Linux-Advocacy Digest #875, Volume #26 Sun, 4 Jun 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The sad Linux story ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why UNIX Rocks ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story" (Terry Porter)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Window managers (Terry Porter)
Re: The sad Linux story (JEDIDIAH)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 4 Jun 2000 00:44:29 -0500
In article <A4YZ4.430$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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*?
The things where one price covers everything could be considered
one piece. But you shouldn't have to replace any of those
pieces to work against a replacement server that has
a per-client fee.
>> 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!
Most of the value of a telephone comes from the fact that
it interoperates with any other phone on the public system.
Likewise much of the value of a file typed into a word
processor or spreadsheet lies in the number of other people
that can access it.
>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.
Yet you haven't named any vendors of systems that are 100%
interoperable.
>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.
Not unix, cross-platform.
>> 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.
Bundling is in no way related to having an OS. It just
makes it much more difficult to choose the non-bundled
products.
>> 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.
Yes it does. It applies to AS/400's and MacOS at least as
much as unix.
>You are
>saying MS should do things like give up their domain security model
>because Kerberos as origonally specified did not support such things.
No, I am saying that whatever model they use should be available
for use by cross-platform vendors.
>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.
No 'unix vendors' ever declared any standards. Some standards
bodies have done so.
>> 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.
I've gone through my experiences with many MS products.
>> 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.
If they involve data exchange, either through files or
network interaction, the standard should be set by
a standards body, not a single vendor.
>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.
The cheaper windows based systems were cheaper simply
because of the competition in the hardware business.
Microsoft took advantage of that without allowing any
compitition with compatible software components.
>This later example suggests that exploitng a monopoly
>with very high prices might not be such a smart thing to do.
Yes, and now that Linux/FreeBSD/Solaris come in cheaper
and are garnering applications, we will see if that
is correct. However, the transition could be a lot
quicker if the bundling issue went away, and a lot
easier if the components became mix and match.
>> 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.
But the value of keeping your users is proportional to your
user base. Microsoft has the user base at the moment and
is exploiting it with tricks like the J++ incompatabilites.
>> 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.
And how is that different from voice communication equipment which
manages to progress even though each change requires additions
to standards that affect all vendors?
>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.
I've explained the problems I've had. They match the descriptions
I hear from others. If you want to believe that the J++ 'enhancements'
were just an accident, that no one at MS knew what the format change
in office 97 would cause, and that all of the court depositions
are lies, I guess we don't have much more to discuss.
>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.
The damage was done by then. The 4.3 ->95 ->97 changes were the costly
ones.
>> 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!
What on earth do you think postscript or another published
standard has to do with unix?
>Get *over* it. No-one is obliged to do it your way just
>because you call it a "standard".
Yet you point out the problem that existed in DOS because
a standard was not followed.
>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.
Using Ghostscript is exactly the same software abstraction
as a windows print driver and has the same problems in that
someone must provide the software that does the conversion
for every peculiar device. However, note that using printers
that follow the postscript standard internally avoids the
issue. Windows still needs yet-another-abstraction in that
case, but ghostscript becomes unnecessary.
>> 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.
No, only in places that involve data transfer and storage. My
data anyway...
>Innnovation is good. Outlawing it would be bad.
If it is good, there won't be any problem in getting the
standard accepted so it is good for more than vendor-lock.
>You can pretend that Micrsoft created the problems of DOS, but
>it is just a pretense.
I didn't say they created DOS, I said they sold us those
problems.
>> 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.
Fonts that look good at 640x480?
>> 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
I've heard there was a time when people argued against standardizing
spelling too.
>But when Win3 came out, it wasn't preinstalled on anything-
>you had to buy it.
>
>And people did.
I have no problem going back to that way of doing things.
>> 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.
I'm talking about Microsoft here, not vendors that understood
that the data files belong to the customer and they might like
to continue to use them.
>> >For heavens sake, why would you want to embed this stuff
>> >in the BIOS?
>
>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?
Microsoft did pretty much define the PC's of today by
specifying what it takes for NT compatibility. Amusingly,
it is that limited range of specifications that has made
it possible for other x86 OS's to run on them, but it
could have been easier for both if devices contained their
own drivers on-board.
>> 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.
So far I haven't seen anything but URLs from www.microsoft.com.
I had been hoping for pointers to something unbiased or
actual experience.
>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.
Or AS/400 or MacOS, or...
>> 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.
Presumably it is because they want to sell exchange servers.
Looking up an address is pretty much the same operation
whether you use a local file, exchange, or LDAP. They
do only the first two without an extra step.
>> 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.
HP's OpenMail claims to work with it, but you have to replace
a component on every client. That is not my idea of
interoperability.
>> 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.
Like modems? They just need certain standard interfaces.
What happens behind the interface doesn't matter. Or
networked postscript printers.
>> 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.
I'd venture a guess that Microsoft has made more money from
this alone than 50% of the rest of the software businesses
make altogether. What's your guess?
>> 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,
Are you going to claim that no copies of Office are sold to
people that would be just as well served by another vendor's
product except they need file compatibility with MS products?
>> 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.
Translators have their own problems. Especially if they have
to track a moving target.
>A standard interchange format that did allow painless transition
>would prohibit enhancing the software with new features Is
>that what you want?
I want that standard to be the default storage format, published,
and not changed without standards body approval. And that
body should realize that a change is going to cause vast amounts
of money to change hands as everyone is forced to upgrade to
match.
>> 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.
The concepts for extensible file formats have been known
for years. Look at TIFF as an example. New tags have been
added without breaking the ability of an new program to
write files that don't use the new element so all old
programs can still understand it.
>> 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.
Do you know anyone who uses a feature that needs file
level changes (i.e. not just user interface features)
that weren't in word95? I don't think I've ever done
anything that couldn't have been done in WordPerfect 5.1
yet I have found it necessary to keep the latest copies
of Word around to deal with things that others send me.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 05:37:10 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 00:40:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Not at all. DEC is a massive organization, and probably more
developers
>
> Yes it does.
>
> You end up comparing: A single vendor product.
>
> vs.
>
> A collection of components from a
> variety of sources.
Obviously we don't have any common basis on this issue, so I'm not
going to discuss it with you any further.
BTW, it would be helpful when you quoted, if you editted it so you you
only quote complete sentences instead of lines. It helps make the
person you quote look like less of a retard, and also makes it more
clear what point you are replying to.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why UNIX Rocks
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 05:41:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> No it isn't. There is plenty of !VMS being used effectively
> enough for 'real work'. That's the essential catch here.
My basis is more anti-Linux, than pro-VMS. I'm sure there are many fine
systems besides VMS, but VMS is the main system besides Linux which I
have exposure to. Hence, I use it as my example.
> What DBMSes under VMS maintain themselves sufficiently enough
> to never require any sort of interruption of service at the
> daemon level, ever?
I have no idea as I'm not a database person. Oracle, maybe? Which does
it under Linux? Isn't this more of an application issue anyways (unless
this functionality somehow depends on some Unix'ism which VMS doesn't
have)?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: How Pete Goodwin Can Fix "The sad Linux story"
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 4 Jun 2000 13:54:27 +0800
On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 00:32:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 1 Jun 2000 23:58:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>Why bother? Windows already has a linked help system that blows Linux
>out of the water. That's the primary reason why there is so little
>Windows documentation in print. You don't need it.
Hahaha our resident multiple personality Wintroll "Steve/Keys88/Heather/Simon"
is as wrong as he can be.
Winhelp sucks.
The help program is ok, but the content usually has nothing of any real use.
Sure its pretty, but its DUMB.
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 6 days 3 hours 52 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: 4 Jun 2000 00:57:34 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>What a load or crap! Most people on this side of the planet CHOOSE to
>>>bundle or CHOOSE NOT to bundle. I CHOSE to have the P133 fitted with
>>>6.22/3.11. Choice! Not the OEM's selection - MINE.
>>
>>What year was this, and did you pay attention to what happened
>>afterwards? Did you buy a PC from a major vendor in (say)
>>1997 without paying for Win95? How many people did?
>
>It was 1996 IIRC. No, I bought from an Australian (obviously)
>national chain who assembled their own boxes, with (at that time)
>DataExpert mobos and Fujitsu monitors. The point?
That you are in a tiny minority. In the states at least all
of the large vendors were paying Microsoft for every box
they sold even if you were going to turn it into a
Netware server.
>I didn't pay for Win-anything unless I chose a Win-something. I had
>three basic choices - Win95, WFWG/DOS (or just DOS) or No_O/S. Prices
>for each options were available. I don't know why you all seem to
>have trouble with that situation.
It would have been nice to have other pre-loaded choices. In the
early 90's Dell offered pre-installed unix but dropped it later.
There is also a fair chance that even if you picked the No_O/S
choice, your vendor was paying anyway to get the 'sell on every
box' pricing.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Window managers
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 4 Jun 2000 14:00:37 +0800
On 1 Jun 2000 10:56:45 GMT, aleander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dnia Thu, 01 Jun 2000 08:13:01 GMT niejaki
> Jorge Cueto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wypstrykal:
>> With all of my respect to another users, choices, developers and
>>lovers, I have to say this : long life iceWM (with no GNOME and
>OH NO!!!! Only WindowMaker (ok... fvwm2 can work)... no iceWM,
>WindowMaker 4ever!!!!
OH NO!!!!
BlackBox forever dudes!
http://www.wa.apana.org.au/~tjporter/Blackbox_desktop_big.jpg
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 52 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: The sad Linux story
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 06:04:00 GMT
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 05:37:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 00:40:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Not at all. DEC is a massive organization, and probably more
>developers
>>
>> Yes it does.
>>
>> You end up comparing: A single vendor product.
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> A collection of components from a
>> variety of sources.
>
>Obviously we don't have any common basis on this issue, so I'm not
>going to discuss it with you any further.
Certainly. You're more than willing to damn something based
on conditions that simply aren't present with your particular
'pet platform'. This condition is infact quite relevant to end
users in terms of selection criteria. Ultimately you end up
'advocating' a condition in terms of product even WORSE than
what we have with Microsoft.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 23:05:37 -0700
Question is - Where are you finding Win3.11? That's so far obselete
that it's sort of silly. I don't even think that you can really find
DOS 6.22 anymore either. Places like EBay and surplus sellers don't
count as thier supplies may disappear at any time in the second and
you're buying used software in the first.
--
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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
