Linux-Advocacy Digest #774, Volume #26 Tue, 30 May 00 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Keith T Williams")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Eric J Pearson)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Eric J Pearson)
Re: Thorne digest, volume 2451691 (ZnU)
What the hell is Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Mainframe VS the PC. ("2 + 2")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (bb@bb)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whilst at the store! ("2 + 2")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (josco)
Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Once again: Open-Source != Security; PGP Provides Example
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:37:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Drestin you're still my favorite troll.
> http://developer.earthweb.com/journal/techfocus/052600_security.html
In summary, a budding shareware developer discovered that his own
product wasn't terribly secure, decided that since people were
downloading it but not sending back bug reports, that Open Source
is a failure.
Linux/UNIX administrators reccomend that people not run shar
files recieved via e-mail, especially if the script uudecodes
an encoded file into a binary form and then executes it. It's
very stupid (like opening a VBScript file), but some people do
it. Just like those who download "free copies" of Microsoft
products from Pakistan (loaded with worms, trojan horses, viruses,
worms, and torpedos), there are idiots who download untested
software and turn it into a workstation mainstay.
Just because you provide the source, doesn't mean that every
recipient will review every line - this was stated very well
in the article.
On the other hand, if someone's machine starts going berzerk,
and the user turns it over to someone who does read source,
and it can be shown that the hack was deliberately added
to open up a hole, it shows up as a CERT alert within a few
hours - usually with either a set of fixes to plug the holes,
or a reccomendation not to use that software.
There was an old UNIX mail reader that would automatically
open shar files. After a few too many hacks, this feature
disappeared forever.
When Morris released the Internet Worm, there were doors
that were deliberately left open. After the worm, those
doors were closed, as were others.
Part of the challenge of Open Source is being responsible for
all phases of a project and making sure that all phases get done.
If you haven't done your own QA, you should do what Linus did with
Linux - he plopped it up on the FTP site, told everybody that it
was barely functional, that it could explode at any minute, and
that he would be happy to incorporate any changes offered by those
who tried the code.
If there was concern about the design, the publisher could have
put the product out as minimally functional design that may have
security holes. Then people would have been looking for these
things and would have contributed.
> and here is some more proof - PGP 5,
> open source for a year and no one spots
> this huge vulnerability:
>
> http://cryptome.org/cipn052400.htm#pgp
PGP has been plagued with problems almost since the day it was
released. It used a variant of the RSA algorythm and RSA wanted
it's patents protected. The original PGP was so sucure that the
NSA couldn't crack it, but the source had been published to an
FTP site accessible from anywhere in the world. The author didn't
even realize that Encryption systems ranked right up there with
Nuclear warheads. And PGP was being used to cover drug smuggling
and terrorist activity.
To appease the NSA, later versions of PGP were released with
a "back door" which allowed the NSA to reduce the time required
to crack a key from several years to less than an hour. This
back-door is removed for domestic-only software.
The article refers to the fact that PGP-5.0 as released on the
Windows 2000 CD-ROM uses the smaller incryption keys and doesn't
use the triple-des used in domestic and authorized countries.
This is an attempt to comply with U.S. government export regulations.
Most public key encryption systems have a vulnerability to the
"Two Primes Hack". The public key is usually the product of two
prime numbers, occaisionally 3. The private key is one of those
prime numbers, the other is bogus. Using a fast-primes variation
on the Seive of aristosthenes (uses only primes as divisors), the
key can be broken with a 900 mhz Athelon in a few minutes.
The trick is to send information that can't be verified as decrypted,
which means things like DES keys in MD4 (scrambled bits) format.
Unfortunately, even the best encryption schemes become moot when
an e-mail can be sent that allows the sender to open files on the
recipient's machine and send the content of those files back to the
sender. If the application can be triggered to write to a file and
then execute that file, you have no security whatsoever.
Outlook and Internet Explorer both offer both capabilities, and do
so without the user's knowledge. This actually constitutes a
potential threat to global economic stability as well as national
security.
--
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: "Keith T Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 19:55:21 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Quoting Keith T Williams from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 30 May 2000
> 07:15:24 -0400
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >[Snip]
> >> > This is one of the reasons
> >> >that OS/2 1.0 failed - very few legacy DOS apps ran correctly. One of
> >> >the reasons NT sold so slowly at first was the same thing -
non-support
> >> >of many legacy DOS apps.
> >
> >OS/2 1.0 failed because:
> >1. It only supported 1 DOS box
> >2. It used variable size memory segments and swapped them, and spent
half
> >its time
> > working in the swapfile moving segments around defragging it so that
it
> >could have room to
> > write more out.
> >3. You had to buy communications manager and database manager
separately
> >4. Microsoft was busy promoting Windows
> >5. There was little or no app support outside IBM
>
> The point is that OS/2 1.0 didn't "fail" at all. It wasn't anything but
> a 1.0. If there was ever a 1.1 or a 2.0 (and there was), it can't be
> considered to be a "failed" product, nor is it surprising that 1.0 had
> some rather extreme limitations. Windows 1.0 was far more of a
> "failure", and it took them more than 5 years to get to a functioning
> 3.0 that was worth the time to install.
>
It was replaced by 2.0, which had actual paging (4K pages! just like in a
mainframe)
and, If I remember correctly presentation manager which implemented the mac
style GUI
rather than the windows style, and was a much improved version. But it also
took 2 or 3
years to be issued, which is what gave windows (imho) it's insurmountable
head start in
the replacement for DOS race. (I say insurmountable because OS/2 wasn't able
to catch up
in the market place. yeah, I know, windows is/was crap and is/was a monopoly
but it had to get
started somewhere. And while OS/2 was spinning wheels, M$ was getting apps
written for windows)
(It's my personal opinion, backed up by nothing but faith and the fact that
M$ and IBM were fighting
like cats and dogs over OS/2 and then the rights for the Windows API that M$
wrote OS/2as crappily
as they could, to improve the chances of windows, That will teach IBM to get
in bed with the competition).
Keith
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric J Pearson)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 23:53:16 GMT
>>> At the very moment Bill Gates
>>> was declaring "640 kbytes of memory should be enough for
>>> everybody" (around 1985), Intel had on its drawing board
>>> microprocessors with 4 GB of addressable space
>> In the end, how many of us have the foresight -- and the resources --
>> to actually create software that will handle the hardware that is
>> currently "on the drawing board"? I know I don't. Apparently
>> Microsoft in 1985 was no different.
> Except that is just plain wrong. Hardware of that kind wasn't
> merely "on the drawing board". It was real and in production.
You're absolutely right, I should have double-checked the original
poster's facts before I responded.
The facts are that Intel released the first 80386 in October of 1985. If
you want to count Apples, the Motorola 68020 came out in June of 1984.
But the famous Gates quote is from 1981. So 32-bit processors were in
fact on the drawing board and not in production when he said that, so all
the original poster had wrong was the year. And my basic point is
therefore valid as well.
To put things in perspective, the 8087 coprocessor for the XT chip was
released in December of 1981, and the first 286 was released the next
year. According to Intel, the 286 could access up to 16 meg of RAM and
up to 1 gig of virtual memory. That limitation was 100.00% independent
of the operating system being used.
Anyway, guys, I think you're taking me wrong. I am not a Microsoft
apologist. I have made no statements whatsoever about Bill Gates'
incompetence/boneheadedness/etc. or his lack thereof. But if you argue
using incorrect "facts" you don't really win points, and "the other side"
gains an advantage. That's all I was saying, nothing more and nothing
less.
I thought I was posting on alt.lang.basic but I see now that by replying
to an earlier message I've inadvertently cross-posted somewhere else,
where certain opinions are... unusually strong. No offense intended,
honest. I'll bow out now.
Regards,
-- Eric
"The truth of a proposition has nothing
"to do with its credibility. And vice versa."
Robert A. Heinlein
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:01:56 GMT
Good one :)
On 30 May 2000 21:47:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Linux training is now offered free of charge at a local community collage.
>
>Apparantly spelling isnt.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric J Pearson)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:15:46 GMT
> This is also disingenuous.
Mr. Devlin, with all due respect, please do not insult me. At least not
so directly. The word "disingenous" implies that I am being purposely
deceptive, and that is not the case. You do not know me, or my motives,
so please do not publically accuse me of being a liar based on a few
paragraphs of text, just because I disagreed with something you said.
> It wasn't the fact that it was 16 bit which
> limited the 8088 to 1 Meg of RAM (nor is that
> the same as the design flaw of the 640K limit),
> nor the fact that it was a 32 bit processor
> which allowed the 386 access 4 Gig of RAM.
The Intel spec for the 8086 states that it could "access 1 MB of memory".
No mention is made of an operating system. The Intel spec for the 80286
states that it could "access 16 MB of memory, or 1 GB of virtual memory".
No mention is made of an operating system. The Intel spec for the 80386
states that is could "access 4 gigabytes of physical memory, or up to 64
terabytes of virtual memory". No mention is made of an operating system.
It was a hardware limitation, not an operating system limitation.
> 640K is not one half of 4G;
You're right. In the terms I was using, 64k (not 640k) is half of 4G,
because 16 bits is half of 32 bits. 16-bit memory locations can hold
65,536 unique values, aka 64k. 32-bit memory can hold 4,294,967,296
unique values, aka 4GB. And the ability to store numeric values limits
the ability to directly access memory. The use of "paging" to access 1MB
or 16MB of RAM in a 16-bit system was a cumbersome hardware-
based workaround that (IMO) would have been completely unworkable if it
had been continued. The fact that the 80386 was a 32-bit processor was
*directly* responsible for its ability to directly access 4GB of RAM.
I thought I was posting on alt.lang.basic but I see now that by replying
to an earlier message I've inadvertently cross-posted somewhere else,
where certain opinions are... unusually strong. No offense intended,
honest. I'll bow out now.
-- Eric
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:17:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, EdWIN
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, ZnU
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Jeeezus! I guess the OS/2 groups must be dead as the Tholen crap
> >> has moved over here. Do you suppose you Tholen folks could
> >> consider jumping on the BeOS bandwagon and taking your crap over
> >> there?
> >>
> >> Or....you could all find hobbies.
> >
> >I move for the creation of an alt.emulation.tholen.
>
> Posting for entertainment purposes again, ZnU (little boy)?
You erroneously presuppose that I have posted for entertainment purposes
in the past.
> How typical.
Incorrect.
--
The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
-- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: What the hell is Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:35:05 -0400
>From this group I have learned:
Linux is not Xfree.
Linux is not fonts.
Linux is not Samba.
Linux is not Staroffice.
Linux is not Wine.
Linux is not networking.
Linux is not firewalls.
Linux is not hardware support.
Linux is not Netscape.
Linux is not browsers in general.
Linux is not kde.
Linux is not Gnome.
Linux is not cryptic man pages.
Linux is not outdated How-To's.
Linux is not ___________
Fill in the blank with any stinky Linux attribute you like.
So exactly what IS Linux?
Linux users seem to like to shift the blame for the crappy applications and
hardware support to every other entity but the hallowed "Linux" itself (ie:blame
the closed source hardware manufacturer).
It's such a convenient technique for diffusing the obvious conclusion that Linux
lacks in many areas.
So now that we are all aware of what Linux is NOT, what exactly IS Linux?
The kernel? That and $1.50 will get you a ride on the NYC Subway. See John
Rocker's statements for a preview of that trip.
Sponge
"Win2k Rocks.....Linux Sux Rocks...try it and see for yourself"
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Mainframe VS the PC.
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:20:08 -0400
Linux runs on PCs.
The PC is a term that really includes desktops, workstations and low end
servers.
And with clustering, far beyond that.
PC generally means Intel compatible hardware, although it doesn't have to
have Intel in it.
With the Itanium chip, the convergence will be greater.
By convergence, I mean the interoperability of computer systems.
The costs are so low that any size OS can run on a wide range of computer
equipment.
This is good news for Linux and Windows 2000 and bad news for Unix, which is
and will be dropping like a rock in order to compete.
The price crunch in server hardware is just beginning. The real crunch come
when there is a downturn in the economy. And price becomes the cost of
survival.
Right now, a lot of companies are protected by the internet bubble.
However, there will always be a high end market as well.
2 + 2
Charlie Ebert wrote in message <[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 $100,000
>and it will service 500 people!
>
>You can't buy the servers under a W2K environment for that!
>
>And it definitely won't run as well or as fast either.
>
>Microsoft is a fattened pig! A fattened pig in every important
>aspect!
>
>Mainframes will return to most companies thanks to Microsoft.
>
>Or, you can retain your freedom as users and encourange your office
>to go total LINUX now. Now while you still have freedoms.
>
>
>Charlie
------------------------------
From: bb@bb
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 30 May 2000 16:27:33 -0700
In article <8h0lk5$b9b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>b) Bridges cost *money*, not just time.
I guess then it is true what they say about linux. it is free for those
whose time is worthless.
Time is money. Are you so worthless that your time is worth nothing?
bb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:27:53 GMT
I think you mean isn't.
On Wed, 31 May 2000 00:01:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Good one :)
>
>
>On 30 May 2000 21:47:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Linux training is now offered free of charge at a local community collage.
>>
>>Apparantly spelling isnt.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whilst at the store!
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 20:27:43 -0400
Ran into Charlie at the NG.
>>watched as he posted and posted. And posted some more.
I asked Charlie why he posted so much.
This was a mistake.
About a few hours later, I returned and he was still talking, not having
noticed I had even left.
"Errr, Charley, do you need to get this out to the world BECAUSE
you are destined to die?"
Some time later, I left while Charley continued to talk.
2 + 2
Charlie Ebert wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I ran into three old men whilst at the store.
>
>They were windows supporters and were complaining about
>the breakup.
>
>They didn't understand why there needed to be a breakup
>because they'd been listening to CSPAN and CNN and in
>hearing the various government officials talk about the
>problem they couldn't grasp the reason for the breakup.
>
>I interrupted them and joined in on their conversation.
>
>They asked me why the breakup occurred. I told them I don't
>exactly know the governments reasons either, but I'd be interested
>in hearing what they've heard.
>
>They told me it was because Microsoft products weren't compatible
>with OTHER computer software products, sighting WORD and
>INTERNET EXPLORER. I agreed.
>
>They said the cost of their software has doubled in the last 4 years.
>I agreed again.
>
>They said that if you want to run WORD you'd have to run it on
>a Microsoft Operating system. I agreed and added that
>if you wanted to develop software using Visual Basic the
>same would apply also. In fact, just about ALL the Microsoft
>software sold would ONLY run on a Microsoft OS.
>
>No arguments so far in this conversation.
>
>Then they said WHY break up Microsoft? IF you do then
>somebody will just develop another monopoly and this
>didn't make sense to them. They asked me who was next
>in line to take Microsoft's slot anyway.
>
>I told them LINUX.
>
>They said "Linux? What's that!"
>
>I explained and they said then LINUX will be the next monopoly!
>Then they asked me for LINUX's stock market sign.
>
>And I re-explained! So then they said well, "What's to keep Red HAT
>from becoming Microsoft!" I told them well, Suse, Mandrake, Debian,
>Slackware, and dozens of others. Besides, I reminded them, you can
>just download the stuff off the internet and pay nothing for it.
>
>
>"That's crazy" they said, "You can't make any money in a company
>where there giving away the operating system for free!"
>
>I reminded them it wasn't just the operating system it was word
>processors,
>spreadsheets, and 4000 some odd other free ware programs.
>
>They repeated their assertions and I said, "Look!"
>When I worked for another company I was in tip development of their
>medical product line and I was told my contribution to the companies
>bottom line was only about 10% of the company. The other 90% of
>our bottom line dollars came from support contracts. That's where
>Red hat and the others are making their money.
>
>They said what if they didn't want to run Linux.
>I told them, it's a free country. You can run Microsoft
>for as long as you think it will last.
>
>They reminded me of the AT&T breakup in the 70's and what occurred.
>I told them that AT&T had billions in assets which Microsoft doesn't
>have. Microsoft's main assets are in the ability to keep their
>product line all working for ONLY a Microsoft inspired OS?
>
>The largest of the old men was the leader. He said
>this won't do any good as anytime they break up a company
>the stock prices will climb even higher than they were before.
>
>I declined comment as the other 2 old men were absolutely quiet this
>time.
>
>It was obvious to me that these three gentlemen had some money in
>Microsoft Stocks.
>
>So I gave them what they wanted to hear. If this is true then just
>sit on your investment and when it's all over, you can figure out
>what to do.
>
>I could tell that this comment didn't settle them at all.
>A tremendous seed of doubt was in their minds from that point
>for the next 30 minutes.
>
>I was asked more questions about Linux and Linus, Suse, Mandrake and Red
>hat.
>Asked where they could buy a copy of it.
>
>I answered all questions and invited them to see the future for
>themselves
>rather than just ask me.
>
>Also reminded them that I used to be the biggest fan of Bill Gates in
>the
>80's there ever was. And reminded them that Bill Gates, the MASTER, has
>all given us a clue as to what to do by resigning.
>
>See, the sacret AT&T executives weren't turned out to pasture until the
>gavel swung.
>
>Then the leader took one more shot and asked me WHY was it so they were
>breaking up Microsoft. And I said I have to go and his two freinds
>left his side in about 2 minutes time.
>
>Some people are just destine to die.
>
>Wouldn't you agree.
>
>Charlie
------------------------------
From: josco <[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 17:47:07 -0700
On Tue, 30 May 2000, 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.
>
> Yeah, OK, but as soon as those APIs are part of the Java "standard",
> any potential third-party market for those APIs is history, just like
> in the Windows world. Par for the course, I'd say.
No, Only MS can make and sell Windows.
Anyone can make and sell JAVA as long as they follow the implementation.
> How is Microsoft shutting anyone out? Their developer support program
> is the best in the world.
The lack of new app development for MS OSs is proof enough. You cannot
raise a nickel to develop a new MS software package. The existing ISVs
are running to other platforms if they are not run out of business.
> Hardly; it's just the way it is in this business. If company A's
> product relies heavily on another product made by company B, then A
> had better learn to roll with B's changes, monopoly or not.
How sad. There are very different rules for a monopoly. MS has monopoly
power therefore you're wrong.
Anti-trust laws are quite clear. The monopoly ruling itself will cause MS
such pain. I cannot see how MS can legally go forward with NGWS. They
probably agree which is why the NGWS party has been postponed. Brad
Silverberg was right, NGWS needed a plan B, it could have been developed
as middleware. I bet they'll recast NGWS as middleware - then they'll
have to full disclose APIs or get sued -- probably by every competitor. It
is easy money man.
=
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM finally admits OS/2 is dead, officially.
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:50:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 23:33:06 -0700, Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 29 May 2000 18:12:37 -0400,
> > Drestin Black, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> >>I figured it was news to everyone - linux users hate OS/2 as well but don't
> >>bother chasing it cause even they knew it was dead already...
>
> What a load of horseshit.
>
> >
> >I am a linux user, I don't hate OS/2, I have no feelings one way or the
> >other about it. So your broad generalization is again, shown to be flawed.
>
> A lot of linux users were previously os/2 users back when microsoft's idea
> of high technology was that piece of shit excuse for an operating system,
> dos 5.x and windoze 3.1.
>
> Microsoft is only now catching up to what IBM was selling in '93.
Or for that matter, what Mac's had earlier.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:53:53 GMT
On Tue, 30 May 2000 22:56:00 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>98 is faster and has less errors than 95... off course still several
>thousand procent more errors than Linux, MAC, CPM, AmigaOS, ZX81OS etc per
>thousand code lines.
Only when you throw it enough memory for a supercomputer of 5 years ago.
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 17:54:11 -0700
The problem that I see with Microsoft is that when they get to that
3rd revision, they go and reinvent the wheel and start again with
version 1.0. There should have been a Windows 4.0 but that was
rewritten into Win95 which is now going on it's 3rd version as Win2000
but that's probably a completely different version of the software.
I love the little bit about O97 originally writing RTF code to a DOC
file! Great proof of the stupidity of Microsoft at work.
--
Bob May
Don't subscribe to ACCESS1 for your webserver for the low prices. The
service has
been lousy and has been poor for the last year. Bob May
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 31 May 2000 00:56:12 GMT
On 30 May 2000 17:52:10 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Given sufficiently larger RAM for each new version, I'd agree. Run
>each on the bare minimum for the previous version and you'll wish
>you hadn't.
Or if you run them with *only* 4 times what microsoft says is the minimum.
Microsoft recomendations:
windoze 3.1 in 1M
windoze 95 in 4M
windoze NT in 16M
Os/2 3.x in 4-8M could easily blow away windoze 98 in 64M w/ 4 times the
processor.
Add 16-32M for your applications.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
