Linux-Advocacy Digest #963, Volume #26 Wed, 7 Jun 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 07 Jun 2000 23:52:41 GMT
"Pascal Haakmat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> >> No, I'm more or less indifferent to proprietary. What is important to
me
> >> is
> >> (hate that word) interoperability. Proprietary systems often fail to
meet
> >> my standards in that respect, though.
> >
> >Microsoft's stuff is unusually good, as proprietary stuff goes.
>
> Maybe. I suppose I don't use the stuff that makes it unusually good.
Well, they are pretty good about supporting their competitors protocols
and formats.
It's just that realistically, Unix *isn't* a competitor to Windows 98.
To NT, sure. This is, in part, why Windows 2000 suddenly
learned to speak Kerberos. It already knew NetWare,
but increasingly its competitors wasn't speaking that.
> >And frankly, I just don't see that the 'open' stuff has much to
> >crow about in this area. Interoperability is not the same as saying
> >"if you all just used the same stuff we're using, we could
> >interoperate"; and that's what I hear from the 'standards'
> >people.
>
> Look, it's other people telling me that I need to get Excel, Word, blah
blah
> blah on my machine. I try to tell them that it's not about the stuff that
> I'm using but about the data that I can access -- however thanks to the
> Windows monoculture, these two have practically converged for the common
> public. Surely you don't think that's somehow "good"?
Well, it is true that Word, Excel and such can read and write a great
variety
of formats. I would hope that this would be true of their competitors as
well.
If it isn't, then that's not really such a great thing.
> >It's when you have *different* systems that interoperability
> >becomes a problem.
>
> That is the whole point of interoperability ..
Yes. That's why I don't think mandating a standard technology
that everyone must use is a real answer to the problem of
interoperability.
"Everyone should use (say) TeX format" is no better than
"everyone should use Word format".
> >[snip]
> >> Yes, that would be very silly. But I don't have any problems printing
> >> stuff and I don't use Windows.
> >>
> >> Perhaps more tellingly I rarely print anything these days.
> >
> >Well, that would explain that, then. :D
>
> Mind you that when I do, I never have problems. These problems you are
> talking about are alien to me. Sure, there exist problems with Unix
> printing, but with Mac printing as well, and Windows printing, and
printing
> in general.
Perhaps you aren't trying to do things that give Unix printing
Issues. Unix has evolved to the point where you can print
to PostScript printers, although its a pain to program.
You can also print just fine to plain bitmap devices,
thanks to GhostScript.
It isn't as bad as it was in DOS, certainly.
[snip]
> >> Didn't IBM produce a better Windows in OS/2?
> >
> >No. It did try to market it that way, but what they had was
> >a more expensive Windows in hardware terms, not
> >a better one.
>
> To be honest I don't know. I got the impression that it's Windows
> compatibility was very, very good.
It *was* very, very good. But so was Windows, with less
hardware.
It's hard to be more compatible with Windows than
Windows itself is.
> >Had they had a raft of applications that took advantage
> >of OS/2 specific features (say, the workplace shell)
> >that would be different. But they hadn't.
>
> I don't know that either.
Well, now you do. :D
> The problem is that I can say Windows sucks (which I think it does for
> reasons that I don't expect anyone else to share), and you can say that
> Windows is top notch, but it's all just bunk as long as there is no viable
> substitute to compare it to. And that's a bit sinister.
Don't read conspiracy into these things too easily; Microsoft Windows 98
has no equal in its market, but it doesn't automatically follow that this is
due to Microsoft perfidy.
> What I mean is that the influence of the network effects that Windows
enjoys
> is so great that no other OS compares to it.
I think these are overestimated. There are very few things that
network effects *don't* apply to, after all, so why is the effect
so much greater in operating systems?
> For example, if you claim that
> DanielCoke is much better than Coca Cola, I'll want to know where I can
get
> it. But most likely, I won't be able to get it in Europe. That fact alone
> makes DanielCoke incomparable, as a substitute, to Coca Cola.
I think you are holding the bar of substitutability that no product
could ever acheive it with respect to any other product.
> Now in operating systems, availability may even be the least of problems.
> Other factors, like functionality, cost, compatibility, support and
> interoperability are much more important. It's impossible to satisfy all
of
> these demands simultaneously so as to provide an alternative to Windows,
> especially if the dominant player (Microsoft) can actively obstruct the
> alternative in attaining (say) full interoperability.
Well, bear in mind that less dominant players can also obstruct
interoperability in the same way; and they can do so without
monpolies.
But it *is* true that making a product with all the capabilities
of Windows is very hard to do. I'm not sure this says anything
*bad* about Microsoft.
> It is of course always possible to invent something completely new and
> simply supercede Windows. But that's not the point. One might as well say,
> "here is an alcoholic beverage, throw away your sugarwater". The point is
> that I want to compare different sugarwaters.
I'm not sure you have an inalienable right to have different sugarwaters
manufactured just so you can sample them. There are good reasons
why people *don't* favor variety in their OSes, and they have nothing
to do with Microsoft.
> To sort of get back to what you were saying, I don't think that a raft of
> OS/2 specific applications would have made any difference. What is
required
> for an operating system to succeed is the blessing of Microsoft; or
they'll
> FUD you, buy you, cut off your airsupply, or pressure your partners into
not
> doing business with you.
I don't agee; Microsoft has no magical powers, and OS/2 failure
came from several sources. Microsoft's leverage over IBM was, at
that time, limited to its ability to woo IBM's OS customers away from
it.
[snip]
> >> You treat the "real problems facing desktop users" as if it were some
kind
> >> of constant. But in reality the "real problems facing desktop users"
> >> evolve with time.
> >
> >That is so. But I don't think that they've evolved enough to render
> >Windows obsolete yet.
>
> Sadly, regrettably, I think you're right (just voicing an opinion).
I also opine that eventually, they will evolve to that point.
[snip]
> >Sure, but not a very big one.
>
> Bwahahaha. Perception matters. Well. Let's just agree to disagree on
this,
> OK?
If you wish.
[snip]
> >That isn't really what I was saying: I was saying that they lack critical
> >features and they don't seem to be getting them.
>
> Well, you talked about printing, where your experience doesn't mimic mine,
> and about game peripherals, which didn't do anything for the adoption of
the
> PC until the early nineties.
Middle nineties. Win3's support for games was totally inadequate.
But that was then, this is now.
> >They *do* seem to be getting- slowly- a user interface.
>
> Yes, well. A buggy piece of shit many Gnome GUI tools are. Bit immature
when
> compared to the CLI tools. KDE's a bit better but looks horrible.
Nevertheless, they show some awareness that this is an issue.
I prefer to think of that as promising.
[snip]
> >I would agree with that. I would *not* agree that the most of the
> >users out there have been duped into buying a bad product.
>
> It might not have been a bad product at the time. I liked Win NT 3.51 for
> example. But I think it is getting worse every day. Have you read the
media
> lately?
Sure. I have also used Win NT 3.51, and Windows 2000: Windows 2000
is a very large improvement. It isn't getting worse every day.
> Let me relate something that strikes me as particularly amusing. Of
course,
> I'm more than a little biased, especially in this thread, where I feel
> compelled to play the role of Microsoft hater.
>
> Just two years ago, if someone would send me a Word or Excel document, my
> protestations that I didn't use Word and Excel were met with laughter.
> People scorned for not relying on these pillars of society.
You've got strange acquantances there...
I'd expect something more like "what? you don't use word processors?" :D
> Now when I say that I don't use Word and Excel, people offer to translate
it
> into some other kind of format or to fax or mail me a print-out. Suddenly,
> for some dark mysterious reason, not using Word and Excel has become
> "professional".
Fashion. Gotta love it. :D
> Does the trial have something to do with it? The many security alerts?
Solar
> wind? The position of the stars? I don't know. But something is changing
> [insert music].
Twilight zone music?
I think that Bill Gates short tenure of Hero of the Universe has, well,
ended, and other thing have become cool. DOS is, by now,
a distant memory, IBM a has been. That was all a million years
ago. What, we may ask, has Bill done for us lately?
[snip]
> >Here I must disagree. Technology in a vacuum is a toy; there *are*
> >real problems to be solved.
>
> Most (if not all) solutions pose other problems. That is what I meant and
> surely you must agree.
Sure. Life is complex sometimes.
[snip]
> >I think that if you see 'merit' in narrow technical terms, this is true.
> >
> >But yet 'dominant' firms do get displaced in this business. It happens
> >when a new product comes along that is different, not just better.
>
> This is what I addressed above. I'm not looking for someone who tells me
to
> get an airplane instead of a road vehicle when what I want is a road
vehicle.
Yes, I know. But what you are looking for is not really
the determining factor.
> Is this really what you want to be suggesting, Daniel?
>
> "I want to see your PC operating systems."
> "We have quantum computers."
> "PC operating systems please."
> "Wearable PC?"
> "Desktop PC operating systems please."
> "Brain implant?"
:D
This is reality. I know you'd *prefer* to get a desktop OS
that is tailored to your tastes- or at least more or less
matches them- but current software engineering
practices simply cannot deliver this.
> >The classic example is the mainframes->minis->micros thing,
> >but closer to home Windows was able to take over from DOS despite
> >having to overcome the classic product lock-in problems: Users
> >of Windows had to upgrade their hardware and buy new applications
> >with new data formats.
>
> I've addressed this above, too. Windows could triumph because it had
> Microsoft's blessing.
Microsoft isn't the software fairy- they have no magic.
In particular, they didn't manage a seamless DOS->Windows
transition; it *cost* and it had all the disadvantages you'd expect
from a platform switch.
It's quite different from, say, Apple's transition from 680x0 to
PPC. They made that dang near seamless; you could hardly
tell you were doing it, and they were able to leverage developers
onto the new platform because they could make it clear (with
credibility) that 680x0 *would* die.
You can argue that Microsoft should have been able to do this,
but they *did not* do it when switching from DOS to Windows.
> >They did so because Windows offered them stuff they couldn't
> >get with DOS, period. Not even with improved DOSes, like DR-DOS.
>
> Digital GEM?
GEM was like Windows, but it didn't deal with the memory problems,
so it was next to impossible to write non-toy software for it.
Same problem killed Windows 1 and 2, too. You just can't
do the stuff that needed doing in 640k on an 8086.
GEM is about the closest thing out there to Windows that
didn't have a Microsoft brand name.
------------------------------
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, 07 Jun 2000 23:52:44 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8hkegu$29kb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <Fl5%4.5699$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >I do not think so. It would be too easy for Microsoft to cut their
> >prices to compensate. If its the same thing at the same price,
> >and the only choice is between Microsoft and UnknownTechCorp,
> >most will go for Microsoft.
>
> Flip a coin between the 'kill Netscape' and the Halloween
> document strategy of mutating the protocol again.
Right. Lower prices or improved product.
Or they might do both.
Either way, the smart venture capital isn't going to be funding
this. They know that isn't where the money is in this business,
and it ain't in beating the dead horses.
> >The "I hate Microsoft" market isn't that big, and is adequately
> >served by Linux anyway.
>
> No, it isn't served well enough even if you count Sun, Corel,
> SGI, and parts of IBM. There is always room for more.
Really? Why do you feel the "I hate Microsoft" market is
underserved?
> >> Yes, if Microsoft had not achieved monopoly status, it
> >> would be.
> >
> >It is draconian *even though* you hate Microsoft.
>
> Hate is a little extreme - I just try to avoid them even
> though they make it impossible.
You'd endorse a blatantly unjust double standard; I don't
think it's just because you are avoiding them.
[snip]
> >This isn't true. You can pretend, of course, but you *can*
> >mix software.
>
> Neither of the two places I've worked in the interval in
> question have been able to deal with the hassle.
How underwhelming of them.
[snip]
> >Really? Can you give me a link to more information abou this
> >Solaris and Linux port of DCOM?
>
> I think it died young - a typical promise from Microsoft
> to interoperate that just faded away before anyone could
> develop anything that might compete with their own products.
That's what I thought. It's one of the many protocols
that Unix does not support- does not interoperate with,
if you like.
[snip]
> Here's a link to their statement in 1997:
> http://www.computerworld.com/home/online9697.nsf/all/970321microsoft
> but even at the time it was pretty clear that the main
> purpose of the ruse was to keep someone from jumping to CORBA
> for real portability.
CORBA makes you dependant on your ORB rather than your
OS. Whether this is a good thing depends heavily on the
specifics of the case.
Cross OS portability isn't always the point. When it is, CORBA
can help.
[snip]
> >MS's market, like most market, likes to stretch things. Windows 95
> >does use honest-to-gawd DOS for several things, but it is significantly
> >*less* dependant on it than Win 3 was.
> >
> >I thing it is extreme to argue that Win95 was the same product as Win3
> >just because it did use some of the same technology. The differences,
> >while not absolutely all encompasing, were very great.
>
> Not all that great compared to Win3.11 with win32s.
Oh yes, very great even compared to that. Win32s was a small
and rather broken subset of Win32.
Not a completely new from the ground up operating system,
but nevertheless substantially changed, and not just the API.
> In retrospect
> it is funny to see how they glued the win3.1 user interface
> on top of the NT of the time which actually was different to
> make it seem more familier, and drastically modified the
> user interface on 95 which wasn't that different otherwise
> so they wouldn't have to call it an upgrade.
I think most everyone with any sense of reality would agree
that the Windows 95 interface represented a large improvement
over that of Windows 3 and Windows NT 3.51.
[snip]
> >Whoopie. MS did things like switch to 32-bit, protected mode
> >file access. You can't expect an unmodified OS/2 to cope with
> >that kind of thing.
>
> There were many things that would keep it from using 32-bit mode.
> Running under OS/2 could easily have been one of them. The
> people who added the code were not so dumb as to not understand
> exactly what would happen in this circumstance.
While MIcrosoft was legal obliged to provide the source code
to IBM, they were not obliged to do IBM's development for it.
[snip]
> >> >greatly reduces the variety of printers you can use;
> >> >the same problem PostScript has, but possibly worse
> >> >(it depends on the vendor)
> >>
> >> It solves the same problem in a different scope.
> >
> >That is just using a lot of words to say "it solves less
> >of the problem".
>
> The opposite. It solves more of the problem.
No, the problem is to be able to use the wide variety of
printers out there with the wide variety of software out
there.
Standardizing on PostScript gives you the software end of
the thing. Better than nothing, but shy of what Windows gives
you.
[snip]
> >Well, running two OSes is unnacceptable for many
> >reasons in *any* case, regardless of the printer
> >situation. So as long as you are going to standardize
> >on something, why not get some benefit out of it?
>
> Whoa there... Not a chance on that one. Being forced
> to use only one OS, especially one that only runs on
> (essentially) one kind of processor is much, much
> worse that being stuck with one (very versatile)
> printer language.
I don't agree. And I think it clear that the vast majority of
users at the time didn't agree, either: they switched to
Windows, rather than switching to PostScript printers.
> >Windows solves it *for Windows and WIndows apps*,
> >which is about what you'd expect.
>
> And is thus incomplete in a mixed environment.
Well, it fails to solves Unix's problems for it, yes. :D
> >> >Was the sound device independant?
> >>
> >> Linux takes the usual unix approach of putting the audio driver
> >> behind a standard device interface.
> >
> >The usual unix approach is putting it behind a *stream*.
>
> There are 2 things involved - it puts the magic of connecting
> a name to a device driver into the filesystem so the API is
> the existing open() system call which also provides the
> semantics for access control just like everything else.\
This is what I meant by stream. It's limited, but it
homogenous which is very handy at times.
[snip]
> The ioctl() system call has always been available to deliver
> more or less open-ended data structures between user space
> programs and device drivers. Using it should be a last
> resort because it makes the particular programs non-portable,
> but it is there for the circumstances where there is no
> other way. If you use a non-standard ioctl(), or make
> up a new API, you lose the ability to talk to new types
> of hardware with the existing program.
It is very desirable not to make this tradeoff; Microsoft's
answer is the proliferation of very many APIs. Some
disagree with it, but it does let you have portability and
still use the features.
(Where portability means 'works on many different
sound cards' not 'works on Unix too'.)
> >> A rapidly moving target.
> >
> >No, not particularly. Word's format hasn't changed since Word 97,
> >for instance.
>
> How long does your business keep data around?
Longer than that; we've still got some old DOS WordPerfect
cruft. Word can read it, though.
[snip]
> >They you should not be using Windows 98, fer sure. However,
> >most business prefer the compatibility represented by the Intel
> >line, because they won't spend the money to upgrade their whole
> >installation all at once.
>
> It is really funny that you don't even consider the possibility
> of a Windows system interoperating with anything else well enough
> to use even through a transition period. It could be.
Yes, it could be- by limiting Windows to the level of this
other system, whatever it is to be.
I do not see that limitation as acceptable.
> >Switching to a new CPU still means 'minimal changes'- at the least
> >a recompile- and this is not acceptable to most.
>
> For programs developed in-house it is no problem,
Sure it is. There is still testing to do; you can't just assume
it will work.
> for others it is someone else's problem.
That someone else has no obligation to solve the problem;
what do you do if one of your app vendors does not want
to port to your new hardware?
> >> Not every machine runs windows. In fact quite a few don't.
> >
> >Indeed, however this can readily be fixed in most cases. :D
>
> On the Sparc's? I don't think so.
Oh, I was kiddiing. Windows only helps you if you use it;
if you choose not to use it, that's your business.
[snip]
> >I think demanding perfection is a big much. But it is documented
> >and hasn't changed its format in years.
>
> They haven't needed to kill a wordprocessing competitor for
> a while.
Really. What word processing competitor was Word 97
supposed to kill?
[snip]
> >It is certainly no worse than using DOS programs; but it is
> >much worse than Windows. Windows is pretty good about
> >configuring itself automatically.
>
> What is automatic about having to insert the CD to match the printer
> and tell windows where to look for it, and then pick the right one?
Considerable, actually. Windows knows how to detect that you've
added a printer and it can ask for a driver disk, then install that
driver. For those who *aren't* very savvy about computers, even
this much is very helpful.
For many printers, Windows can actually just install without
asking for anything. This only happens if Windows already has
an appropriate driver and if the printer supprts plug and play
(so that Windows can identify it exactly).
> I have to do that regularly on one machine that corrupts something
> when it runs out of disk space. I suspect on that box I've spent
> more time reloading the windows driver than it would have taken to
> install a DOS driver for every application that prints.
Perhaps you should fix the system. I realize you may presume
that Windows systems *cannot* be made to work, so you
don't try. But those with more, erm, optimism sometimes do
make the fool thing work.
[snip]
> >No way. That means thunking down to real mode. That has
> >horrible performance effects.
>
> You keep saying that, but I don't understand why windows
> could not correctly access 32 bit code on the cards if
> the vendor engineers provided it.
They won't. They have no reason to do that. Microsoft will
have to provide software drivers, just as they do now.
> >Windows drivers would be about the same as they are now;
> >only DOS would be different.
>
> With 32 bit embedded drivers, any OS could use it.
There will not be such drivers; there is no reason for
any card maker to provide such. It's just a waste
of money.
> >I have done; you chose not to believe it.
> >
> >I don't see why I should bother to provide *more*.
>
> None were unbiased or something I could test myself.
If that's your attitude about outright technical documentation,
there's no hope for you.
[snip]
> How about
> something simple? I normally drag all the garbage off the desktop
> of a pre-installed windows box into a couple of folders to clean
> things up. How do I take the 'Setup MSN Account' icon that refuses
> to move?
I thought that was just a shortcut; it ought to move in the
usual way.
If it's really a namespace extension icon, you could move it by
editing the registry, with the caveat that it might not work
if it actually somehow depends on being on the desktop. But
this is all documented on MSDN, a source you consider
to biased to look at.
> >But I'm not going to all that worked up if after *two major
> >revisions* there are some compatibility issues. Suggesting
> >that this should not occur is pure politics.
>
> It has caused a disruption equivalent to breaking the phone system
> so your old phones wouldn't work in the places I've been.
No it hasn't.
> Most places have probably spent more on the software upgrade
> than it would cost to replace their phones. The politics don't
> seem the same at all, and they should be.
Well, I'm not sure. Replacing the phones with identical phones
is probably cheaper, 'tis true. But replacing them with
substantially better phones?
Oh wait, you prefer to think that nothing has changed between
Word 4.3 and Word 2000 *except* the file format.
> >> Making it impossible for people to keep using their old
> >> product is an even better way, and that is the approach
> >> they took.
> >
> >Except they didn't.
>
> Are there really any places still using word95?
Surely.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:56:39 GMT
On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 19:57:36 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 7 Jun 2000 17:35:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote in
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> You can't even grok Windows-isms in another enviroment, you
>>> can't be too bright or experienced.
>>
>>Yeah right. Your arrogance is astounding.
>>
>>> ...and I did the same thing, except with at 4M PNG and Linux didn't
>>> so much as burp...
>>
>>Well bully for you. On my system I saw a definate slow down.
>
>
>Same thing here, Print causes a virtual shutdown.
...a "me too" from you is hardly convincing.
[deletia]
One wonders how some of have been able to "luck out".
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
