Linux-Advocacy Digest #763, Volume #26 Tue, 30 May 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Sven Bovin)
Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux..... (George Peter Staplin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Don't run Windows. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: democracy? (Mark Wilden)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 30 May 2000 06:30:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 May 2000 23:15:01 GMT, CAguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >On Tue, 23 May 2000 09:05:37 GMT, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >[SNIP]
> > >
> > >>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).
> > >
> > >[SNIP]
> > >
> > >
> > >Also, Microsoft has a fleet of specially equiped black helecopters
> > >that they use to do covert night flights over their competitors in
> >
> > IOW, you can't really address the assertion. The fact
> > remains that Microsoft has ownership in news outlets
> > that give them the opportunity to maninpulate information.
> > It would not be the first time that a corporation was
> > accused of abusing such control.
> And when the Senator from Novell launches
> his hearings, it won't be the
> first time a corporation was able to
> use politicians to kill the competition.
Well the Senator from Utah also has constituents such as
Caldera, Novell, and several other Microsoft competitors
driven out of the Market by Microsoft's anticompetitive
strategies. He will probably be joined by senators from
New York (IBM, Silicon Alley, Wall Streeters burned by
Microsoft security holes and server failures), Texas
(Compaq, Dell, IBMs AIX facility, and numerous UNIX
customers fed up with Microsoft's pressure on the market),
California (Silican Valley, Sun, SCO, and numerous former
Berkely graduates less than thrilled with Microsoft), and
Massachusets (home of DEC, MIT, GNU, FSF, and hundreds of
UNIX based companies, not to mention numerous companies
shut out by Microsoft's anticompetitive tactics.
Thank goodness it's just the Senate, where each of the
35 states who have companies who have been hammered by
Microsoft over the last 15 years have been waiting to
be heard only gets two votes per state. If it had been
a HOUSE investigation, we would have had only a handful
of representatives from the Redmond, Bellview, and northern
Washington area. Even Boeing isn't thrilled with Microsoft
(using UNIX to design the planes, manage the fly-by-wire,
and as strategic control systems - and being embarrased
by every attempt to implement Microsoft solutions).
> The fact is if Bill had pumped the same money
> into Washington early on as everyone else,
Bill has been generously non-partisan. He contributes
generously to national candidates of BOTH parties. Bill
Clinton has bent over backward to accomodate Microsoft,
and ended up playing the fall-guy when Microsoft needed
to get the heat off the trial.
Each attourney General was willing to file an independent case,
resulting in 20 to 30 individual cases, with numerous opportunites
to embarass Microsoft in minor trials. Had Microsoft conducted itself
as it did in the national trial, it would have been humiliating
for Microsoft. Furthermore, since each prosecutor would have been
focusing on different anticompetitive activities, there was a much
better chance that testimony given in one case could be used against
them in another case. It's very likely that criminal charges would
eventually have been filed.
Even with the heat from MSNBC, Bill Clinton encouraged the DOJ to
try to consolidate the pending individual state lawsuits into a
huge class action suit rather than let the AGs from 50 states,
and probably some territories and D.C. file lawsuits independently.
Microsoft has been as generous as any other corporation or union,
and has certainly made some contributions to the economy. The
question is whether Microsofts anticompetitive tactics have thwarted
technologies and advancements that could have further benefitted an
even larger community of people.
Microsoft prevented the proliferation of multitasking operating
systems for nearly 7 years. Digital Research had developed MP/M,
and CP/M-86 was a multitasking multiuser system. When DR-DOS offered
full compatibility with MS-DOS 3.3, Microsoft promised that MS-DOS 4.0
would support full multitasking. This was flagrant fraud, but has
now been buried in sealed court records resulting from an out of court
settlement.
When DRI released GEM, a fully functional Windowing System, Microsoft
deliberately sabatoged it with changes in the MS-DOS 3.3 release.
When Quarterdeck offered Windowing capability, complete with X11
compatibility, Microsoft torpedoed this code with MS-DOS 5.0 which
broke DesqView.
Microsoft was secretly diverting resources from OS/2 funded
development to Windows development. Again, the dispute was
settled in an out of court settlement that sealed the records.
Again, this fraud resulted in damage to nearly all of the 3rd
party developers who had previously supported Microsoft and
helped establish Microsoft as the world's largest software
company.
Microsoft claimed to be responsible for the success of the
Internet, and the new economy it generated. Yet Nearly
85% of the servers were running on UNIX variant including Linux,
FreeBSD, Solaris, AIX, HP_UX, and others.
> this case case ,regardless of its merits,
> would never have been brought.
Actually, you are correct. If Microsoft hadn't had Bill
Clinton in their pockets, it would have been ravaged by
20-30 independent lawsuits, each designed to establish
a precedent ruling that Microsoft was a monopoly and
enabling the other states to sue. Each suit would have
established whole new grounds for damages (the DOJ targeted
the minimum damage of the difference in price between Microsoft
OS and OS in competitive markets.
--
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: Sven Bovin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:36:44 +0100
Graham Murray wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.hardware, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > No that is hat you are doing implying, by omission, your usual method,
> > that a person can easily set up a printer under Linux but can't answer
> > "ok" 4 times to do it under Windows.
>
> Setting up a printer in Windows is not always that easy. A couple of
> months ago we had a new network (ethernet) printer delivered at
> work. Within 2 minutes of the printer going online I had printed a
> test-print from my Linux workstation. It took about 10 minutes before
> it was accessible from the NT workstations, but the workstations
> running Windows 98 could not use it for another day. The reason - the
> person installing the printer on the NT server just accepted the
> defaults and this created a share name which contained a space. NT was
> quite happy with this, but 98 would not grok it.
And I could not get my printer, a HP LaserJet 6MP, installed
under either Win95 or Win98 if I had my parallel port set up
as ECP or EPP in my BIOS (I had to use `normal' and then I
had to switch it to ECP or EPP after installing the printer,
causing Windows to think I had new hardware). And I had a
hell of a time to make the icon of the Toolbox appear in the
task bar after upgrading the drivers (I only succeeded after
a several complete reinstalls of Windows). And I am not a
complete newbie. I don't want to think about how somebody
without much computer knowledge would have felt.
--
============================================================
Sven BOVIN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
labo kwantumchemie |IJzerenmolenstr 26|
Celestijnenln 200F | bus 116 | Wampenberg 88
B-3001 HEVERLEE |B-3001 HEVERLEE | B-2370 ARENDONK
Belgium | Belgium | Belgium
tel : +32 16327380 | | tel : +32 14678310
fax : +32 16327992 | | fax : +32 14678310
============================================================
------------------------------
From: George Peter Staplin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I wish I could replace Windows with Linux.....
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 00:42:47 -0600
Tom wrote:
>
> I just made a
> 25MB blank image in TheGIMP, and filled it with a gradation from black
> to white, diagonally, across the whole image. Took 30 seconds to do
> that, and it takes PhotoShop about 1 to 1.5 seconds on NT....
>
> I have a gig of RAM, so it's not the RAM requirements that are choking
> it.
>
> I tried the same procedure using PhotoGenics (beta):
> http://www.paulnolan.com/Linux/index.html
>
> And I had pretty much the same results --- about 30 seconds to do the
> gradation fill. Almost as long (in both programs) to do a rotation of
> 90 degrees of the resulting image.
>
> Sheeeeesh.
The problem may be due to the X communication between the client and
server. This type of stuff is why the X Imaging Extension was created.
Unfortunately the GIMP doesn't use XIElib as far as I know. Most
GNU/Linux systems include libXIE*, but the X configuration tools don't
load the module.
Do any of you know why the X Imaging Extension was not used in the
GIMP?
--
==================================
George Peter Staplin
http://www.xmission.com/~georgeps/
==================================
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 07:29:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ease of use that compromises security (as explained above) is a BIG
>no-no in my opinion. The key issue here is "compromise". When using
>Linux as a multiuser server or even as a home Internet gateway / router
>/ firewall / desktop, security is a *paramount* issue. On the other
>hand, a single user stand alone desktop doesn't need tight security, and
>Linux is widely used in both situations. Therefore, compromises must be
>made to achieve the best of both worlds. I think Linux is right where it
>needs to be as a very *versatile* cross between a server and desktop OS.
There's no reason why ease of use has to compromise security - Windows 2000
way of doing sharing has permissions which set the level of access a remote
user has. Admittedly, it does hide these security settings, and the default
is wide open access (argh!), but if you move security to the first window,
a user should spot that.
In any case, wide open systems used to be the norm. It was certainly true
with VAX/VMS. There are three accounts SYSTEM, FIELD and MAINTENANCE that
had passwords that matched the username. This all changed when Digital was
struck by a virus by the Chaos Computer club.
I think the model Microsoft went for on Windows 9x is no security at all;
after all you can't login to it remotely, and only one person can use it at
a time. Windows 2000 has security, but it's wide open in places unless you
watch what you're doing.
But security issues should not blow away chances of getting a more usable
GUI in place!
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 07:31:49 GMT
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Yes, it does. The luser will take that "stand alone" system, add a modem,
>and hook it up to the Internet. Now it isn't standalone any more, but the
>luser things "well, it's only a desktop, who'd hack that?" The answer is
>of course "every script kiddie with a port scanner" and another hacker
>haven is created.
>
>This is why "desktop" installs should have all services turned off by
>default, because the dumb user will hook it up to his cable modem and
>create a security problem for everyone else.
What services might those be? I'm curious to know what services you think
are running on a Windows 98 SE with nothing else installed?
FTP is not there, HTTP is not there and TELNET is definately not there. So,
what holes exist?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 07:34:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Kelley) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>But it's Samba's fault, of course...
Actually it's a typical response from Microsoft. Break the competitors code
so they can sit back smugly and say "see! it doesn't work does it!".
>That's what we get when computing standards are set by a monopoly.
That's what we get when we have a milicious monopoly. A more benign
monopoly wouldn't do that sort of thing. It's not that monopolies are bad,
it's just they can do bad things.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Don't run Windows.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 07:38:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Ahlstrom) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>My Windows machine at work is really acting up, and that goddam Borland
>C++ Builder just isn't stable at all, especially when debugging. I
>think another
>reinstall is due, but I don't want to have to reinstall Novell, Office,
>IE, Outlook,
>Visio, Borland C++ Builder, Visual Studio, my timesheet, all the
>drivers, yeesh, there's gotta be a better way than reinstalling and
>rebooting.
My machine at work has been as is for about a year. It has become more and
more unstable, so much a sound card no longer functions. I need to do a
full reinstall to cure it. Good system, huh.
Sadly, both Delphi and C++ Builder suffer from weak debuggers. With Delphi
5 I found if you switch on 'Debug DCU's it does get a bit better. I can't
remember if C++ Builder V5 has that. BTW, anything before V4 of C++ Builder
I had a lot of problems with.
Oh yeah, I found the Delphi debugger became remarkably more stable when I
debugged with Windows 2000.
Pete
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 07:42:56 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Originally the PC was cheaper thanks to Microsoft!
>
>Now the PC is more expensive, again thanks to Microsoft!
>
>You can by an AS 400 or HP 9000 of Dec VAX for under $100,000
>and it will service 500 people!
>
>You can't buy the servers under a W2K environment for that!
Why do it that way? The old massive central server and lite workstations
instead of powerful PC and lite servers!
What are people going to use as terminals? X terminals? Oh please! VT
terminals - what, we're going back to the stone ages are we?
>Mainframes will return to most companies thanks to Microsoft.
Naaaah!
>Or, you can retain your freedom as users and encourange your office
>to go total LINUX now. Now while you still have freedoms.
You're muddling things up here a bit. You think mainframes are the answer?
Didn't Digital bet on that, along with a lot of others and where are they
now?
Even Microsoft is starting to look at 'central' servers again. Sheesh!
Doesn't anybody learn!
Pete
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:45:30 +0100
"Andrew N. McGuire" wrote:
>
> Clever. :-) I guess every year really starts a new millennium,
> although this does not directly pertain to the millennium we were
> discussing.
Actually, each second starts a new millenium. :)
> Well, to me the real idiot is one who does not take the time to think
> about the truth of the matter, and then refuses to admit when he is
> blatently incorrect.
However, my point was that this issue is simply not important enough for
most people to worry about strict accuracy. And why should they? The
rollover to 2000 is much more interesting to them.
> [ First of all, let me point out that you more than likely do not have
> to recompile your kernel to make your sound card work. ]
I did, although I compiled sound card support as a module.
> Not so, chosen ignorance is not an excuse
We just disagree. There are more important issues in people's lives than
computer OSs. We, as computer people, tend to forget that.
> to say that people think that
> Windows is better becuase they do not want to try anything else just
> points out their stupidity.
No, it just points out that they've got other things to think about.
>If this were the case in all aspects of
> life, we would not even have electricity for goodness sake.
It is the case in all aspects of life. It took technologically astute
people to make electricity acceptable to non-technologically astute
people.
> And to say
> that the majority of people believe that Windows is best is not idiotic,
> it is true, look at the usage percentage!!!
That percentage arises from the number of computers that come preloaded
with Windows, not from the number of people who think Windows is 'the
best OS ever', as you averred.
> of the computers on the planet... Are you saying that that many people
> would use it even if there were something better?
If it were _proven_ to be better, yes. There are other issues involved
than the technical quality of the OS, such as the availability of
software and help.
> Either way you slice it, the majority looks rather dumb.
Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, because it must make living in this
world very unpleasant for you, thinking that most people are 'idiots'. I
also question how, without an absolute standard of intelligence (which
doesn't exist), the majority of people can be anything other than
average.
> + Of course, there are people who are smarter than average, and I think
> + Usenetters in general fall into that category. But just because I
> + (err--we) are smarter than average doesn't mean the average is low. It
> + just means that we're quite smart. :)
>
> Why the (err-we), are you directly insulting my intelligence?
Not to mention the fact that there are lots of other qualities a person
can have besides intelligence (which the term 'idiot' ignores). One of
them is to be tolerant and with a strong enough ego that one doesn't
read insults where they weren't intended. To be crystal clear, the
'err-we' was an acknowledgement of your and other Usenetter's
intelligence, not an insult to it.
> I made no attempt to insult yours, but if this is your course
> of argument, let me know now, so we can either agree to disagree,
> or killfile each other ( I would rather not do that ).
I have never killfiled anyone in 16 years online. If I don't respect
someone's opinions, or feel they don't respect mine, I simply ignore
their posts, as I ignore the majority of posts for reasons ranging for
disinterest to laziness. The average person, as stupid as she may be,
does not generally put her fingers in her ears and scream "I can't hear
you, I can't hear you!!", which is what the public announcement of
killfiling amounts to.
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:54:22 +0100
lop@l wrote:
>
> Imagine a civil engineer building a bridge, then finding out near the
> end that one end is shorter than the other, then blowing it, and starting
> again.
A couple of points: first, when they first started building bridges
(especially the first iron bridges), they made a lot of mistakes, and
they didn't get blown up, they just collapsed when the first train ran
across them, killing people. Hence, today's bridge designers have a lot
of negative experience to go against.
Second, a computer program is far more complex than a bridge. It's much
harder to design. I've read estimates that the average computer program
has more parts than a 747.
Third, a computer program _can_ be blown up and started over. That's one
of the beauties of software, and one big reason why we love it so: our
tools and our products are so much more plastic.
Fourth, the needs of a bridge are pretty simple. How many use cases does
a bridge support (so to speak)?
Fifth, a bridge's requirements are unlikely to change with the speed of
a computer program's. That's why it's easier to say OK, here's what we
want out of this bridge, and have a hope in hell of leaving that spec
frozen until delivery. Not so with computer programs.
Finally, computer programming is about 60 years old. When civil
engineering was 60 years old, the right angle hadn't yet been invented.
We're a young industry, and we can't expect maturity right off the bat.
The idea of One Right Way to do things is something for the future.
All that said, I do believe in analysis and design and agree that Linux
could use more of it (if it's true that there's no specification for its
components at all).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
