Linux-Advocacy Digest #646, Volume #26 Tue, 23 May 00 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (Full Name)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
Re: Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (Martijn Bruns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 09:18:46 GMT
On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:56:55 +0200, "Davorin Mestric"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>now even the netcraft guys are saying it. linux is hurting commercial unix
>vendors more than microsoft.
>
[snip]
Linux is hurting Unix - but not in the way you indicate.
I've administered in excess of 10 flavours of Unix since 1992. All of
these have been rock solid with little or no problems. Linux simply
does not achieve these sorts of reliability and stability levels.
Linux is creating a generation of programmers who will believe they
must run VMS if they want a rock solid operating system.
Administrators should think twice before compromising their systems by
introducing a Linux box.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 09:05:37 GMT
In article <8gbv1p$h4i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or they could just tough out this DOJ PR railroad case
Actually, the DOJ has been more than generous several times.
This time the DOJ stepped in to prevent 18 to 20 independent
antitrust suits in a number of different states. A loss
in any of those states, especially New York, Texas, or
Massechusets, would have probably done more damage. Furthermore,
a victory in any of the other states would have resulted a
precedence. The DOJ was doing Microsoft a favor. At least
all the eggs were in one basket.
> and win with real justice in the appealate
> courts and forget about this whole thing
> and watch their stock rise higher than before this whole BS?
Either way, it looks like it will definitely go to the Supreme
Court. The DOJ - pressured by the 17 states - would have to
appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, and with 38 other states
chomping at the bit for a piece of the action, it's quite unlikely
that even a George W. Bush victory would prevent a Supreme Court
Judgement.
The bad news about a Supreme Court appeal is that the Supreme Court
generally reviews ALL of the testimony and evidence before rendering
a verdict. That would include admissions to the criminal
anticompetitive activities by the Defense witnesses.
> The DOJ wants/needs a victory over big-business.
Actually, I think the DOJ wants to prevent this case from turning
into a feeding frenzy for 50 independent lawsuites by the states,
and another 50 to 100 for every corporation locked out by Microsoft
since 1983.
> They've been marginally successful with big-tobacco
They've managed to do more damage to the tobacco industry than
any of the "Moral Majority" republicans, like Reagan and Bush,
would have dared to do.
> and with big-firearms.
I'd bet this one goes to the supreme court. The balance between
the right to own a gun and the right to safety is delicate. In
some communities privately owned firearms are the only substitute
for police department where victims and witnesses are more afraid
of the police than the perpetrators. We'll just have to see how
that balance plays out.
> They need a BIG victory. MS was an easy target as there is no real
> precedence set in software industry trials or dealing with
> intellectual property and rights of innovation.
Not exactly. in fact, the courts have made several rulings
on intellectual property and rights of innovation. You see,
the court must balance the rights of the monopoly holder to
innovate, against the rights of the competition to innovate,
and against the rights of third parties who consolidate
> So, they set up a talking head half-dead judge
Microsoft has burned it's bridges with so many federal judges
that it would be almost impossible to get a friendly one.
During the DOJ trial, Microsoft would say one thing in Washington
that was directly contradicted by Microsoft testimony in Utah
and California.
Microsoft's contempt for the Washington D.C. courts was so flagrant,
so deliberate, and so unabashed the Judge appears to have bent over
backward to be as fair as possible. The DOJ presented a case,
provided the facts, and proved the damages. Then Microsoft literally
admitted to the conduct after walking on the fine edge of perjury,
attempting to justify it's actions as the actions of a company that
was on the edge of being put into bankruptcy by ruthless competiton.
Microsoft was able to divert attention from this tragic farce
by leaking information about the Lewinski scandal, and then
giving it top priority coverage on both MSNBC.com and MSNBC TV.
While no respectable press would have leaked the story, and
no respectable prosecutor would have wanted the nature of the
tapes and the interrogation made public and would have buried
the case, Microsoft's priority coverage in it's controlled media
almost lead to the overthrow of the government. They were hoping
that they could humiliate Clinton into resigning, the way Hillary
and her democratic henchmen tried to humiliate Nixon into resigning.
Now, another diversionary tactic was to divert attention to Elian
Gonzales, and the Jon Bonet Ramsey cases. Elian is cute, but not
8 hours/day worth of Cute (the amount of time MSNBC spent covering
this 5 minute/week human interest story).
> that will do whatever they say and railroad the whole trial and
> get their win.
Microsoft was walking a thin line. At least they aren't fighting
20-30 independent trials.
> Yeah! Liberals win another battle over all those mean
> capitalist pig-dogs!
Let's see, those "liberals" were responding to complaints from
Dell Computer, Compaq, Netscape, AOL, IBM, and about 20 other
corporations. Many of the most severely damaged - WordPerfect,
Lotus, Digital, and Boreland don't even exist as corporations
any more. They've been swallowed by other corporations in
"Fire Sales" (last ditch efforts to get some value for shareholders).
The secondary impacts of locking Linux - an operating system that
worked on the computers not equipped to support Windows 95 out
of the overall market. This could have led to filling in the
Technology gap 6 months ago.
> Elect Al Gore!
Or George Bush!
> He'll punish all those mean big businesses!
Gee, how many of those victom companies were from
Texas. If his running mate is from California, Microsoft
has a problem.
There are to many big wig politicians looking to make good
with the home town crowd to kill the case. Actually, it might
be fun to watch Bush try to pull the plug. There would be
20 independent lawsuits in 20 different states, with 20 chances
to have Microsoft turned into a criminal organization and have
the Bill Gates turned into public enemy number one.
At least this way, Bill Gates has a choice as to whether he
goes to jail, as does Steve Ballmer, and the other hardball
negotiators. If they really want to blow off the Judge,
they can sit in jail for contempt. If they behave, they
can probably get the break-up thrown out and compete fairly.
I just heard something appropriate on Remo Williams.
> First software, next guns and tobacco!
Actually Clinton let the states take tobacco apart all by themselves.
Before that, Reagan an Bush were encouraging the states to initiate
anti-smoking measures to forbid smoking in the workplace. I quit
smoking in 1987 as a result.
> Appealate courts usually don't play politics
> and get down to law and justice,
Very true. They review the relevant facts in the case.
Microsoft won the consent decree trial because they limited
the scope of the trial to a single technicality. They then
argued the appeal on the broad issue - which had deliberately
been kept out of the scope of the original trial.
The antitrust trial is a whole diffent scenario. The DOJ
overproved it's case, and then Microsoft executives admitted
to criminal activities with justifications.
> which is why MS is holding out for the appeal,
> because they know they'll win.
Microsoft is under the dillusion that the appeals court will
overturn every aspect of the conviction. Both sides have promised
to go to the supreme court. Microsoft may be able to
block the break-up, but they will still be on a very short leash.
> -Chad
>
> "David D. Huff Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Instead of taking a beating across the board.
> > Might M$ stand a better chance of survival if
> > it breaks up voluntarily
Actually, it would be generally better off for Microsoft
to spin off several units of it's organization. Each company
would be worth more, less profitable units could enjoy revenue
growth, and Microsoft would be under less pressure to sustain
20% per year growth on $20 billion annual revenue.
Furthermore, the executive level leadership could remain relatively
concentrated. The problem is that the executives at Microsoft
would rather gamble everything on beating the DOJ in the Supreme
Court, than work out a settlement that encourages an open market.
This is actually the fifth time that Microsoft has tried to "cut
a deal" where the loopholes were so big you could drive a truck
through them. Microsoft has been under investigation since
1987, has been through 2 FTC votes, 2 settlements, and a contempt of
court case. Microsoft's weasel words won't wash in the court
again.
> > then some part of the business could survive.
Even if the D.O.J breaks up the company, Microsoft will
survive, and probably thrive. The Applications company
could compete well in the Linux market (as well as Windows),
and the Operating Systems unit could compete well with
a variety of applications.
> > The last couple of days they've been taking
> > quite a beating in the stock market.
Actually, for about 13 months.
> > Along with a lot of peoples' retirement money.
The mutual fund managers saw this coming months ago.
Many were liquidating Microsoft even before Gates, Ballmer,
and Allen started dumping their stock starting early last
year.
Many cashed in on the Linux frenzy in 4Q99. The speculators
have been having a good time with the swings. As usual, only
the pigs get slaughtered.
> > Shouldn't the stockholders demand that they bite the
> > bullet now and salvage what they can?
Yup. Microsoft has exposed themselves to huge liabilities by
rejecting a settlement offered by the insurance company. They
risk a huge string of lawsuits, and could be tied up in the
courts for years.
> > They should split on their own terms,
> > not what the government dictates.
That isn't what this is really about anyway. What the court
and the states really want is a competitive environment
in which Microsoft must compete equally for the OEM dollars.
Microsoft may find itself sharing the machine with Linux,
UNIX, or BEOS. And even then, there would be lots of competition
for the OEM dollar and the USER dollar.
> > Thus ensuring themselves their best chance for survival.
With the pressure shifting from revenue growth to profits,
Microsoft will probably want to split the company to get
more bang for the buck.
> > Three parts may be better than two,
or more. There are several media, web, and
applications divisions that could be profitable in
a competitive market.
> > diversifying their cumulative losses.
And creating attractive secondary investments.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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, 23 May 2000 11:53:29 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>I'm using the exact same definition that MS does. OLE (without any
>>>numbers) means OLE2. This can be noted by looking at "Inside OLE" (which
>>>is the third edition of the book. The second version was called Inside
>>>OLE2. Note how MS dropped the 2 moniker, prefering to act like OLE1 never
>>>existed).
>>If you re-read the quote from that book, that you yourself produced in
>>another part of the thread, carefully, you'll see that MS obviously
>>preferred to stop implying a version *3* would be forthcoming (since they
>>we're reasoning everyhting would be an extending implementation of the
>>version 2 API), *not* to imply there was no version 1:
>Which doesn't change the fact that MS uses the term OLE to refer to OLE 2,
OLE, version 2.
>and not OLE 1.
OLE, version 1.
Nobody is denying that version 2 is meant when MS nowadays speaks of "OLE".
>MS does act like OLE 1 never existed for the most part. Yes, they
>acknowledge it for backwards compatibility, but the mere fact that no
>documentation that refers to OLE without a verion number shows this.
Ah! Now I get it. They ignore it ... except for the part where they don't...
>>"...no longer given a version number[...] The reason for this is that OLE
>>2 implies that there will be an OLE 3".
>>Read your own evidence wrt. what is _says_, not what you'd like it to say.
>It says exactly what I'm saying. OLE without a version number means OLE 2.
You said it shows they ignore version 1.
The quote shows them specifically *mentioning* version 1, and telling you and
us they won't be having a version 3.
Sounds different too me...
>>>One must read what the statement says, not some imagined hidden meaning.
>>Look who's talking. Read what Page 11 of Inside OLE (according to you)
>>says, not some imagined hidden meaning.
>There is no imagined hidden meaning. All I said was that MS pretends that
>OLE 1 doesn't exist when they refer to OLE. That's not a hidden meaning,
>that's a statement about how they act. That's my opinion.
You can have an opinion, and so could Joseph BTW (but ofcourse it's fine for
people to demand 'proof' for his opinion while they themselves can opine
everything they want when any proof runs out).
But *you* tried to "prove" your opinion "they ignore version 1" as fact by
producing a quote that specifically *mentions* version 1 and explicitly states
that they won't be using the _version_ number 2 anymore because it falsely
implies there will be a version 3.
It's not our fault if you come up with pertinently wrong evidence.
>The fact is that MS when MS says OLE, they mean OLE 2.
Which isn't what was being contested...
We could just as well say "when MS says 'Word', they mean 'Word 2000 for
Windows'". So what.
>>And BTW, if people _consistently_ "misread" what one says/tries to say,
>>one _might_ start to wonder whether one puts things right /
>>understandable.
>Didn't you notice the statement above where it says "One must read
>statements in context", which states that he I didn't say what he says I
>did, but rather that he's implying it based on his idea of the "context".
>I can't control what other people want to see.
I already agreed with that. I'm just saying that there must come a point where
one has to wonder whether or not constant 'misunderstandings' or
'misinterpretations' of what one meant to write is because the writer puts it
the way he puts it.
I guess you haven't yet considered that a possibility, your own writing skills
(or worse) being the/a problem...
Maybe you could start writing in a foreign language, that tends to make one
more careful in how to put things so they still are understandable and beyond
misinterpretation. This is just a suggestion for self-betterment.
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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, 23 May 2000 12:21:33 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>It is if you mean to defend MS by making blanket statements about their
>>having every right to shield off "internal data" from 3d party programs.
>>If some programs _do_ have some business in that data, then your whole
>>reasoning of shielding off and "private internal data" goes out the
>>Window.
>DOS and Windows are OS's. They're not applications.
>Windows cannot run without DOS, thus Windows and DOS are joined.
(Then) Windows is not an OS. An OS runs without the help of another OS.
DOS is an OS, and DOS+Windows is an OS. Windows without DOS is not, it doesn't
run (Windows NT excluded ofcourse).
Windows is as much an application as Borland C++ 3, Doom, GEOS, Dark Forces,
... All are "DOS Extenders" (which I don't have to explain to you).
Windows just has a pretty complete (but not always consistent) API that
"happens" to be used a lot (which is where their monopoly comes in).
>>>The issue is that Windows *DOES* communicate
>>>very closely with DOS, and expects certain things to be certain ways.
>>So did every DOS extender (which, BTW, nicely summarizes Windows).
>>That's what you have APIs for. You know, like OLE (version 1 or 2).
>An application can run on any system which provides the right API's (such
>as WINE), the OS cannot.
Oh? So VMware makes several OS's not an OS.
It's all just a question of which API you're providing (and how well).
Anyway, OS/2 provides the right API's via its VDM (Virtual DOS Machine) with
its virtual device drivers and runs Windows. Hmmm... according to "Erik"
Windows must not be an OS...
>Windows replaces many of the DOS API's with
>protected mode callbacks. That's not the same thing as "every DOS
>extender", which merely makes a real-mode DOS call from protected mode.
That's *exactly* what a DOS extender does. Read "Unauthorized Windows 95" by
Schulman. Any DOS extender *replaces* the memory allocation API of DOS with a
'protected mode callback'.
You're in 'pedantic definition mode' again BTW.
>>>Microsoft has no control over any other version of DOS, so it can't
>>>guarantee that Windows will run correctly with a non-MS or IBM version of
>>>it.
>>As has been said umpteen times, nobody asked them to guarantee that.
>Untrue. MS is a large company that many of it's clients expect certain
Just keep beating that strawman!
Next you'll tell us that MS has to guarantee AutoCAD to run on Windows.
>things from. Additionally, since MS offered no-charge tech support at the
>time, support was a cost absorbed by MS.
That must have been ages ago... :-\
>>The discussion is about their (alledged) right to *prevent* other DOS's to
>>run Windows (or feign incompatibility).
>So, MS should just blindly run on whatever junk pretends it's MS-DOS and
>let the buyer beware?
Yes.
If you think not, please tell us why you expected DOS apps to run on "OS"
Windows and Windows NT (apps that just use the public DOS API)? Should they
refuse to run on "whatever junk pretends it's MS-DOS"???
>You don't think MS has a responsibility to take a few
>precautions against obvious stability issues?
Certainly not when they're baloney or even counterfeit.
It's not a question of 'run into a problem and mentioning it in a README';
it's about going out and identifying something as 'not compatible' without
even running into a problem. That's called pretending or lying, clearly FUD.
>>Your MS master has taught you well; once your "argument" has been exposed
>>you neatly side-step the issue and go along another (dark) path.
>>In Usenet words, one strawman down, several more to go.
>I haven't side-stepped anything.
Uh-huh...
>As an example, car companies frequenly provide circumstances in which their
>warranty will be voided if they do things which can cause the product to
>malfunction. Example, putting in unapproved motor oil. Since GM can't
>modify their engines to prevent unapproved motor oil from being added to
>their cars, their only choice is to void the warranty.
Does GM sell (inferior) motor oil?
Do they have a monopoly product that they can use to leverage anybody to use
their motor oil?
It's more like someone selling a car radio using a certain pin-out (API) that
nevertheless automatically worsens its performance when it's put into a
pin-compatible bay not belonging to a car made by the same manufacturer, while
the car-radio is a monopoly product and the car is inferior ('by several
measured criteria' to use a good-old-days-of-Mike-Timbol quote).
>MS could probably have refused technical support if your an DR-DOS, but why
>make a customer angry?
Screwing the customer out of money that needn't be spent (for 'upgrading' from
DR-DOS to MS-DOS), *lying* to him and denying him to make that choice for
himself isn't going to make him angry????
Well I guess in this world of pointy-haired bosses that adhere to "nobody ever
got fired for bying MS' it doesn't...
>>>So, you're suggesting that Windows WAS marketed as an add-on for other
>>>DOS's?
>>Their marketing has nothing to do with the right of shielding off "private
>>internal data structures" and letting their own "3rd party" program get at
>>supposedly "private internal data structures".
>No. YOU quoted the above material, then responded specifically to that
>material by stating that nobody should believe the material that was
>quoted.
>If you had intended the entire post to be referenced to that, you wouldn't
>have quoted that portion and made a response to it.
>The only conclusion one can draw was that the text referred specifically to
>that text, thus you were stating that it was wrong.
No, the quote was meant to 'isolate' your sudden upbringing of a different
theorem, without actually 'quoting' the entire message.
You tried to throw Joseph on a dead trail by starting about the marketing of
Win3.0/1, while the discussion uptil then had been about (the right of) MS
putting in tests in Windows specifically meant to single out non-approved DOS
versions (that could otherwise be perfectly compatible products).
Which has nothing to do with the public face they happened to have put on at
the same time. If you were to do that, would you say "we're singling out our
competitor's product with this" or try to side-step it by lyin...eh...
marketing?
>Now who's dancing?
You're not fast enough, even after years of practice.
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution
Date: 23 May 2000 10:20:58 GMT
In article <1eaynye.dvrhwk121qkt8N@[192.168.0.144]>,
Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What is the mean flight speed of an unladen swallow?
> Would this be a European swallow or an African swallow?
I don't know that! Aaaa
aar
rg
h
.
.
.
.
.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: 23 May 2000 10:38:03 GMT
In article <LHGU4.2043$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The thing the Linux people don't understand or refuse to agree on is
> the idea of 1. Yes it is limiting, but you can streamline the hell
> out the system that way. Win9X is 20MB of CABs. Suse is what 6
> CDs/1 DVD.
And you get a load more stuff with those 6 CDs. Those 20MB of CABs
don't include a software development environment or word processor, do
they?
> That is not a good formula for desktop success my friends. One
> toolkit, and make that toolkit kick serious arse. This explains
> 100% why Linux has a 4% market share of desktop systems. That will
> not likely grow beyond that if Linux people don't heed this advice.
You appear to be unable to comprehend the difference between what you
get in the various distributions. And frankly, I can't be bothered to
enlighten you. I've got better things to do than the intellectual
equivalent of pounding sand down a rat-hole...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:53:04 +0200
Full Name schreef:
>
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:56:55 +0200, "Davorin Mestric"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >now even the netcraft guys are saying it. linux is hurting commercial unix
> >vendors more than microsoft.
> >
> [snip]
>
> Linux is hurting Unix - but not in the way you indicate.
>
> I've administered in excess of 10 flavours of Unix since 1992. All of
> these have been rock solid with little or no problems. Linux simply
> does not achieve these sorts of reliability and stability levels.
>
> Linux is creating a generation of programmers who will believe they
> must run VMS if they want a rock solid operating system.
>
> Administrators should think twice before compromising their systems by
> introducing a Linux box.
Again, just your being a stupid administrator doesn't make Linux
a bad OS.
Unless you have something INTELLIGENT to contribute, go away! It
wouldn't surprise if you hadn't even SEEN a Unix-OS before.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
