Linux-Advocacy Digest #841, Volume #26 Fri, 2 Jun 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Dave)
Re: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...) (Rob Barris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:13:20 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8h69vc$1975$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <sqgZ4.521$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Once upon a time, government offices were required to have bids from
> >> competitive vendors before they could buy something. Whatever
> >> happened to that requirement?
>
> >Are you dragging out the old canard that Microsoft does not document
> >their APIs?
>
> That hasn't changed, but it also isn't the point. Windows APIs only
> relate to something running under windows. I want the ability
> to interoperate fully with non-windows products in all network, client
> server, and file exchanges.
Good for you.
What's the problem?
If you are can't be bothered to write your own code, you're in luck:
MS provides the appropriate modules for a ton of different
protocols and so on.
> >'Taint so. They do. It's just *hard* to implement something as big
> >and complex as Windows.
>
> Yes, if you have to be bug-for-bug compatible.
You don't. Bear in mind that NT and Win95 do not have the
same bugs.
> But a piece
> at a time would be fine, as long as it covers everything
> that involves extra charges or per-client license fees.
"involves"?
Can't that be interpreted to cover just plain *everything*?
> >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"...
>
> Doing otherwise is like saying it would be acceptable
> to allow the most popular telephone manufacturer to build
> equipment that would not interconnect with any other vendor's
> equipment and making the same excuses about why it isn't
> necessary.
I don't see the equivalence. I don't see how this analogy even
resembles the Microsoft case at all!
After all, the basic excuse I've been giving you is that MS's
'equipment' *does* interconnect with others, and always you
to interconnect with it.
> Or allowing the most popular railroad equipment
> manufacturer to require tracks that are not standard so no
> other equipment can ever be used on them. We have reached
> the point where our computing/networking/file storage structure
> is as critical as voice communications and railroading. Let's
> apply the same well considered rules.
I don't think you are going to convince anyone via such specious
analogies. Nor are you going to convince anyone to give up the
benefits MS products can provide by insisting that they be
castrated to the level that Unix protocols and formats will
support.
[snip]
> >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.
>
> It is not hard to find the depositions against Microsoft by the
> people dealing with them. I see no reason to disbelieve the
> documented anti-competitive practices.
Ah. So you do not, in fact, have anything specific in mind. It's just
a pious hope on your part that 'independance' would help someone,
somewhere.
Does the deposition tell us how to acheive such independance,
too?
> >I can't think of anything *Microsoft* has done that would have
> >been hindered by its competitors being entirely independant
> >of it.
>
> It would not matter what Microsoft did if there were any
> competition.
There *is* competiton It may not be viable in your view, but
let's be precise.
> Read the IBM deposition, then consider how
> things would have been different if they really had a choice
> of vendors.
They did have a choice of vendors. Perhaps you mean
"... if their users had not wanted Windows"
> Or, if all bundling were simply prohibited so
> that the OS vendor could not threaten the hardware vendors
> at all.
There would be no such thing as an OS if all bundling
were prohibited. An OS is simply a bundle of basic
software that everyone using the computer is presumed
to need.
[snip]
> >> 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*.
>
> Cross-platform, please. The point is that it *should* be obligated
> to follow standard protocols just like the phone system.
*Unix*. Calling them "standard" does not make it any better. You are
saying MS should do things like give up their domain security model
because Kerberos as origonally specified did not support such things.
I strongly object to any argument to hold MS down to Unix's level just
because some Unix vendors got together and declared a standard.
[snip]
> >I don't know either. Big checkbook, maybe? :D
>
> Does anyone know when/if these regulations changed? I am sure
> I recall hearing about it being a problem back when AT&T was
> trying to sell unix solutions.
I don't know anything about it, sorry.
> >> 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.
>
> Does that mean you can maintain trust relationships with
> existing domains even though you authenticate through
> strictly non-MS code?
Trust relationships are things domains do; if your domain
controllers support this, they can do it. I *think* MS domain controls
do support it, but I'm not sure.
[snip]
> >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...
>
> The only thing they are perfect at is understanding the marketing
> effect of making their competitors look bad. Introducing
> deliberate non-standard incompatibilities with every product
> is not an accident.
They don't do that. They don't limit themselves to Unix
standards all the time because they are tyring to compete
with Unix, and would like to provide a *better* system. But
they do provide compatibility pretty well, considering.
[snip]
> >No. I've found that Office is mostly pretty good about reading
> >new formats.
>
> Yes, and it is even better at writing new formats.
:D
[snip]
> >You are getting a bit too excited here, I think. They *could*
> >reverse engineer, or they could just read MSDN.
>
> Yes, and be continuously 6 months behind, just as planned.
They are certainly behind the MS Windows engineer who
thought of some new API in the shower this morning. Perhaps
we should put microphones in the showers of all MS
OS engineers so MS's competitors can know these things
when MS OS engineers do.
[snip]
> >So far all *I've* seen is theoretical expostulation on the subject,
> >and not very convincing.
>
> Do you agree with the theory that power corrupts?
Sure. I'd never suggest that MS was incorrupt, either.
> Can you compare
> pricing on something like long distance service which has been
> through both competitive and non-competive circumstances? Or
> compare any single-vendor computer hardware (Mac?) to the
> pricing we enjoy on generic PC compatible components.
Hmmm. Yes, but I observe that the long distance phone net had
been a government-regulated monopoly, and had not been free
to do as it wished. I do not think it comparable.
I observe also that apple did exploit their Macintosh monopoly,
and as a consequence failed to acheive much market share,
losing out to the cheaper Windows-based systems, despite
a several year head start- and the fact that Windows was not
plug compatible with the Mac.
This later example suggests that exploitng a monopoly
with very high prices might not be such a smart thing to do.
> >If that's the criteria, then *every software company* (bar the FSF) is
> >a monopoly because none of them make 'plug compatible'
> >products.
>
> No, they are just incompatible. The most popular one is the only
> one who can exploit that incompatibility with a monopoly advantage.
> To the rest it is a disadvantage if they want to expand usage.
Don't be silly. Everyone exploits vendor lock, and nobody can
use it effectively to expand: it's basic effect is to keep your users,
your own.
[snip]
> >None: MS products are either better than, or worse than, their
> >competitors. I know of none so close that the difference is
> >'transparent'.
>
> And in what way do you consider this different than voice
> communication equipment that will not interoperate with
> another service, or a railroad track with non-standard
> width?
I think that progress is possible, desirable, and acutally happening
in this industry. I do not want to see it snuffed out just to protect
the vendors of products slowly becoming obsolete.
I do not think a serious problem of interoperability really
exists for users; MS goes out of their way to make it possible
to interoperate.
I do not think you are solving a problem consumers have:
I think you are proposive to solve a problem Microsoft's
competitors have: MS is providing services and features
they don't have.
[snip]
> >This is just FUD. Go to http://msdn.microsoft.com; the documentation you
> >want is in there.
>
> After the product is released, or far enough ahead for others to
> match by release time?
Typically a few months before the product is released.
When you demand that it be released so early that MS has no
time advantage, you are demanding that all progress come to
a halt, so you won't have to play catch up.
[snip]
> >"the issue is forced"?
> >
> >Does that mean anything, or are you just trying to work the word
> >"force" in?
>
> Are you being deliberately obtuse or just difficult on purpose?
Difficult on purpose. :D
I don't want to co-operate with your efforts to used charged
language rather than argument. I really do know what
you are trying to say, but if I can goad you into explaining it,
it will look pretty weak, or so I suspect.
> We all know that the reason most places upgraded from office 4.x
> and then again from office 95 was that a few people who share
> documents got a bundled new version and started saving and emailing
> files that no one else could read. It happened to me in two
> different places, and to just about everyone else that I spoke
> to. Perhaps you would like to relate your experience with
> interacting with a group of people using mixed versions so I
> will understand where I went wrong in feeling forced to switch
> from a less popular product and then upgrade to get something
> I needed for no other reason than to stay compatible with these
> bundled products.
As I recall, there was a verison of Office- perhaps it was Office 97-
where what you described was real: It would not write out the older
format, period. Not without a patch.
I know of no other examples. I've used Office 97 and Office 2000
in a mixed environment with no difficulties, and without even
telling Office 2000 to use an older format.
> >> I didn't notice. The Mac was a too-small too-expensive closed box and
> >> not very interesting then.
> >
> >You noticed! :D
>
> I noticed that the problem was the lack of competition in compatible
> hardware that allowed them to set their own prices. A theme we are
> have now repeated on the software side.
Ah, you say it "allowed them to set their own prices". They certainly
*thought* it did. But look what happened!
> >> 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.
>
> Most people did not make a choice about shelling this money
> out. It wasn't a line item on their purchase. They were
> not given refunds when they asked.
It is a popular fantasy that users out there are just dying to
return Windows, and don't want it.
But it is a fantasy.
It's there because users *do* want it, and won't buy the
computer if it hasn't got it.
[snip]
> >You must by a Linux advocate, if you think there was no problem.
>
> Yes, there was a problem, but it was the proliferation of non-standard
> printer languages and it didn't prevent people from printing.
*argh*.
THE UNIX WAY IS NOT THE ONLY WAY!
Get *over* it. No-one is obliged to do it your way just
because you call it a "standard".
The *problem* was that you couldn't expect to
print reliably from your applications. The rest is
tech speak. MS's solution worked, and worked better
than Unix's currrent efforts to standardize on GhostScript
do.
> >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.
>
> Windows 'solved' the problem of incompatible devices by wrapping
> it with their own layer, again incompatible with everything else. In
> other words they hid the problem instead of solving it. A real
> solution would involve making the devices use a standard
> protocol so the wrapper would be unnecessary.
Gawd. I hope you never get into government; your solution is
to ram 'standards' down everyones throat willy nilly.
Innnovation is good. Outlawing it would be bad.
[snip]
> >No, they didn't. Users conspicuously failed to get on the OS/2 bandwagon;
> >they would not, would *not*, buy the hardware it took.
>
> That's not what I said. I said they bought the hardware that the
> pre-release hype advocated. Have you forgotten the year when
> this combined Microsoft/IBM effort was expected to save the universe
> from the problems they sold us with DOS? But, since none of it was
> true, they ran Netware on it.
You can pretend that Micrsoft created the problems of DOS, but
it is just a pretense. Most personal computers had those problems
and worse; and many big computers had some of those problems,
too.
The fact remains, though, that the OS/2 hype just didn't work. It
didn't work in part because users wouldn't upgrade their hardware
enough to make OS/2 work.
[snip]
> >Sigh.
> >Well, at least you aren't clinging to the notion that Windows was
> >being used to run DOS programs.
>
> The capability was used to sell windows. And people did run
> dos programs under it. I did, anyway.
You are trying to ignore the real advantages of windows, I think.
> >> 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.
>
> In most cases they got windows because it came with the box, and
> since they could still run the old programs it didn't cause
> much damage.
This is just a fantasy. They did stuff like upgrade their old
computers to run Windows.
> >> 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!
>
> That's sort of like an English teacher saying that to improve your
> writing you have to change the alphabet.
Well, the spelling system, anyway. :D
> >Windows didn't succeed because it worked well with DOS;
> >that's just to say it didn't have one particular critical defect.
>
> OK then, it succeeded because the cost wasn't visible, the people
> who got it did not really make a choice to do so,
The cost was visible; you had to buy Windows. When ti became
massively popular, OEMs started bundling it.
But when Win3 came out, it wasn't preinstalled on anything-
you had to buy it.
And people did.
> and after using
> it their files were in formats that nothing else could use and
> they had to continue to use it to access their data.
Windows apps, of course, had their own formats. Par for the course.
Windows itself did nothing to alter file formats; if you ran WordPerfect
in windows the files it used were exactly the same.
[snip]
> >My. A bitt commited to the dogma that no one would ever *choose*
> >to use Windows, aren't we?
>
> That's my story and I'm sticking to it. If it weren't true,
> why didn't Microsoft just sell software directly to customers
> and give them a choice instead of making all the bundling
> deals to take it away?
They *did*. Hell, they still *do*.
But the demand for it is so universal, OEMs prefer to include it.
> >> 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?
>
> They haven't sent gangsters over to break my kneecaps yet, if that
> is what you mean. But they don't follow any standards to
> allow other products to work with theirs either.
This has nothing to do with evaluating their products.
It is untrue, anyway, but you know that by now.
> >> But suppose that
> >> the bios interface had evolved to 32 bit mode as it logically
> >> should have.
> >
> >For heavens sake, why would you want to embed this stuff
> >in the BIOS?
>
> Ask the people who make DVD decoder cards.
I'm asking *you*. Should I assume that you have no reason,
except that MS didn't, and indeed couldn't, do it- so you can
use it as a pretext to complain?
> >> 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?
>
> Because it is the correct way and
This is just to say "I'm right, you're wrong".
> the way the machines
> were designed in the first place
They were designed with ISA. We know how
that turned out. Believe me, a change was badly
needed.
>. It just did not
> evolve along with the harware. How do you boot that machine
> in the first place? The only reason to *not* use embedded
> bios calls to access a device is that as they currently
> exist they don't work very well. They should have been
> fixed to work instead of making the vendor supply Microsoft
> compatible drivers to run in main memory.
As you point out, this is how DOS was to start with. It worked
badly.
[snip]
> >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.
>
> Can you give me a step-by-step to replicate files shared
> from one remote server to a share on a different server
> where the remotes are not necessarily running Win2k and
> without a domain controller or active directory in the
> picture? Maybe I just got lost in the circular help file
> references where file replication says you need a domain
> based DFS setup and DFS says you need active directory
> publishing the topology.
I could, but as I recall I have spend too much time running down
documentation for you, and all of it wasted- you just *won't* listen.
> >What other, similar things are you thinking of?
>
> Trust relationships between MS and non-MS domains.
I have a sneaking feeling that this, like so many other things,
is actually possible if you bother to look it up.
But it doesn't matter in the final analsys. If Windows 2000 isn't
a call for call clone of Unix, you'll complain about some
'incompatibility'.
After all if it isn't Unix, it must be wrong.
> Using
> anything but Exchange or AD as the address book to
> Outlook (LDAP works, but not the same).
Presumably this is because LDAP doesn't offer some feature
Outlook uses if it can get it.
> >> 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?
>
> Try using Outlook with LDAP vs. Exchange's address book.
Again, I'm tired to looking stuff up for you. There's probably
a way to connect an address book to Outlook with all of
Exchanges features. There's no reason to expect that
to be LDAP.
[snip]
> >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.
>
> This is a direct result of competition in the hardware market
> among multiple vendors with plug-compatible components.
I think it's an indirect result, but I agree there's a relationship
here; this kind of competiton seems to have prevented the
hardware vendors from solving the problems their architecture
presented, leaving an opportunity for MS to do it.
> We
> would be equally well served by the ability to jump to
> a different software offering for any particular service.
This is technically impossible *unless* you demand that
all products are implemented essentially identically.
Otherwise you can't expect to swap parts freely.
[snip]
> >Honestly, you seem to have a very limited imagination.
>
> Yes, I would never have imagined the threats that Microsoft
> made over much less significant issues (like including
> Gateway including Netscape in a bundled system) if I had not
> read the excerpts from the depositions.
:D
[snip]
> >> Both are bad and unnecessary, but I have come to expect bad software
> >> in general.
> >
> >Why are they bad?
>
> Non-standard formats inhibit interoperability by design,
I take it back. You are imaginative. :D
> and the
> changes force even everyone using the original vendors product
> to go buy the latest version to stay compatible with people
> who are just getting their first copy.
They don't usually do this.
> >> 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.
>
> Do you think Microsoft would be equally successful if the next
> version of Word could not read any of the older versions' files?
Yes; MS is *much* bigger than just Office and would have plently
of time to correct the problem.
> Or do you agree that they are taking advantage of having everyone's
> data in a format that they control?
I do not agree to such a thing,
> The main objection I
> hear about Staroffice, Applix and other possible alternatives
> is simply that they are not 100% perfect in their conversions
> of word files. Even if word is more featureful, it is not a
> case where everyone in an office needs all of those features.
> The fact is that if anyone uses word, everyone else is forced
> to for file compability.
I'm afraid that as long as Office is more featureful, there will
be conversion problems- you can't convert a document
using a feature you haven't got.
Unless nobody *uses* the feature. But then this wouldn't
be an issue, and of course it is.
> >> 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.
>
> It would drive them away if either everyone would go at once,
> ending the cycle of getting attachments from a new and
> incompatible MS product from someone who just got a new
> PC with the bundled set of software, or if a standard
> interchange format were used by all products so you could
> change one at a time painlessly.
Now, now, all you need is a file translator; and no desire to use
MS Word features that you new product hasn't got.
A standard interchange format that did allow painless transition
would prohibit enhancing the software with new features Is
that what you want?
[snip]
> >> 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.
>
> You can write a more interesting book without inventing a new
> language for each one.
Again, I wonder if you really think such a breathtakingly weak
analogy could convince *anyone*, even a totally commited
anti-MS zealot.
> Most of the improvement Word needed in
> its early versions was just to avoid crashing. I don't see
> why you need a new file format for that.
I disagree. Most people aren't very anal about stability,
really. To compete, MS needed features, not stability.
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: 2 Jun 2000 19:14:06 -0500
On 2 Jun 2000 14:51:21 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Espen)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>JFW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>+ ...
>+company for a vast amount of their infrastructure. We're talking
>+about a governemt which spends billions routinely ensuring that it has
>+domestic supercomputer suppliers for the few it buys each couple of
>+years. Wanna theorize what it'd pay or do to keep it's entire office
>+infrastructure from becoming a foreign import?
>+
>
>Name one "supercomputer" in the US that runs any Microsoft software. I've
>never heard of one.
Mac G4s. After all, Apple claims they are "supercomputers"! :-)
Dave
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Barris)
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: MacOS X: under the hood... (was Re: There is only one innovation that
matters...)
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:14:00 GMT
In article <8h4anc$n3p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : In article <8gv4el$r9a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Piers B."
> : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : > You ignoramus,
> : >
> : > Who do you think helped IBM and Apple in the eighties ( re 80's for
> : > those who have literacy problems)???? IBM and Apple wouldn't have
> : > been the companies they were if it wasn't for Microsoft.
>
> : IBM could have found another company to provide DOS. Microsoft was but
> : one of many companies producing productivity software for the Mac.
>
> Who? What other operating systems could they had chosen from?
Choose from? Try "which ones did they ship?" - namely UCSD p-system
and CP/M-86.
> ---
> When applications are isolated in their own memory space, they can't
> interfere with each other if one goes bad. And, perhaps best of all,
> you don't need to restart your computer. The computer simply shuts
> down the offending application and its memory space, letting you
> continue on your merry way without interruption.
> ---
>
> Gee... WindowsNT has been doing this since, oh, v3.1. *sigh* Come on
> Apple... you people should have been first in line with this one.
Is "first" important to you? If so, you might want to examine MS'
history more closely.
Rob
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
