Linux-Advocacy Digest #699, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel (2:1)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Kim A. Sommer)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (s@-)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (2:1)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: vote on MS split-up (Leonard Evens)
"Lean and mean" Mozilla (Christopher Wong)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Arclight)
Re: PHP vs Java : JSP (Ben Chausse)
Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel (JEDIDIAH)
Re: "Lean and mean" Mozilla (Brian Langenberger)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (Streamer)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (WesTralia)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:09:53 -0400
On 26 May 2000 14:26:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rj friedman) wrote:
>
>Why do MS ass kissers insist on trying to convince the whole
>world that the mediocrity perpetrated on the computing
>public known as the "Windows Experience" is really Tutti
>Frutti ice cream and not dog shit. In spite of the fact that
>anyone with an independent mind can readily ascertain that
>it stinks to high heaven, you MS ass kissers swear it is the
>best tasting Tutti Frutti that was ever put on the market.
>
Actually sonny boy, I've worked in both worlds, and I know that the
Windows experience really is about a hundred times tastier than the
world of commercial Unix software. Don't get me wrong. Jihad-oriented
software like GNU/Linux/OpenSource is usually damn good, which is
understandable given that it's developed without the pressures of
commercial competition. But end-user Unix applications are on average
bloatier, buggier, uglier, much less usable, and overall shittier than
their Windows counterparts. Now I realize that you and your fellow
McNealy suck buddies will never have the decency to admit that
publically. But you can start by admitting it to yourselves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:06:12 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 00 07:56:24 GMT, Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In article <8gis6a$shp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Martin wrote:
>>> Pros for Solaris :
>>>
>>> It is pretty much the "industry standard" for Unix.
>>
>>(_Commercial_ unix!)
>>
>>> You will see Solaris fans argue that it is more reliable than Linux,
>>> to which the Linux advocates will retort that their boxes have run
>>> for the last twelve months without a crash or reboot. I have to say
>>> that I have never seen either fail, but to put that in context, I
>>> have seen Solaris run under enormous loads on massive servers without
>>> blinking. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of large Sun servers
>>> round the world, demonstrably turning in high levels of reliability
>>> under extreme load
>>
>>But most of them are running on Sparcs, with Sun's own (very fine)
>>hardware. Are there examples for x86 Solaris?
>>
>
>That is quite true - I doubt that there are any major Solaris sites running on
>x86 hardware. However, if you build on Solaris, you do have the option of
>moving up to large SPARC machines at very little effort if you outgrow the
>x86.
You have that option with any Unix.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 16:16:36 +0100
> >That is quite true - I doubt that there are any major Solaris sites running on
> >x86 hardware. However, if you build on Solaris, you do have the option of
> >moving up to large SPARC machines at very little effort if you outgrow the
> >x86.
>
> You have that option with any Unix.
True, but ports are never just a matter of recompilation, other stuff
needs to be done. Going from solaris/intel to solaris/sparc should be
easier.
-Ed
>
> --
>
> In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
> a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim A. Sommer)
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: 26 May 2000 10:17:32 -0500
In article <8gknn7$2fkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip - talk of MS acquisistions]
>
>From the user group and Compuserve postings at the time of the
>acquisition it was pretty clear that the Fox crew expected to
>stay and improve the product. Not much later it was pretty
>clear that Microsoft planned to dump it just to eliminate
>the competition for Access. It didn't get completely dumped,
>but I don't think you can blame the Fox people for what
>happened.
Also in that time frame Inprise (nee' Borland) had just digested
Ashton-Tate of dBase fame for an ungodly sum for that time. Fox was the
up and coming "better dBase than dBase" and Microsoft bought it for a
song. At the time it was considered a plenty smart way to make Foxpro a
market leader since it was already considered by many to be superior to
dBase. It was definetely a heck of a lot faster.
I still have my Fox (pre-MS) coffee mugs. At work we still ahve some
databases orginally built on Foxpro for Dos and moved to FP2.6, MS has
really killed some things. FP2.6 won't run on faster machines. It
figures that MS would innovate a program to death.
My 10 binary cents.
Kim
--
=======
Kim A. Sommer
Humans do it Better! The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:14:31 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:58:23 GMT, Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
>
>I've used 4.3, 95 & 97 and they have never crashed on me.
>
>>2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
>>issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
>
>What bugs would they be then?
>
>>3. Microsoft office 97 did not originally write Word 6/95 files, it wrote
>>RTF files which it labeled as DOC files
>
>It does write word 95 files if you install the correct export filter.
>
>>4. After much yelling and screaming Microsoft issued a patch for word 97
>>which allowed it to write real Word 6/95 "DOC" files. They also issued a
>>patch for Word 6 which allowed it to read Word 97 files.
>
>There was a filter on the office 97 pro CD which allowed you to write
>real word 95 DOC files.
...that's great. Backwards compatibility is a 'Professional' feature.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: s@-
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 26 May 2000 07:20:43 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>Communication between interested party about the specific bug is done
>>via this system. This way, all communications, information, and
>>final resolution is kept in one centralized place for ever and is
>>not lost.
>
>This sounds quite a bit like the kernel mailing list.
wholly cow. another idiot.
this is like saying a text file is just like a relational database becuase
you can use both to store data in them.
i have been around and i have seen groups of morons in large quantities
and in close proximity before, but never so many in one place as
in this newsgroup.
s/
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 16:27:36 +0100
ajam wrote:
>
> I wonder what people think about RedHat charging $2500 for its RedHat
> 6.2 Enterprise Edition distro. Are they out of their minds? What a rip
> off? That's $2500 for what? Motif? That could be $100 - 200, then
> what else? I cannot believe how selfish these people have become!
>
> Comments!?
I think that there are certain prople out there (mainly managers :-) who
woulnn't dream of using such cheap software. As soon as they see things
like $2500 and 'enterprise' they think it's more worth while. Also, you
can still get a RH6.2 CD cheap (a local shop sells them for £7), but you
don;t get any service for it. Besides, they've got to get their money
somehow.
If people are willing to pay $2500, and they are not forced to, then it
is not too much.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
Date: 26 May 2000 10:22:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donald Bayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I still have a couple of DOS programs that run under NT, but I have to
>switch to the desktop in order to print. Does Linux support DOS
>programs? I understand Linux supports some windows programs and that
>there is a commercial program, LIN4WIN as I recall, that will likely run
>all my windows programs.
DOSEMU actually emulates a 8086 PC on the console or in an Xterm
so you run either freedos or a real msdos inside it. It boots
up its own virtual drive and can see the floppy drive (real or
virtual). If you install msdos you can add addititonal drives
that are redirected to unix directories so you can access files
without having to copy to the virtual disk. DOSEMU is free
but if you install msdos you need your own copy. WINE will
run some windows programs natively under Linux. In some cases
it helps to have real windows DLL'S available but the package
includes emulations for most of them. VMWare is a commercial
package that emulates a virtual pentium PC in an Xwindow or
full-screen. You can run NT (or a number of other OS's) under
it with near-perfect results, but you must supply your own
OS and applications and take a speed hit - you probably want
a 400Mhz+ machine to run it. There is a free 30 day demo if
you want to try it. One neat thing about it is that it keeps
the disk image of the guest OS in a single file that you
can back up and copy around as usual, and it has an option to
freeze the image, writing updates to a log file instead. That
means you can try some experimental things and if they damage
the (virtual) system you can still reboot it as though it hadn't
happened.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Leonard Evens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 10:13:24 -0500
Gerald Willmann wrote:
>
> CNN is conducting a poll whether MS should be split up and if yes into how
> many parts. Please take a minute to vote for a good cause.
>
> -> http://cnnfn.com/poll/microsoft_breakup.html
>
> thanks, Gerald
>
> --
Looking at some of the responses, I am disappointed to see that
so many Linux enthusiasts don't understand the malign effect
Microsoft has on the market. Microsoft has followed a policy
of either trying to impose its standards or taking over existing
standards by adding features that work only under Windows. It
is fine to talk about Linux beating Microsoft in the marketplace.
But what are all us Linux users going to do when only Microsoft
products can effectively use the common standards? What are
we going to do if you have to use Internet Explorer to make
effective use of the internet, and there is no version of that
browser that works with Linux?
Current versions of Linux could hold their own in the current
marketplace if one could easily buy a PC with Linux already
installed and all the important applications there. Linux
would not have the problem of trying to deal with Winmodems
and other incompatible hardware if manufacturers did not assume
the only market they had to sell to was the Windows market.
Microsoft with its dominant control of the marketplace can
effectively kill Linux any time it wants unless it is brought
under control. It would have started doing so already except
for the Justice Depoartment suit.
--
Leonard Evens [EMAIL PROTECTED] 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Wong)
Subject: "Lean and mean" Mozilla
Date: 26 May 2000 15:22:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This issue has been bugging me for a while, and I thought this forum of
all places would be the right spot to ask. The Mozilla project has lots
of hype, and hype often has some connection with reality. What puzzles
me are the claims that we will be getting a small, fast web browser
relative to the "bloated" Netscape 4.x. I've been downloading the
nightlies and milestone builds for Linux, but have yet to see any
justification for this claim.
What I am used to: according to "top", Netscape 4 eats 15MB of Ram, KFM
eats 4-8MB, and Opera previews eat about 9MB. What I see: the Mozilla
builds weigh in at about 30MB after minimal browsing. Mozilla, in normal
usage, is also slow as a banana slug. Response time is also slowed by
its unwillingness to recall pages from cache when I hit the "back"
button. I know the usual explanations: not yet optimized, built with
debug info, ... etc. But somehow, people believe that Mozilla will have
a small footprint and good performance. In the absence of any concrete
proof whatsoever, I am would like to hear reasons why such belief
exists. There must be some facts that I am missing so far. I am eager to
hear them. (no, "blind faith" does not qualify).
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arclight)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:35:49 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 15:14:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:58:23 GMT, Arclight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 25 May 2000 20:31:29 -0400, "Keith T Williams"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>1. Microsoft office (at least 4.3 and 97) crashes frequently.
>>
>>I've used 4.3, 95 & 97 and they have never crashed on me.
>>
>>>2. Microsoft office is full of bugs (at least 4.3 and 97) that's why they
>>>issued (for 97) sr1 and sr2.
>>
>>What bugs would they be then?
>>
>>>3. Microsoft office 97 did not originally write Word 6/95 files, it wrote
>>>RTF files which it labeled as DOC files
>>
>>It does write word 95 files if you install the correct export filter.
>>
>>>4. After much yelling and screaming Microsoft issued a patch for word 97
>>>which allowed it to write real Word 6/95 "DOC" files. They also issued a
>>>patch for Word 6 which allowed it to read Word 97 files.
>>
>>There was a filter on the office 97 pro CD which allowed you to write
>>real word 95 DOC files.
>
> ...that's great. Backwards compatibility is a 'Professional' feature.
It might be somewhere on the standard edition CD, but since I don't
have that I couldn't say.
TTFN
Arclight
Web Site:
http://www.daniel-davies.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
------------------------------
From: Ben Chausse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.help,comp.unix.programmer,comp.os.linux.misc,linux.redhat,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.help
Subject: Re: PHP vs Java : JSP
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:39:35 GMT
Hi everybody,
Thanks for your answer, but to be more specific now, I would like to know is
PHP vs JSP. Which one is faster ?
Thanks
Ben0i
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Solaris Intel
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:40:54 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 16:16:36 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >That is quite true - I doubt that there are any major Solaris sites running on
>> >x86 hardware. However, if you build on Solaris, you do have the option of
>> >moving up to large SPARC machines at very little effort if you outgrow the
>> >x86.
>>
>> You have that option with any Unix.
>
>True, but ports are never just a matter of recompilation, other stuff
Actually, quite often they are.
>needs to be done. Going from solaris/intel to solaris/sparc should be
>easier.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Lean and mean" Mozilla
Date: 26 May 2000 15:48:02 GMT
Christopher Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: This issue has been bugging me for a while, and I thought this forum of
: all places would be the right spot to ask. The Mozilla project has lots
: of hype, and hype often has some connection with reality. What puzzles
: me are the claims that we will be getting a small, fast web browser
: relative to the "bloated" Netscape 4.x. I've been downloading the
: nightlies and milestone builds for Linux, but have yet to see any
: justification for this claim.
I, too, am somewhat disappointed with the state of Mozilla development.
In short, it simply doesn't feel like a true open source project.
Most open source projects I've seen start by accomplishing a basic
task and then new features are integrated as the project evolves.
Mozilla, OTOH, seems preoccupied with getting everything in at
once and then cleaning up later - but it's just not evolving in
the direction people are hoping for.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: 26 May 2000 15:48:57 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 01:58:15 -0400, ajam wrote:
[ irrelevance snipped ]
Nothing you've presented here substantiates your slanderous claim that
Redhat are "greedy". Like I said, they are struggling to break even
doing what they like doing -- contributing to free software. And they've
been doing that long before Linux became the "in thing".
And they are *not* "increasing" prices. Redhat's box sets cost $50-
three years ago. You can *still* get a $2- CD, you can *still* get
a box set for $30-40. You can *still* get a box set for $70.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Streamer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:59:58 -0500
Thanks, Nathaniel, for setting me straight. www.redhatisnotlinux.org is an
excellent site and I'll be signing the petition. I am curious, how can a commercial
application keep itself from operating on any Linux distro except Redhat? I simply
don't see how (unless they search for the Redhat name). Maybe that's the point.
Thank goodness for Alien.
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> While I think you've got some valid points, I think you are missing one
> major point. There are commercial applications that businesses use that
> absolutely will not work unless they are installed on Red Hat Linux
> (check out VSI-fax if you don't believe me, although they are working on
> Caldera). Now, you can force the install onto another distro (I use
> SuSE with my copy) but if you have problems with it the tech support
> will tell you one thing only, "You need to purchase the boxed set of Red
> Hat Linux and install that before we can help you." As we see more
> commercial app vendors doing this, and the Windows crowd starts to look
> seriously at Linux as a contender, people won't see Linux, they will see
> Red Hat. It's already starting to happen. In many ways. That is why
> Red Hat can charge $2500 for a distribution now. That and the fact that
> if someone sees that huge price tag (compared to Windows) they think
> they must be getting something really special. I just feel sorry for
> the people that get suckered into thinking that. The bottom line though
> is the fact that Red Hat is almost at the point where they can do
> anything that they want with a boxed set and get by with it, because
> Linux is seen as Red Hat Linux by the majority of the "normal users" out
> there. It's Red Hat vs Microsoft, not Linux vs Microsoft.
>
> I know that there will always be other distributions out there for us
> that are into Linux itself, but as Red Hat gains more attention, my fear
> is that they will fall behind, and as they lose their appeal, they will
> lose developers. I hope Debian and SuSE never hit that point as they
> are my current favorites, but the possibility exists.
>
> There is an interesting site (which I am sure most have seen by now)
> called redhatisnotlinux.org. It's got some very interesting points in
> it, and I would say we should all work to help them. It's not anti Red
> Hat (and niether am I) it just wants to promote the idea that Linux is
> bigger than one company, no matter what it may look like. That's an
> idea we should all try to push. Don't you think?
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:30 -0400
Tholening, Tholen tholes:
> > Tholen tholes again:
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Malloy?
Asked, answered, answer willfully miscontrued by Tholen.
> >>> Tholen tholes:
>
> >> On what basis do you make that claim, Malloy?
>
> > On the basis that you are doing that activity which is characterized by
> > "thole."
>
> Classic circular reasoning.
Classic denial.
> >>>>>> We sic Tholen onto you.
>
> >>>>> Is that idiot still around?
>
> >>>> What allleged "idiot", Aaron?
>
> >>> Ha ha, you have to ask, Tholen?
>
> >> There was no evidence provided, Malloy.
>
> > It was obvious to all but you, Tholen,
>
> How can something that isn't there be "obvious", Malloy?
Because it *was* there, Tholen, but you've developed a blindness to anything
you don't want to see.
> > as the affected party.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Malloy?
On the basis that it's true.
> >>> QED!
>
> >> How ironic.
>
> > Not very.
>
> "It was obvious to all but you, Malloy."
Who are you quoting, Tholen?
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:42:27 -0400
Today's Tholen digest...and all he can is repeat a few phrases which he has
"popularized" and add a few words here or there. The sum total of them:
[move along, c'mon, move along, there's nothing to see here]
Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 16:05:20 GMT
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But end-user Unix applications are on average
> bloatier, buggier, uglier, much less usable, and overall shittier than
> their Windows counterparts.
Can you give examples of this?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:04:17 -0500
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, I'm holding DataCenter Beta 2 in my hands and Beta 1 is running
> right this second. It says W2K Datacenter, it doesn't say "W2K Adv. Server
> Soon-to-be-enhanced-to-DataCenter-Abilities"
Let me jump in here and ask what in tarnation is "DataCenter"?
Thank you!
-wt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 26 May 2000 16:07:08 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 09:18:52 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>that previously resided elsewhere. That's why word processors have
>grown spell checkers, drawing tools, and file managers. That's why
>spreadsheets have grown word processing and graphics features. That's
>why the Java framework started out bare-bones and is now a rich API
>for everything from database access to 3D graphics. Software *MUST*
Hmmm ... you know the interesting thing about some of your examples,
such as Java APIs and even possibly the drawing tools, is that
it's fairly easy for third parties to implement them, and in the
case of the Java APIs, they often do get implemented by third parties.
The problem with the MS situation is that they are shutting third parties
out and at the same time extending their monopoly product to "include"
everything.
>adapt with the times and absorb new capabilities; otherwise it dies.
>To say that a software product can no longer evolve this way is to
>kill it, plain and simple.
The problem is that MSs way of "evolving" things tends to be one which
shuts all competitors out. This is not a problem unless you have a monopoly
product.
> But to say that the most important software
>product (Windows) cannot adapt to the most important technological
>trend in decades (Internet/Web) is outright insanity.
I think it's pretty clear that the IE integration was not about "adapting
windows to the web". It was about destroying Netscape.
And I'm not clear why such integration needs to be implemented by thew
OS vendor and only the OS vendor.
>So no, I don't know what the remedy should be. Everything proposed so
>far has been either ineffective or harmful. There seems to be no
I don't think a breakup would be that harmful. MS's claims are so
contradictory that it's hilarious -- they claim that the different
groups are seperate when it suits them, and now all of a sudden, they
say exactly the opposite.
I don't think they'd die if you broke them up, and I don't think it will
"stifle innovation". It simply means that Microsoft applications will not
receive preferential treatment in the operating system to other applications.
It means that for a change, Microsoft will have to work with third parties
rather than sabotaging their efforts.
>middle ground. One thing's for certain, though: antitrust laws must be
>overhauled for the information age. In their current form, they just
>give assholes like Joel Klein the power to destroy it.
I am not a fan of "reforming laws for the information age". This kind
of rhetoric is also used to justify software piracy -- because it's the
"information age", we can't stop copying.
But the truth is that the "information age" does not excuse anyone --
Microsoft or the freeloading pirates -- from common decency whether it
be in personal or business ethics.
I don't know why you think it will be "destroyed". I think that a Microsoft
owned "information age" would be a much scarier thing.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
