Linux-Advocacy Digest #795, Volume #26 Wed, 31 May 00 19:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovation that matters...)
(R. Tang)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Wed, 31 May 2000 22:32:56 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8h2a38$e41$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <S6YY4.7283$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >> By viable competition, I mean that customers like hardware vendors
> >> should have equivalent choices for software and not be subject
> >> to threats of witholding product or being charged more for the
> >> same thing than their competitors.
> >
> >This seems quite a, erm, strong definition of viable. Especially
> >that "equivalent choices for software" part.
>
> Once upon a time, government offices were required to have bids from
> competitive vendors before they could buy something. Whatever
> happened to that requirement? Back in those days, AT&T was offering
> systems using unix sysv and they were very aware of the regulations
> about monopolies. They published something called the sysvid which
> was a more-or-less complete documentation of the system call level
> with the intent that at least theoretically a competitor could implement
> a plug-compatible replacement. That turned out to not be enough
> to meet the requirement of multiple sources, but it was better than
> nothing, and better than what we have now.
Are you dragging out the old canard that Microsoft does not document
their APIs?
'Taint so. They do. It's just *hard* to implement something as big
and complex as Windows.
Now them, please explain why to be "viable" a competitor must have
"equivalent choices for software"; I'd have thought that "better choices"
would also work, for instance.
Or even "worse, but good enough and cheaper too"...
> >The rest of it seems to argue the competiton should be
> >*independant*; I'm not sure that's feasible in the software
> >industry. Why is it needed?
>
> It is the only way to avoid the sort of abuse we see now.
I'm not sure which particular 'abuse' you are refering to. Can you
point out which 'abuses' you feel this independance would
halt, why these 'abuses' should be halted (if it isn't obvious) and
how we can have such independance in any case.
I can't think of anything *Microsoft* has done that would have
been hindered by its competitors being entirely independant
of it.
[snip]
> >I do not really agree with this reasoning; I think the reason hardware
> >vendors feel compelled to ship Windows is that it is very much in
> >demand. That is the source of MS's leverage over OEMs.
>
> That doesn't mesh with what came out in the hearings. Or what had
> been leaked by various sources even earlier.
It may not mesh with the orthodox bash-MS line, but I think that on this
issue that line is quite incoherent. The notion that MS could gain
dominance in OSes by leveraging dominances in OSes is very silly.
[snip]
> >That is because nobody has provided such a service (unless NetWare
> >can do it; I had rather though it could but I'm no expert on NetWare).
>
> Is the protocol to provide the service to the existing clients documented?
No, but the API is. Remember, *this is not Unix*. *It is not obliged to be
like Unix*.
> The part I don't understand is how the government can buy a product
> that is not multi-sourced or even documented to a point where it could
> be.
I don't know either. Big checkbook, maybe? :D
> It is rather amusing to observe the trial with the thought that
> the same government that is attempting to break up the monopoly is
> almost certainly the largest of the customers that gave it that
> status in the first place.
Well, if you count the government as all *one* customer, that is
probably true. But you can't expect them to be consistant in any
case.
> >It *is* possible to implement this. We just had a thread about it
> >over here in comp.sys.mac.advocacy. MS provides APIs that
> >let you do this; it just doesn't work the exact same way Unix does.
>
> Everything I've seen indicates that you have to replace the client,
You have to provide a plug-in that talks to your client. But you
don't *replace* MS's client module, you add a client module.
> in which case it can no longer continue to interoperate with an
> existing domain.
No; you just keep the existing MS plug-ins in there as well,
and then it can talk to both.
[snip]
> >You could expect that, if you wish, but MS is usually good about
> >compatibility. They slip up once, they get crucified, and we keep
> >hearing about how you can never, ever trust Microsoft.
>
> Reality check please. Don't pretend they are incapable of designing
> an extensible format or that they do not fully understand the
> marketing implications of the way they have proceeded.
This is just a long way of saying "you're wrong! So there!".
But I am not wrong.
Honestly though, if you feel Microsoft is *perfect* and *never*
makes technical errors, why don't you support them? Surely
better to have such perfection controlling the industry...
> >> It matters because it is our own investment in equipment, training
> >> and archived files that is being used against us to force us into
> >> continuing with the vendor that generated the incompatibilities
> >> in the first place.
> >
> >Not really. Microsoft's incompatibiltiies are much exaggerated.
>
> Is this a joke?
No. It's actually a ratehr wimpy sort of claim; very little about
Microsoft *isn't* exaggerated, don't you know.:D
> Were you always the first to upgrade so you
> caused the trouble for others instead of experiencing it
> yourself as others send you email attachments in the new
> and incompatible format?
No. I've found that Office is mostly pretty good about reading
new formats.
> Maybe you would like to elaborate
> which versions of word wrote backwards-compatible files
> so I won't get it wrong.
Well, Word 2000 does.
I think it was Word 95- or maybe it was 97, one of them- that
did not, causing much unhappiness. Microsoft had to release
a patch for it.
> The real killer is the idea of
> giving out a free patch for the old version to be able to
> read the new files and pretending they are doing you a
> favor. What they really are doing is setting back all of
> the other products that have to reverse-engineer the file
> format to be able to access MY OWN data.
You are getting a bit too excited here, I think. They *could*
reverse engineer, or they could just read MSDN.
But anyway, if you don't like using Word's format, by all means
save your data in some other format. The big hoo-haa with
Word 97 (wasn't it?) was that you tried to do this and it didn't
work properly; you ask for Word 6 and get RTF. Bad juju.
> >If I recall correctly, Standard Oil was the biggest and baddest, but
> >it wasn't the only oil distributor; it's competitors were just much
> >smaller than it. This is a "one big company and many small ones"
> >case.
>
> As soon as one is big enough to set its own prices, it is all downhill.
Is it?
How do you *know*?
So far all *I've* seen is theoretical expostulation on the subject,
and not very convincing.
[snip]
> >The best fit currently is probably IBM's OS/2, but a good case can
> >be made for New Deal Office; OS/2 is a bit pricey, and New Deal Office
> >comes with lots of bundled apps and stuff.
>
> Is it 'plug compatible'?
Of course not. They aren't as good as Windows!
If that's the criteria, then *every software company* (bar the FSF) is
a monopoly because none of them make 'plug compatible'
products.
And yes, I realize that this is indeed Judge Jacksons criteria. It's
completely ridiculous nonetheless.
[snip]
> >> I don't their position would be 'intentionally incompatible' if
> >> there were viable alternatives.
> >
> >I've no idea what it means for Microsoft's position to be intentionally
> >incompatible.
>
> What piece can you exchange transparently with any non-MS product?
"Transparently" means "I can hardly tell the difference" right?
None: MS products are either better than, or worse than, their
competitors. I know of none so close that the difference is
'transparent'.
> They
> read other file formats that vendors have politely documented or
> at least designed to be stable, yet write an undocumented, rapidly
> changing format.
This is just FUD. Go to http://msdn.microsoft.com; the documentation you
want is in there.
> >OTOH, if you are refering to this notion of deliberate incompatibilities
> >to compel upgrades, it isn't obvious why more than one can't do it;
>
> Oh, others do. I only object when the issue is forced by having
essentially
> the whole market and bundling agreements with hardware vendors.
"the issue is forced"?
Does that mean anything, or are you just trying to work the word
"force" in?
> >it's not like by breaking backwards compatibility I will make cross
> >compatibility to my competitors product any easier.
>
> You can fix your own older product with a free upgrade, but you've
> set back any competitors seeking file compatibility.
Well, yes, but they can fix their products with a free upgrade
too. And they can do the same thing to you.
> >> Huh?
> >
> >Compare how Microsoft has behaved wrt Windows to how
> >Apple treated the MacOS in the years before Windows 3.
> >
> >Noticably different, is it not?
>
> I didn't notice. The Mac was a too-small too-expensive closed box and
> not very interesting then.
You noticed! :D
But Apple is a company that tends to rest on its laurels once it is
successful, and they did so during the 80s with their Mac.
[snip]
> >Windows was not that great a DOS multitasker; other products
> >did that better.
>
> Windows is not great at a lot of the things people use it for.
> That doesn't keep them from doing it.
Sure. But they weren't going to shell out money for a useless
product.
I *know* the orthodox MS-bashers line is that they will and do,
because MS Windows is useless. But this is bunk, and shown
to be so by the continual failure of Windows prior to v3,
when it became good enough to be useful.
> >What Windows did was give you thinks like
> >decent printer support and video support; but not to DOS programs.
>
> People had been printing for years already, and Wordperfect had
> a ton of printer drivers.
You must by a Linux advocate, if you think there was no problem.
This sort of refusal to even *see* the problem Windows solved
is exactly the sort of attitude that put MS where it is; *They* saw
there was a problem, when many others apparently just couldn't.
[snip]
> >:D
> >This particular detail was well known at the time. All the reviews,
> >even the earliest, mentioned it.
>
> You are skipping a few years ahead in history here.
No, I'm not.
> The way I
> remember it was that people bought expensive 286 machines on the
> promise that OS/2 was going to be the greatest thing that ever
> happened, and ended up running DOS and Netware on them for obvious
> reaons. And these were the boxes that were sitting there when they
> were ready to try windows.
No, they didn't. Users conspicuously failed to get on the OS/2 bandwagon;
they would not, would *not*, buy the hardware it took.
> >> It wasn't easy and in a lot of cases didn't even work, but that
> >> is the way it was sold.
> >
> >I realize it is something of a dogma here to assume that PeeCee users
> >are clearly mentally defective- after all, why else use Windows?- but
> >surely you don't think they didn't *notice* this?
>
> Yes, lots of the early systems were set up to not start windows until
> someone typed 'win'. And in many cases they never did...
Sigh.
Well, at least you aren't clinging to the notion that Windows was
being used to run DOS programs.
> >No, I disagree. This promise doesn't get Windows installed because
> >Windows has very little to offer your old software. Windows allowed
> >much better software to be written, and the promise of running *this*,
> >rather that DOS crud, made Windows worthwhile.
>
> But people could install windows to run ONE windows program without
> tossing everything they were already using.
That made Windows a much easier sell. But they bought Windows to
run that program, not the converse.
> >Backwards compatibility is a fine thing, but you really can't sell
> >a system solely on compatibility; that gives you no positive reason
> >to switch.
>
> All you need is one new thing to install it - you continue to use
> you old files and network and other programs. You couldn't do that
> with a Mac.
That's true. But you have to offer something that is in demand;
Windows did that.
> >Consider how OS/2 did with their "better DOS than DOS",
> >"better Windows than Windows" idea.
>
> And it was true, too.
And it *failed*.
You can't sell on the basis of your compatibility box.
There is just no *point*.
> If windows had been done well enough at
> first that it didn't have to change out from under them every 6
> months they probably would have done pretty well.
Darn that nasty MS, improving its products!
[snip]
> >Well, you said *DOS*. Perhaps you *meant* "Intel PC"...
>
> No, I meant specifically DOS, Netware, and mostly non-MS dos
> software. I don't know of any office where they threw
> everything out and started over with completely new software
> until windows had been around a couple of years co-existing
> with DOS. Perhaps you are thinking of new companies starting
> up in that time frame with no inventory or existing network.
What I'm trying to point out to you is that people do not buy software
that does nothing for them. They often refuse to buy stuff that
would make them abandon their existing investments, but this
does not mean they will buy anything that doesn't.
It must be both useful and compatible; it must, above all, fill
a need somewhere.
Windows didn't succeed because it worked well with DOS;
that's just to say it didn't have one particular critical defect.
[snip]
> >Not doing anything also 'buys' non intrusive compatibility, and
> >its a lot cheaper.
>
> But oddly enough, Windows just started to 'appear' on new machines,
> like it or not.
My. A bitt commited to the dogma that no one would ever *choose*
to use Windows, aren't we?
> >The ability to try the competitor's product has not ended. That's
> >just an excuse for not having conquered in Microsoft's place.
>
> Really? What replacement would you suggest for an office whose
> documents are all stored in MS-whatever format?
I take it from this that you admit that Microsoft has done nothing to
prevent anyone from evaluating their competitors products, then?
[snip]
> >You could, of course, write your OS in protected mode and
> >use a thunking layer so it's the real mode apps (ie, DOS apps)
> >that take the hit. And that's what Microsoft did, too.
>
> But it was not necessary to marry that to the GUI.
It's not necessary to wear underwear, either.
That doesn't mean its a bad idea, or that it was the
wrong choice.
> It would
> have worked to allow the equivalent of 32 bit console mode
> apps to run with no GUI loaded at all, and legacy DOS apps
> would work in that environment as well.
You could do that, but why? Who'd want it, would wouldn't
prefer Unix anyway?
> But suppose that
> the bios interface had evolved to 32 bit mode as it logically
> should have.
The BIOS?
MS is not a hardware manufacturer. They had no control
over this. They provided a software layer, and you used
that instead of the BIOS.
For heavens sake, why would you want to embed this stuff
in the BIOS?
> We would now have cards with on-board bios
> drivers that any 32 bit OS could use natively. I don't think
> they wanted that possibility.
For heavens sake, why would anyone want to do this?
> >> How do you deal with the existing clients that need active directory
> >> services?
> >
> >There are no clients that *need* active directory services; all Microsoft
> >OSes and apps work without them.
>
> I was unable to make Win2k perform scheduled file syncronization without
> an active directory server. I thought there were lots of other similar
> things in win2k - that's just the first one I needed.
Well, *I* can do this without active directory. I don't know what's wrong
with your installation, but it ain't just that active directory is missing.
What other, similar things are you thinking of?
> >If you want directory services, you
> >are at liberty to implement them yourself rather than buying them
> >from Microsoft.
>
> Will they make the scheduled file syncronization work?
I see no reason to expect they'd prevent it.
They will make integrated security work; they will make
Windows 2000 'see' users and groups from a central
repository in addition to those from its own SAM.
> >But you are not obliged to use a domain controller. You can use
> >a more Unix-like security model if that suits you. If you do so,
> >you can use Unix security tools for some things. You can, for
> >instance, use Unix Kerberos servers, so long as you don't ask
> >anything more of them than they'd give to any ordinary Unix
> >box- authentication, period, full stop.
>
> Can I, while doing so, interoperate with an existing domain?
Yes, I believe MS'd domain controls are supposed to be able
to interoperate like that. Haven't tried it, and I'm sure you'll assume
it doesn't work, but I expect it would.
> Having
> to replace the client component and break it's existing functionality
> is not a reasonable way to claim that a product will actually
> interoperate with something from a different vendor.
Who said anything about breaking existing functonality?
> It is sort
> of like saying you can use a different brand of spark plugs in
> a car *if* you replace the whole motor first.
I know, I know, it's not like Unix, so you can't cope with it.
> >> How do you deal with the file compatibility issues?
> >
> >That's more of desktop problem, I think. Are you trying
> >to suggest you want your desktop with a GUI? That MS
> >should make a command line version of Word?
>
> No, I am saying they should document the format changes
> long before delivering anything to give others a chance
> to build the necessary parsing component.
"long" before?
You are going to interfere with their development processes;
these things are in flux before they are released.
[snip]
> >Use a different vendor, of course. There has not been a time in
> >the last 20 years when you could not buy a server or workstation
> >with Unix preloaded.
>
> But until recently these did not target the same market that
> Microsoft had sewed up.
Oh, please. They didn't target it because their products were
totally inadequate for it. They competed where they had a chance.
> You are right that it is no longer
> a problem, but we have the DOJ to thank for that.
No, it is still a problem- there is still no product that can
match Windows, or even come very close to it, on the
desktop.
The fact that some PC vendors are now interesting in
selling servers is not really that important, if it does
mean they will sell non MS OSes that are approrpiate in
server roles.
> Things
> seem to be much more open recently. I can't imagine a company
> like Gateway publically announcing plans to get involved with
> Linux and a non-Intel processor even a year ago.
Honestly, you seem to have a very limited imagination.
[snip]
> >Is the problem in your view the proprietary (ie, non Unix) formats,
> >or the "change them every few years" allegation?
> >
> >Or are they both bad? Or only bad when done together?
>
> Both are bad and unnecessary, but I have come to expect bad software
> in general.
Why are they bad?
> However, it is the combination along with
> controlling the market that makes me object.
Microsoft does not "control the market" they are merely
succesful in it. This "control the market" line is an excuse to
explain why so many people *appear* to like MS products.
> If any player only
> had 20% or so of the market, they would go out of their way to
> make sure that their product would work well in a mixed environment.
Like Microsoft does?
> Otherwise no one would put up with the trouble it caused when
> other products could not access its files. Microsoft obviously
> doesn't care how much trouble this causes as long as it annoys
> more people into buying their product.
Oh, I don't know. I think they care just a bit; annoying their
customers might drive them away, and they wouldn't like that.
I don't see them as charitable, of course.
> >I'm guessing it's really not "propriety formats" that bother you,
> >per se. it's that Microsoft keeps improving its products, even
> >when they seem to be ahead. Won't rest on their laurels, darn them.
>
> There is no relationship between improving a product and breaking
> the competing software's ability to use its files. I see they
> do a lot of the latter.
This is a very strange thing to say. I wonder if you really believe it;
It's very hard for me to see how you could.
[snip]
> >They didn't. They didn't do everythign exactly as you might like,
> >clearly, but they do interoperate quite impressively.
>
> I guess I have yet to find any evidence of that in a bidirectional sense.
> If you hit File/Send in Word to send email to someone, does your
> copy offer to send in any formats but its own? (Yes, I know word2000
> finally added a way to get plain text here, but what about something
> another word processor might use?).
I've never used Word for that. I don't know whether it can send in
another format.
I do think you grasping at straws, if that's the best you can come up with.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Wed, 31 May 2000 22:33:00 GMT
"josco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 31 May 2000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[snip]
> > This is entirely contradictory. Your argument is that C++ makes coding
> > easier, and thus requires fewer lines. Then you argue that Windows 2000
> > wouldn't be as large as it is if it was C. Windows 2000 would be
*FEWER*
> > lines if it were written in C++, not the other way around.
>
> Maybe I'm writing to an idiot.
>
> A framework, say MFC, reduces the coding a programmer does but the
> framework automatically generates code. So a C++ programing MS's tools
> can be concise to the developer but produce thousands of lines of code.
Most frameworks do not generate much code; they *contain* code, but you
reuse it. If you count the lines of code in MFC once for each program that
uses it, you are counting it too much. They are the same lines every time.
Further, Erik was talking about C++; C++ is a language and as such
does not 'automatically generate code' in any useful sense. (There
are a few C++ compilers that emit C, which you then compile- but the
lines of C produced is not an interesting metric, since you don't work
with it yourself.)
I think what's going on here is that people are understanding "bigger"
to mean both "more lines of code" and "more bytes of executable";
these aren't the same thing.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Wed, 31 May 2000 22:33:03 GMT
"Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:is2Z4.880$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > I think Erik is limiting it to 5 years to avoid Win 3.
> >
> > And the *current* price of Win3 is probably not relevant; if that is
lower
> > it is probably because MS cut prices on that version. It is getting a
bit
> > long in the tooth, after all.
>
>
> Wasn't the "cheaper" version of Win3 already requiring a DOS license, and
> hence, would be an upgrade?
I don't know. I think they did sell Win3/DOS bundled.
I think you could argue that the price should include DOS, if you
are going to compare with Win95, which does.
> I never really used Win3.x ( being exclusively on the Mac ).. but I do
> remember an install needing a DOS license/install.. hence, the big whoo
doo
> about putting Win3.x over a Dr-Dos install.
Yes, Win3 needed a DOS installed, and that is relevant since you
have to pay for that DOS somehow.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Tang)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: History revision 1.27a (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: 31 May 2000 22:05:05 GMT
In article <8h38fi$hvg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Microsoft lucked into the sweetheart deal of the century: it's
>: verifiable fact. And you were aware that IBM only came to Microsoft in
>: the first place because of family connections (Gates' mother on the same
>: board as the president of IBM, or some such) aren't you?
>
>Huh? This is completely wrong. Bill's mother was a homemaker,
And also the first woman to sit on the boards of directors for
Seafirst Bank, Pacific Northwest Bell and a number of other corporations.
(Her father, and Bill's grandfather, was a major banker in the Puget Sound
area).
I'd do a bit more homework if I were you.
--
-Roger Tang, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
