Linux-Advocacy Digest #750, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1 innovations)
(Little Piggy)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Robert Heininger)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Yannick")
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com (Marty)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Little Piggy)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: There is only one innovation that matters... (was Re: Micros~1
innovations)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:03:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm confused. I hope you realise that Microsoft isn't a hardware
company. They have nothing to do with putting cheap computing power
into the hands of consumers. If anything they are responsible for
jacked up computer prices because of their OS tax. You DARE put MS in
the same category as Apple, IBM, etc?? Companies which actually BUILT
this industry rather than just led a parasitic and unproductive
existance?
Go ahead, support Microsoft. Who cares... they are going DOWN and the
computing industry will be the better for it.
sidebar: I find it really funny that Gates started donating
bucketloads of money to charities (mainly his, even when the man gives
he can't let go completely) as soon as the shit started to hit the fan
with the DOJ.
On 29 May 2000 19:16:59 GMT, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[crossposted, just to see what folks from the different OS camps might
> have to say about this...]
>
>Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: Is this it?? They [Micro~1] must have innovated something?
>: Come on boys , THINK!
>
>Microsoft's main innovation is quite obvious: putting lots of computing
>power into the hands of general consumers. Who else, besides, Commodore,
>Apple, IBM, or Atari has even attempted this? The beloved UNIX weenies at
>Sun? Silicon Graphics (officially renamed to "SGI")? Yeah... _right_.
>
>Answer me this... exactly how has Sun Microsystems put computers into the
>hands of general consumers? Please tell me which retailer I can visit, in
>order to purchase a Sun computer system... what's that?... I can't do that
>you say? Gee, why not? I'll tell you why Sun doesn't sell in the retail
>market... it's because they want to keep their products in the corporate
>markets, where they can jack up the prices, and take advantage of
>corporate executives who have more money than sense. Sun could easily
>make a killing off of Intel-based boxen running Windows if they wanted to.
>But Sun knows that Intel-based hardware is easily eclipsing theirs by wide
>margins, and that little fact is a huge dent in their pride, and they know
>that the only way to keep selling their hardware is to be able to hide
>behind the lack of scrutiny that exists in tightly controlled and
>ambiguous corporate markets: corporate markets that Microsoft is
>beginning to blow wide open. A product that is readily available to the
>general consumer is very open to scrutiny, externally, or internally,
>depending upon the product's license.
>
>PC technology wouldn't have come as far as it has, if it wasn't open to
>external scrutinization by the general consumer.
>
>Tell me, how much do you know about IRIX, or VMS? Unless you've been
>fortunate enough to work in a place that uses either of them, I'm willing
>to bet next to nothing. Since I'm a 3D animator, I've used IRIX quite a
>bit. But how would some average joe get a chance to use it? He'd have to
>find an expensive university that would teach him how to use it, most
>likely. But in order to use Windows, all he'd need to do is save enough
>money to get his grubby little hands on a PC.
>
>Corporations like Sun and SGI restrict their target markets for a simple
>reason. It's because they know that cheaper PC technology like the Intel
>Pentium, and the PowerPC vastly outclasses their expensive hardware...
>hardware which they could easily sell at enormously jacked-up prices to
>mindless corporate boobs, if there were no other viable options available.
>Options like Microsoft Windows.
>
>I know some SGI or Sun weenie is probably going to jump in here, and deny
>all of this, and probably call me a "PC dummy" or something (which
>wouldn't make sense, since I own several SGI systems myself), but it's
>hard to ignore the implications following events such as the DOJ trial.
>
>Microsoft has, for years, been pounding companies like Sun into the dirt.
>They've been doing this for a reason: because they think companies like
>Sun will ultimately hurt their business. No, it has nothing to do with
>good intentions for the people. It's all about capitalistic wanting
>(which some might translate into "greed"). But still, in their endeavor,
>Microsoft is continuing to strive for appealing to everyone, from 3D
>animators, to gamers, to home users, to business users, to data centers,
>etc.
>
>Sun Microsystems, and the others involved in this whole DOJ nonsense
>aren't interested in justice at all... they merely want Microsoft's cash
>cow to end, so that they can take the market away from consumers, and as a
>result, take the public scrutiny along with it... and as a result, sell
>their substandard and less-featured hardware. Personally, I hope that
>Microsoft and its subsidiary(ies) (assuming that they are divided
>eventually, and that Janet Reno's mindless persecution isn't called on
>for what it is), continues to produce their products. I like Microsoft's
>products. I support Microsoft. If that makes me an "idiot", or a "shill"
>in someone else's eyes, I really couldn't care less.
>
>So, if anyone in these forums wishes to return to the 1980's way of
>computing, to depend upon "slow as goose shit on sandpaper" Java
>technolgy, or to use black and white Xterminals well into the next
>century, please, support Sun with all of your fervor. I'm sure they'll
>reward you by giving you a link to a used SPARC5 for sale on eBay.
>
>Companies like Apple, IBM, Atari, Commodore, and Microsoft have brought
>computing to the general consumer. A company like Sun would likely bring
>advances in computing, that benefit the general consumer, to a halt. I
>think that if Sun actually got into the position that Microsoft is in now,
>I just might go to work for the tobacco industry... at least that way, I'd
>be contributing the slow deaths[0] of Sun's software engineers. *grin*
>
>[0] NOTE: I do not in any way endorse the killing of Sun programmers, or
> any Sun employees, as plant life is precious to our Earth's
> atmosphere. However, I do endorse giving them atomic wedgies
> at any given moment... that, and floppy raids[1].
>
>[1] Similar to "panty raids" except that panties cannot be used to store
> data and support large beverages after being stolen.[2]
>
>[2] Or maybe they could be used as coasters for beer bottles[3].
>
>[3] That's while they are _not_ being worn[3a].
>
>[3a] Or maybe you'd prefer the other[4].
>
>[4] Please, no "longneck" inuendos.
>--
>.-----.
>|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
>| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
>| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
>|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
--
Little Piggy
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:04:13 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 20:05:57 GMT,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Pete Goodwin' wrote:
>>>I'm sitting at the bottom of the Linux tree and shaking the base,
>>>yelling, "HEY GUYS! WAKEUP!".
>>>
>>>Pete
>>
>>Hey Pete!. We're over here, getting work done...
>
>Ah you're behind that rock are you? Coooeeeee....
Yeah! The side where moss does not grow. . .
--
Robert Heininger [ Powered by: Linux 2.2.5-15 ]
Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Every time I get asked that question, someone wants to take me for a ride.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Mon, 29 May 2000 16:21:25 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > MS's profit margins are so large for one reason only: Volume.
>
> Monopoly.
You can have volume without Monopoly. If MS had 20% of the market, they
would still make obscene profits that 50 other competitors with a compbined
80% of the market wouldn't have.
> > You can't have it both ways Joseph. If MS lowers their prices to keep
their
> > profits "in check", something that no company would do, then they'd be
> > accused of dumping to drive their competitors out of the market (as they
> > have been with IE).
>
> Monopoly 101.
> In markets where MS hasn't aquired monopoly peower they cut prices. In
> markets MS has aquired monopoly power they raise prices.
MS has not raised the price of consumer Windows in the last 5 years, despite
their supposed monopoly.
> > Customers prefer integrated products. For instance, in the audio
market.
> > Bookshelf systems, and integrated recievers are much more commonly sold
than
> > component systems.
>
> Bad exmaple -
You're wrong. There, my statement carries just as much weight as yours.
PROVE why it's a bad example.
> > Yes, discrete tuner/pre-amp/amplifier sets are much
> > higher quality, but for most end-users, the integrated product works
just
> > fine for their needs, costs a lot less, and is much more convenient.
>
> bad exmaple -- What version of Windows comes without IE? NONE. MS
> claims it is impossible.
They claim that Windows *AS DESIGNED* is impossible to ship without IE. It
would require redesigning the OS ship with IE, something which would take a
lot more time than the judge gave them.
Additionally, many integrated recievers are made by companies that do not
make a non-integrated product. Panasonic doesn't make a discrete
tuner/pre-amp/amplifier system.
> When asked to build Windows without IE MS shipped a crippled product and
> insulted the judge. I can CHOOSE to by an integrated stereo or
> components. I can CHOOSE. MS says consumers cannot CHOOSE so IE is
> integrated and shipped in every MS PC OS.
You cannot choose to buy discrete components from any vendor you want, nor
can you choose to buy integrated components from any vendor. Many vendors
simply provide only one solution.
> > Intel is taking a huge loss this quarter because they have to replace
many
> > defective systems.
>
> MS is a monopoly and doesn't have to service the customer by taking back
> defective software.
You don't have to "take back", but simply fix. MS provides service packs,
and does so for free.
> > Hardware engineering is a discipline that has had over 75 years to
mature.
>
> Software has been around since weaving looms were programmed with
> punchcards cards in the 1800's.
Software engineering has not.
> > Even Microsoft is recognizing this. Steve McConnell's latest book (MS
> > Press) is titled "After the gold rush" and talks exclusively about
turning
> > software engineering into a discipline as well structured as hardware
> > engineering.
>
> and...there have been books about this topic since before MS was
> created. It isn't relevant to the fact MS has monopoly profits and
> shows no fear of competive OS pricing.
No, there have not been books on the same topic since before MS existed.
Read the book before you make comments on what it contains.
> Backwards compatibility is about software. The excuse for lame Win95
> was to have backwards compatibility - OS/2 still did a better job that
> that crummy OS.
OS/2 did *NOT* do a better job. OS/2 could not use periphials with DOS
drivers for OS/2 applications.
> > > Functionality is increasing. The smaller size and power consumption
are
> > > features.
> >
> > Office 2000 is also getting smaller (the actual applications) and using
less
> > resources. I guess those are features as well.
>
> Office 2000 is not an OS.
Neither is a CPU. What's your point?
> > > Baloney. Even old OS/2 has a modular design and is mostly written in
> > > C/C++. As MS defines the OS a vast majority of software does indeed
> > > fall under these technqiues.
> >
> > C. OS's are not usually written in C++. Applets might might be, but
even
> > then they usually are not.
>
> Well MS used C++ in Windows 2000.
Not for the OS itself. That's C and ASM.
> > Since the majority of tools are focused on OOP methodologies, they do
little
> > to help with the design of the OS.
>
> Baloney.
Ahh, and your experience is what?
> > > Visual basic is a bad exmaple. I'm not sure many software packages we
> > > use today are made in the crippled product visual basic.
> >
> > How about Java? How about Pascal? MacOS was originally written in
Apple
> > Pascal, but over the years has migrated mostly to C. But we're talking
> > about PC OS's here.
>
> Visual basic is a crummy example.
You didn't answer the questions.
> > IE is *NOT* written in MFC. Not a stitch. It's actually written in a
> > custom framework that ATL was based on.
>
> Still a framework and a code base MS tells us all is part of their OS.
What? That statement is a little vague. What is a framework part of the
OS? MFC? No. ATL? No. IE? Yes, but it's not written in MFC.
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:14:05 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 29 May 2000 08:06:08 +0200 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > application is closed the system attempts to close all of the keys
> > but runs out of system resources while doing it.
>
> How the hell does a system run out of system resources while
> *closing* a key, handle, or file descriptor?
>
Don't know. Perhaps it performs some checking in the process, requiring
some resources. It's for that reason that MS always has a message box ready
somewhere in memory to display an "out of memory" error.
Anyway, an app that open many registry keys and doesn't close the handles
is bound for the recycle bin. I would not trust it my data.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 21:15:26 GMT
rj friedman wrote:
>
> My position is, and has always been, that for the business
> user OS/2 cannot be beaten as the most productive,
> efficient, best bang-for-the buck OS/2 out there. OS/2 may
> not be "thriving" but it is a LONG way frome dead - or even
> dying - as you, in your bitter cup of rejection so often
> proclaim.
Did you even bother to read the prologue?
"I am not going to get into comparing these Oses in terms of server
abilities. This document refers purely at their ability to provide a personal
computer user or work station user a way to get the most common jobs people
use PCs for."
He's not referring to business users. Put a plug on your mouth-frothing long
enough to think about what you are writing.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 16:28:04 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I could see an operating system being busy for awhile (i.e., closing
> a file forces some sort of write flush), or even pausing indefinitely
> ("please insert volume SO_AND_SO somewhere"), as the Amiga linked
> to do (and I suspect the Mac likes to do, as well); not a problem as
> long as someone has volume SO_AND_SO handy... :-) [*]
It's called error checking. You need to allocation memory sometimes in
order to deal with variations in conditions.
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 29 May 2000 21:14:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc poru@kl wrote:
: In article <8gtrsf$fik$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Peter says...
:
:>My point here is, I repeat, that linux is a success measured in terms
:>of social impact, numbers of deployed systems, and economic influence.
: In this case, then windows is 100's of times more success than Linux,
: since it depolyed in millions more systems and used by millions
: more people than Linux.
Oh, definitely, in absolute terms. That's unarguable. But you are not
taking into account the market they're aimed at (beer mats are more
successful than windows in your absolutist terms). In the terms I set
out, linux is a success, and a growing success. What's more, it's
social impact at least is growing to match windows.
:>then you had better first explain why it is a success without
:>it.
: The above shows your level of thinking is so shallow and you can't
: see a little ahead.
Eh? Who are you? OK, fellah, that does it. You seem to have some
strange mental problems, the most obvious of which is thinking that
you're being smart when you're not!
: Everything can be improved. Do not think in black and white terms
: like a little kid. Think in terms of how a process can be improved.
Tell that to evolution.
: Very successfull organizations in the world are improving and making
: changes to their process everyday to try to become better and to
: produce a better product. If they do not, they will eventually die.
Get rid of the precept that linux is an "organization". It is not. It
is closer to an organism.
: Linux has managed to pull things togother so far in an adhoc fashion
: with little engineering process involved becuase the kernel so far
: was relatively a small program. It is only now that it starting
That does it. I'm sorry. Calling the kernel a small program is pretty
crazy. You're a mad idiot.
: A 500,000 lines C program is large, yet in relative sizes, it is small.
: VMS is about 7 millions lines of code, NT is 30 millions, Solaris
: is about 10 millions, OS390 go to be over 10 millions, etc..
You are wildly off as to their sizes. Did you just make this up?
The kernel is about quarter of a million lines of code, as I count
it, by the way.
: As the linux kernel grow in size and becomes more
: complex and more pepole start to use it and work on it, starting
: to use better engineering process to manage the task becomes more
: important.
:>_My_ theory
: .. stupid theory snipped..
Say no more. For the benefit of readers, would you care to state what
the theory was, and why you think it stupid?
Whilst I have nothing against disturbed individuals in themselves, I do
have everything against people who cannot argue. Come back when you can
make a rational case that's examinable on its own merits.
Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
