advantage since the information was available in
other ways. They were leftovers from a time when Windows was an
application.
> Note that _all_ OSes have "secret" internal calls. Some, more than
> others.
Exactly.
> > > They have the symbols all there, I'm sure of it -- they just don't
> > > want to "create" the API for it.
> >
> > How would that be useful?
>
> I'm sure that the Samba team would find them so.
How would the SAMBA team find the Windows debug symbols (which is debug
information defining the API that an application can call) useful?
> > > As for other undocumented APIs, follow this link:
> > >
> > > http://www.winehq.com
> > >
> > > They have several.
> >
> > "There's a needle somewhere in that haystack, go find it".
>
> You'll just say, "That's not an API, that's an internal Windows OS
> feature."
>
> And you'd be correct.
If the internal API is not used by non-OS applications (an OS application
could be defined as the shell or command.com) then that's true.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 00:43:49 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]?) wrote (Fri, 12 May 2000 19:41:20 -0500):
>MS tested for non MS-DOS period, not any specific brand.
"DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run." MS only cared about DR-DOS. They
feared what it was -- what it could do to them. They turned that fear on
the hapless Win user (albeit only showing itself in the beta, but still
there, nonetheless, in the release). Obligatory "for shame" here: _____.
MS, in a moment of legal lucidity, decided to settle that case.
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Corne1 Huth 40th Floor - Software Win|CE|Linux|Warp|+ http://40th.com/
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[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: Fri, 12 May 2000 19:54:38 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> It is a test for non-MS-DOS versions. Joseph claimed that MS tested for the
> DR-DOS brand, and further claimed that they did not test internal
> structures. This proves him wrong.
>
> MS tested for non MS-DOS period, not any specific brand.
True. However, MS-DOS passed the tests and PC-DOS passed the tests.
Now, which other DOS might a Windows executable program be running under
in that time frame? How many versions of DOS were there? The answer is
that the only other DOS *IS* DR-DOS. So while there is no "if $ver ==
'DRDOS' " kind of logic there isn't anything else they could have been
testing for.
As the DDJ article says:
This program (compiled with Microsoft C) performs the
same tests as the original AARD code, but without the
obfuscations, and with more informative "error"
messages. My MSDETECT program succeeds under all
versions of MS-DOS I tested (Compaq DOS 3.31, MS-DOS
5.0, MS-DOS 6.0), yet fails under all versions of
DR DOS tested (DR DOS 5.0, DR DOS 6.0, beta Novell DOS 7).
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 20:05:21 -0500
Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fghjo$c5g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
> > consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>
> <snip>
>
> > - consumers will go for it:
> > Win vs OS/2, Mac,
>
> So, Apple lost because their marketing wasn't right?
> Or was there just too much of it? Too much mindless
> hype? (Hey, that reminds me of this new OS everybody
> is talking about ;-)
Apple wasn't and isn't competing against just IBM or just Microsoft.
They're competing against hundreds or thousands of computer vendors, each
with their own advertising budgets.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 00:59:35 GMT
On 10 May 2000 23:43:36 -0500, someone claiming to be Leslie Mikesell
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>I don't understand -- you prefer for the user not to have ability to
>>run code at all?
>Certainly not without knowing what program is going to run. The
>result of that is 100% predictable. What basis could you possibly
>use to determine that code received in email is safe?
On what basis can you determine * any * code is safe, prior to its
use?
And my basis is to assume that code I did not ask for is unsafe, until
proven otherwise.
>Three
>copies of the virus in my mailbox came from the company treasurer
>who wouldn't be expected to send anything damaging. And I
>suspect that at least some of those were from his attempt
>to save and then open the attachment as a file. So, how are
>you supposed to figure out what it is when every time you
>touch it, it executes?
For what values of "touch" does this happen in this case? Certainly
scanning it with an anti-virus program touches the file with out
executing it. Copying it to a floppy, ditto.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 18:54:53 -0500
abraxas wrote:
> I dont care about converts actually...
That's fine, but there's no need to insult total strangers just because they ask a
question.
> I would much rather people find and learn all about linux on their own
> without the apparantly requisite hand-holding and emotional support.
And I would like to live in a world where everyone looked out for the common good as
much as they do for their own... but it ain't gonna happen. Ideals are fine, but
they shouldn't be confused with reality.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 01:04:21 GMT
On Thu, 11 May 2000 20:25:27 GMT, someone claiming to be madhackah
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>> On 9 May 2000 23:19:41 -0500, someone claiming to be Leslie Mikesell
>> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>> I don't understand -- you prefer for the user not to have ability to
>> run code at all?
>Yes!
Of what use is a system unable to run code?
>Having a predictable set of software such that you can have a
>reasonable set of expectations on 'where they came from' is not
>a farfetched thing to want.
I * know * where it came from. I also know that I did not ask for any
code to be sent me. I therefore assume it to be unsafe until it
proves otherwise.
>Clearly scriptable applications have their uses, but why make
>this gaping hole any idiot can exploit, such as with these
>dumb email macros/vbs things?
Again, which gaping hole do you see when a user has to explicitly
launch the application? A user should not run unknown code, whether
it comes in email, is downloaded off the web, or is handed to them on
a floppy.
>Executables, along with microsofts
>flat root access with win9x is bad enough, but we _have_ to
>use that due to the current monopoly. Hopefully, we'll have a
>more competitive market in a bit.
Pardon, but you do not * have * to run any MS software at all...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 21:09:41 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Geo from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 11 May 2000 22:16:23 -0700
>
>T. Max-
>
>May I ask why you are attacking Tom Hanlin so vehemently? Whatever your
>views are don't seem to jell with any coherency. Tom's work was valuable
>in the early days. I would hope you could show some appreciation if you
>were "there" then.
Unfortunately, without any direct insult to Tom intended, the qualities
of a good programmer and a wise person are not as related as some might
expect.
>BTW looked at http://www.eltrax.com with some interest. Is this an IPO
>to come?
The IPO is long past. ELTX on Nasdaq, if you're interested.
>Why the terrible attacks?
>
>Geo
>
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Tom Hanlin from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 11 May 2000 05:23:59 GMT
>> >On 9-May-2000, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> certainly lends itself well to these types of abuses. Bill may believe he
Well, I fail to see anything which you might call a "terrible attack" in
my response to Tom. There is an unmistakable inflection of accusation
in the tone of my words, I'll admit. Why I chose to respond in this
manner is the content and context of Tom's statements. I refer to such
issues as:
>Bill was certainly a major factor in what made the PC what it is today, for
>better or worse.
[...]
>Honestly, as if Microsoft were a monopoly! Pity "poor little IBM", grossly
>larger and richer than Microsoft, yet piteously claiming to be a victim.
[...]
>Yep, Microsoft did get dirty with DR-DOS, and that was clearly sleazy,
>although I don't think it caused great harm to either of the DR-DOS
>customers at the time.
and, of course:
>Intellectual property laws have gone back well before 1776, let alone 1976.
In response to my questioning, not of the validity of intellectual
property laws, but specifically and critically of their application to
software code.
In short (not likely with me, but let's pretend), then, the answer to
your questioning of the tone of my response is: Because from all I can
see, Tom is not challenging his assumptions sufficiently, if he can't
see the gross trend in Microsoft's "clearly sleazy" business practices
and recognize the harm that it is now doing and has always done to the
PC marketplace.
I'll admit that I had a knee-jerk reaction to his opening "Bill was a
major factor" statement, and that did color my response. From my
history of posting to alt.destroy.microsoft, I have little patience with
such obvious and tired misrepresentations of the issues as can typically
be found in those who see the actions of businesses as if they were the
actions of individual people.
Tom's willingness to pass judgement on whether or not DR-DOS's customers
were harmed based on his personal assessment does not seem to be
appropriate to me. Nor does it indicate a recognition that what he
considers a trivial difference might well have been (and was) a much
more grievous problem to others and therefore harmful result of this
extremely sleazy at best, and illegal at worst, strategy for avoiding
competition.
Thank you, despite my disagreement of your assessment, for pointing out
your views on my message. No doubt it was a more vehement response than
those who post to alt.lang.basic may be used to, but quite tame in
comparison to many on alt.destroy.microsoft or comp.os.linux.advocacy.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 12 May 2000 21:09:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting J French from alt.destroy.microsoft; Fri, 12 May 2000 09:33:24
GMT
>On Thu, 11 May 2000 21:13:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[...]
>Ok - to be honest - Microsoft did not invent the floppy - actually now
>I remember 8" disks, 5.25" disks - Oh Yes the PC 160kb single sided
>floppy. Do you remember the Sirius multi-speed disk ?
Damn right they didn't. They weren't in any way instrumental in causing
the adoption of the 3.5" disk on the PC platform, either, as it appears
you may be trying to indicate.
>>>However it was the IBM PC that set the standard - not Microsoft - they
>>>just implemented software on a standard machine.
>>
>>Then why did you say that Microsoft was a positive influence?
>
>Because they and Lotus (a rip off of Visicalc) ported languages and
>software to the IBM PC which meant that people could get things up and
>running in *hours*.
Microsoft didn't port any of their existing products to the IBM PC,
AFAIK. I guess I could be wrong with BASIC, but that is hardly support
for your point; BASIC is so ubiquitous, I wouldn't that think it could
be considered.
Lotus, likewise, didn't "port" software to the PC; they wrote software
for the PC, and didn't exist before 1-2-3, as far as I am aware.
>If you look at DOWS 1.0 it was virtually CP/M compatible at the
>interrupt level.
That's because Bill was running a scam. DOS 1.0 *was* CP/M, with
slightly modified shell utilities. How is buying code pathetically
cheap from someone because they don't know you're going to "muss it up"
a little and then sell licenses (without selling the code to begin
with!) for millions upon millions of dollars a "positive influence"?
[...]
>>Alas, the horrible technical monstrosity of Win32 from a knowledgable user's
>>standpoint is one of the few bad things that Microsoft has done which will
>>never be considered a crime. I don't understand the "vertical split with
>>initially identical source code" idea, nor why it keeps cropping up.
>>
>Yes well - just think about it.
>Tip: 2 programmers working in separate room on 2 parts of an app.
> or 2 programmers working in different rooms on the same app
> + 1 public deciding which one gets a paycheck this month
You seem to be saying "obviously, a market without competition results
in crappy software." This confuses me, as it always does when
technically knowledgeable people are willing to "concede that Microsoft
isn't very ethical", but can't seem to work up the gumption to admit
that Microsoft has acted illegally and has done great harm to their
customers, their partners, and the PC industry and market as a whole.
>>That bugs me. Most of the time when people make the same mistake over and
>>over again, I can pretty easily deconstruct the underlying flaw in their
>>thinking, the conceptual pitfall which catches the unaware. But in this case,
>>I have to admit that I am stumped.
>
>Yeah - so whats new
The fact that I'm stumped, like I said. Usually I can understand
people's thought processes much more easily. Its what I do.
[For those who might see a distasteful amount of arrogance in that
statement, especially those who find my sometimes formal and stilted
manner of writing to be annoying, I apologize. I assure you that I am
well aware that it is just about all I am talented in doing. But I do
do that well. Its also why I often get very precise in word choice
issues, and tend to use words like "ubiquitous" more than the average;
using the right word for the right concept is critical if you're going
to try to troubleshoot people's technical understanding and
comprehension.]
>>Where *does* this idea come from? Why is it so easily considered a "good
>>idea", and the OS/apps split not?
>
>OS/apps split is fine - it is just not enough
Agreed, but a horizontal split and behavioral controls are just about
all we can expect to see, as anything more grievous or intrusive would
have an uphill battle in both appeal and execution.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
