Linux-Advocacy Digest #702, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Giuliano Colla)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 26 May 2000 13:42:22 -0500
Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >What? I stated that X could not run without Y. You stated that this
meant
> >that X wasn't an OS and I gave examples of other OS's that also required
a
> >different OS to run. What's your point? How is it a strawman? It
> >directly refutes your statement.
>
> Then what's the information in "Windows and DOS are joined"?
> By the same logic, WordPerfect 5.1 and DOS were joined.
WordPerfect 5.1 and DOS did not provide similar services. Wordperfect was
not an OS, nor was it OS-Like.
> You bought (or could
> buy) them separately as Windows and DOS, you installed DOS first and WP
second
> like DOS first and Windows second and WP doesn't run without DOS.
> If you want to maintain isn't a (special) DOS app like WP but *also* don't
> mean to say Windows isn't an OS without DOS, then you've added no
information.
Both Are OS's, they simply rely on each other when joined. (For instance,
Windows provides new DOS API's for DOS applicatins to call when Windows is
running)
> It's a strawman because you deflect the discussion from "what the hell has
> Windows to do with DOS internal structures" (or some such) to "Windows is
or
> is not an OS". I'm not arguing that one either way.
No, the argument is that you are claiming that Windows is an application, no
different from WordPerfect or something else *BECAUSE* it depends on another
OS to function. I say it's not similar to an application because they
provide similar functionality and have many examples of other OS's that
depend on the services of other OS's to run, therefore Windows does not
warrant being treated as an application, but rather an OS.
Now, if you treat Windows as an OS, there is also other precedent here. For
instance, OS/2 1.x from IBM ran *ONLY* on IBM hardware. OS/2 1.x from
Microsoft ran on IBM and non-IBM hardware. IBM was deliberately limiting
it's version of OS/2 from running on it's competitors hardware. This is no
different from Microsoft limiting it's OS from running on non-MS DOS.
My argument is purely from the point that MS's intentions are irrelevant,
since they had the right to do what they did, much like it's competitors.
> >>And anything that uses Mach, if you want to look at it that way, just
uses
> >>the public API of Mach, not some internal data structures.
> >The source for MACH is available, thus everything can be a public API,
even
> >code that is meant to be internal.
>
> "Can be" != "is".
> Linux is entirely available in source code, but that doesn't mean the
internal
> data structures of the kernel are available to me or they are suddenly
exposed
> in an API. You're reaching here...
They are available to you. All it takes is a few seconds in the kernel
source and voila! The data is yours.
> >>And Schulman showed that Windows "used a DOS extender" too. The nature
of
> >>these DOS extenders is such that they're included in the product
> >>("binding") such that they themselves have become the DOS extender if
they
> >>expose an API to applications.
> >You're saying that Doom and Dark Forces expose API's to applications?
>
> I'm not saying they do or don't.
Well, you said that Doom and Dark Forces are DOS extenders just like Windows
is, then state that the nature of a DOS extender is to expose API's to
applications.
> >Yes, the *CAN* extend DOS, and other than memory allocation, they
generally
> >do not. For instance, they do not provide their own file system
services,
> >Windows does.
>
> You keep banging on the 'own' file system services that DOS Extender
Windows
> happens to provide. Is that your criterion for 'extending' DOS, providing
your
> own file system services??? You must be running out of arguments...
That was an example. Windows provides many other services that DOS
extenders do not, such as device management, I/O, etc..
> >>Providing an API has nothing whatsoever to do with the complexity needed
> >>to accomplish that fact.
> >>They provide an API 'equal' to the API a real PC box provides; if
they've
> >>done it successfully, the OS running on it sees no difference.
> >I'm sorry, but emulating a CPU is not an API.
>
> Ah, that does it, Erik has spoken so it's not.
> What a crock.
> A macro is an application of eg. a word processor + OS + machine.
> A word processor is an application of an OS + machine.
> An OS is an application of a machine.
> A PC is an application of semiconductor technology.
> See any similarities?
> An API is a concept; any limitation to "programming an application for a
> certain operating system" is purely your own "I don't want to see more
than
> this because it doesn't suit me".
The difference is this. An API is called by an application. As such, it's
passive. A CPU is active, in that it runs the application, not the
application running it.
> >>So you want to argue that something becomes "more than a DOS extender"
> >>because it happens to extend more of DOS than other DOS extenders that
> >>happened to also have been _marketed_ as such?
> >>I'd suggest a careful reread of Schulman's book.
> >>There is *no* _qualitative_ difference between Windows (excl. NT) and a
> >>general "DOS extender", only quantitative.
> >There's no qualitative difference between a chimpanzee and a human
either.
> >We share almost the exact same DNA. There is however a huge quantitive
> >difference, using qualitative and quantitive as you do.
>
> Read the book (carefully) instead of trying to weasel out of it with
> inappropriate comparisons.
I have read the book carefully. I know exactly what Windows provides. I
also know that Schulman states matter of factly that the Windows *IS* an OS.
He also states matter of factly that Windows 95 doesn't run on DOS, but
rather DOS runs under Windows. I can provide quotes for you if you like.
> >>If you want to argue something stops being a DOS extender when it
> >>"replaces" more than xx% of DOS services in its own implementation, then
> >>fine, name the number and come up with the number for Windows and other
> >>DOS extenders.
> >My argument isn't that it's not a DOS extender (I already said it
provides
> >one).
>
> "Provides" != "is".
>
> >My argument is that it's a great deal *MORE* than that.
>
> Yeah, Windows extends X, Y and Z and handles A and B in its own code,
while
> DOS Extender "ACME" extends only X and handles C in own code.
So you're not arguing this.
> >>Note, I'm not denying your tack of "Windows is an OS", but by the same
> >>logic any DOS extender is an OS as well. If the latter isn't true
> >>according to you, then Windows isn't an OS either. Pick one.
> >An OS is something that provides OS-like services.
>
> An ape is an ape-like creature, to stay in your inappropriate comparison.
> Talk about circular reasoning.
Not inappropriate at all. If it walks like an ape, grunts like an ape,
looks like an ape, acts like an ape, then it *IS* an ape.
Are we going to sit here and define what an ape is like, or what an OS is
like? I think those definitions are pretty well know.
> >Not just
>
> Here come the random 'criteria'...
>
> >memory allocation, but file services,
> >graphical input/output,
>
> Ah, so DOS isn't an OS after all. Nor VMS or Unix when you're not running
the
> X Window System (DECWindows) or those pesky mainframes...
> Gee, intelligent criterion, Erik... What did you have in mind, only
Windows
> must qualify???
What are you talking about? Unix most definately does provide graphical
input/output. A TTY is graphical input/output, and certainly that's built
into the kernel.
> >device management, etc.. Windows clearly provides those services,
>
> Not very coincidental when you name only Windows 'services' as "OS-like
> services".
I didn't realize that file services and device management were "only Windows
'services'".
> How'bout rock-solid stability? Windows doesn't provide that service (and
no,
> NT doesn't qualify for me anymore, when it freezes on me at least once a
week,
> just running some apps)...
That's not a service, that's a characteristic. And i've never read an OS
text that requires an OS to provide such a characteristic as grounds for it
being called an OS. Certainly MacOS doesn't, nor did AmigaOS, or TOS, or
DOS, or Minix, or Coherant (Mark Williams early Unix without memory
protection).
> >and for the most part they're seperate implementations from the
underlying
> >DOS. Simple DOS extenders do not.
>
> You said it right, *simple* DOS extenders do not.
> We agree Windows is not a *simple* DOS extender...
I'm glad you agree. Just because something *IS* something, doesn't mean
it's not something else as well. OS/2 is a DOS extender as well.
> >>Because it's (usually) needless / on purpose and/or the broken software
> >>used the API as documented???
> >But you claim that MS has no responsibility to maintain such
compatibility.
> >Are you now changing that statement?
>
> What part of "needless" don't you understand???
Well, buffer exploits in Linux are needless as well. Bugs happen.
> Since we're talking about "internal data structures" here (if you still
> remember the topic after all your strawmen), you can hardly call 'not
causing
> software that uses the API as documented' the same as 'guaranteeing that
> software to run'.
And how do you know that every time some software is broken that they're
using the API as documented? I've had some experience with my companies own
software breaking after applying a service pack, and 9 times out of 10, it's
because the developer had misunderstood some part of the documentation or
relied on some undocumented side effect that went away in the SP. In the
few times it was an actual bug in the SP, I certainly am not arrogant enough
to believe that MS was "targeting" our company (especially when they don't
even compete in our market).
This stuff happens. It happens on the Mac, it happens on Windows. It
happens in Unix (why do you think they give version numbers to libraries).
> *They* published the API and they should therefore
> 'guarantee' that correctly using it won't break your app. The can't
guarantee
> to *users* that the programmers from AutoCAD will use the API as
documented
> and nobody expects them to except a Winvocate looking for a strawman...
Microsoft goes well out of it's way to ensure compatibility. The book you
keep telling me to read carefully has an entire section talking about the
windows compatibility flags and the amount of effort MS spends on making
sure faulty software continues to run. You did read that part when you were
carefully reading it, right?
> >>Because it always happens to be competitor's products if there still is
> >>competition in that app area or their own product if they've already
> >>practically established a monopoly in the area of the app being broken??
> >MS apps are occasionally broken as well. But usually they aren't. MS
tests
> >it's own apps against updates, it doesn't test every competitors app.
>
> Which ofcourse isn't monopolistic either eh? Still want to maintain the
app
> competitors aren't disadvantaged.
> They should test API conformance, not specific apps.
Testing API conformance isn't going to prevent apps from breaking. As I
said, in my experience 9 times out of 10, when an app breaks, it's the apps
fault.
> >>Get real. Applications get blamed for faults with Windows than the other
> >>way around.
> >By people that know. Your average joe will blame MS though, rather than
the
> >App.
>
> a) Rubbish
> b) Aren't buying decisions done by people who know???? (you don't need to
> answer this, we know this not to be true)
So, you just made two conflicting statements here. First, you claim that
I'm wrong, then you claim I'm right.
> >>I'm sure the knee-jerk reaction of MS weenies to my NT machine freezing
> >>completely on a very regular basis is along the lines of "ah, but you
> >>shouldn't run Netscape but IE!". So much for a stable and robust OS...
> >Bugs happen.
>
> "stable, enterprise class, mission critical..."
> "bugs happen"
>
> Uh-huh!!
> Oh and BTW Gates disagrees with you, you know he said there a no bugs in
> Windows 95.
For someone that claims to understand english so well that you KNOW what a
person means when you read between the lines, you can't even seem to get a
simple quote right.
He said (and I quote) "There are no *SIGNIFICANT* bugs that any
*SIGNIFICANT* number of users want fixed".
Which is not saying that there are no bugs. He's saying there are bugs, but
they are not significant, or if they are significant, they are not a
significant number of people effected by them.
> >No, you missed the point. I'm talking about apps that don't even bother
to
> >check if the services or memory they need is available. They just check
for
> >running under Windows and fail.
>
> OK, let me rephrase this especially for those boneheaded app programmers
> "there's a difference between not checking whether or not the services are
> available and refusing to run somewhere where those services are known to
be
> specified as available".
But that's just it. Novell had acknowledged incompatibilities. And MS had
no way to know for sure if the services it needed would always be available.
> >An example of this is the many DirectX games that checked for NT and
failed
> >to run or install if it was, assuming that NT didn't have DirectX. This
> >obviously failed when NT4 later got DirectX and with Windows 2000 which
has
> >Direct3D.
>
> And what MS did was the equivalent of ACME game programmer looking to see
if
> this was ACME Mindblows 2000 with Direct3D or Microsoft Windows 2000 with
> Direct3D, which both implement the same game programming APIs, and
refusing to
> run on the MS one (or just giving a warning at beta time to see if they
can
> get away with it or that a stink is raised).
Which would be entirely within ACME's rights to do.
> >Whatever the purpose of the message is really irrelevant to this
> >conversation, which is simply that MS *DOES* have the right to warn
people
> >of incompatibilities.
>
> At last you're starting to show your true colours: "they can do whatever
they
> want".
No, I didn't say that. I said they have a right to warn of
incompatibilities.
That does not translate to being able to do anything they want.
> We knew that, that's why we call it a monopoly. We want to change that, so
> that a really open marketplace acan actually *punish* them for completely
> unnecessary 'warnings' that are only for anti-competitive objectives.
Sorry, but Anti-trust is not about punishment. It's about remedies.
> >And what makes you think it was for one reason only? I've offered
several
> >other viable reasons for it.
>
> Apparantly I and others disagree with the viability of the reasons. You
can't
> argue one separately and then use all your other bogus partyline 'reasons'
to
> 'support' the one, while you do the same for every other one.
What does this mean exactly?
> >I'm not saying that my reasons were the only
> >reasons either. Clearly, MS was also trying to protect it's monopoly,
but
> >my point was that there *ARE* legitimate reasons to do this as well.
Don't
> >take my arguments as being absolutes. Nothing is ever absolute (You'll
> >notice many of my arguments are arguing the absolute nature of the
> >statements made such as "for one reason only").
>
> Everybody agrees there are good reasons to keep internal data structures
> internal. But that then goes for everything. If the API is good enough for
WP,
> it's good enough for Windows.
> Those reasons were not why this AARD code was put in, that was just to cut
off
> DR-DOS.
How do you know that that was the ONLY reason?
> >No, the whole point is that both Windows and DOS are OS's or at least
> >OS-like. They provide similar services, and thus are roughly peers. A
> >radio is not a peer of a vehicle. A radio is an application, clear cut.
> >There is no such clear division between DOS and Windows.
>
> The point isn't at all about "OS or not OS".
> It's about APIs ("internal data structures" *implies* an API), and that
API
> should be the only deciding factor in the working of the application.
> If it conforms it must run, and that goes both ways, regardless of what
the
> actual API (AP _Interface_) is...
No, I think it's reasonable to say that certain API's are only for certain
purposes. For instance, MACH API's are not for applications running under
Darwin to call.
> >As I said, MS has a legitmate right to limit it's products to work with
the
> >products it knows will work. It doesn't matter if there are actual
> >incompatibilities or not.
>
> Then the discussion stops, doesn't it???
> "MS is right"
> You're a real consumer advocate...
Where did I say I was? As a software developer, I need to limit my
liabilities or else customers will sue me every which way from sunday on
every whim they get, regardless of whether it's my fault or not.
> >>>Well, if that was it's intention, YOU should seriously consider your
use
> >>>of the language.
> >>I guess you still deny any possibility of you putting things "wrong".
> >>Too bad, your problem.
> >You're avoiding the statement. Your response, as you claim it was
intended,
> >did not convey that message.
>
> Please, start calling me names, I'm sure that will convince me you are
right
> and make me see exactly how you meant everything.
Stop trying to change the subject.
> >>>I doubt anyone else saw the phrase your way.
> >>I doubt that. We'll let the reader decide, which is just what I mean:
> >>regardless of how *you* say something was meant, the reader decides how
it
> >>comes across.
> >Which is why you and others statements about what I intended with mine
are
> >hypocritical.
>
> We can only say how it comes across with _us_.
> If you have not problem with it coming across differently than you
intended,
> then there is no problem. If you have, blasting us for us isn't likely to
make
> us see the light....
You should only speak for yourself. Others here clearly do have a problem
with it.
> >I'm not defending WHY they did them per se. I'm only saying that they
have
> >a right to do them for legitimate reasons. I'm not saying that all their
> >reasons were legitimate, but I am arguing that not all their reasons were
> >nefarious in nature. I'm arguing the middle ground, which is that there
> >are neither all good reasons or all bad reasons, it's a mixture.
>
> You must be a high MS executive, since you were obviously there when they
went
> over the possible reasons.
No, I have common sense.
> Anyone else can only speculate and look at what and how they have done and
> what emails accompanied the actions and draw logical conclusions from
them.
> There's only one logical conclusion: cut off DR-DOS.
No, not the only logical conclusion, since I have come up with several other
logical conslusions. You're using absolutes again.
Is it, or is it not a logical conclusion that MS might want to limit it's
liability in regards to MS-DOS by making Windows not run on it, or warn the
user about it?
Is it, or is it not a logical conclusion that MS can make parts of one OS
available only to another OS? What law states that MS has to provide for
others to do what it does with Windows?
I'll agree, and I've never disagreed, that MS wanted to try and stop DR-DOS.
My disagreement is that MS has a right to do what it's done for other
legitimate reasons such as what i've mentioned. If it also happens to hurt
a competitor, that's tough for the competitor, since they're choosing to
"pretend" that they are a product that they are not.
> >>A "co-package"?? What a load of crap!!!
> >>You sure you're not a lawyer for MS (puke)???
> >co-package was the only way I could phrase it. What would you call
darwin
> >and mach? I call them co-packages.
>
> You buy and install Darwin and Mach separately like DOS and Windows???
> The term seems designed to facilitate the argument, not the other way
around.
Mach is designed to allow multiple OS's to run simultaneously. While you
might buy Mach and Darwin together, you'll likely be able to buy mk-linux
seperately to run on the Mach you already have.
> >>>MS's handling of the situation was poor in many ways.
> >>You mean they got caught (yet) again?
> >No, I mean their handling of it was poor. Rather than discuss legitimate
> >reasons for what they did, they choose instead to try and wash it all
away.
>
> If there are no credibly applicable legitimate reasons to discuss (seeing
the
> emails, the AARD code, the encryption of said code ...) they had little
choice
> but to get caught...
Why do you insist that there are no credibly applicable legitimate reasons?
MS has proven in this court case that they'll often throw out legitimate
reasons for something else (for instance, when they provided a dramatized
video as evidence. The experiment was recreated and shown to be the same as
the dramatized video, but MS chose to make it fancy instead).
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:52:29 +0200
Arclight 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.
Happy to hear that. Please tell my secretary. Today she has
taken out an old typewriter. Says that's faster than damn
Word. Asked me "please could we install again old Word Star,
which was less fancy, but worked?" She had spent the whole
day trying to send a letter to our suppliers. Just same
letter, change address and save (to keep record). Only if
you "save as", then four characters come printed one above
the other and make a nice black square in a line. If you
just "save", it prints correctly, but you overwrite previous
one and you can't keep track. Takes some time to figure it
out.
She can quote you by memory, word by word the error box
which tells you that the application will be terminated
because of an error. The only Windows application she uses
is Office, being a secretary.
>
> >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?
Too long a list, please read previous postings, or the lines
above for a little sample.
>
> >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.
Then originally didn't. Please check dates of O97 delivery,
and export filter availability.
>
> >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.
Now I understand. It was a professional feature. Great! How
could you tell if a file was RTF or DOC? There was another
professional tool? Or you had to hire a sensitive? Doesn't
sound so professional after all.
Documents either you print them, or you send them. They're
not intended just to be watched on the screen. If printing
is crappy, and sending doesn't work, because you don't know
if the other party will be able to read it, then something
is seriously wrong.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 20:54:25 +0200
Arclight wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Sorry I hadn't seen the following trail. If it is there it's
well hidden.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
Bologna (Zona Industriale Roveri)
Tel. 051 53.46.92 - 0335 610.43.35
Fax 051 53.49.89
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
