Linux-Advocacy Digest #90, Volume #27 Wed, 14 Jun 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: vote on MS split-up (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: Thinking of running Linux? Read this first before you try.............
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 01:40:54 GMT
In article <kui%4.582$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Jermo15" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would vote to allow a national "1-800" for
> the real "peoples opinion", the
> polling process is so corrupted it has
> become usless.
The poll that really matters is the open and
competitive marketlace. If Linux is on display in
every retail store where Microsoft is displayed,
and users can test-drive both systems with their own
little fingers, and after playing with both for a while,
and the still choose Microsoft - God Bless 'em.
Microsoft SAYS it wants a competitive marketplace, but
every structure of their legal contracts, nondisclosure
agreements, cliff-tiered pricing, dealer support programs,
and corporate support programs, are very effeciently
coordinated to make absolutely sure that no competitive
Desktop makes it to the retail shelves unless Microsoft
controls it. Even the Macs contain Microsoft Office
on an exclusive basis.
> Lets ask the pollers who they poll?
> old, white, rich, homless, part of town, etc.
> this will state if this is the peoples will...
People who don't buy computers, don't want computers, and
think the internet is the "Devil's Playground" have no basis
on which to make a qualified opinion.
Unfortunately, people who have only been allowed to see what
Microsoft wants them to see, what Microsoft allows the OEMs to
ship, what Microsoft allows the media to cover, what Microsoft
allows the developers to disclose, what Microsoft allows the
benchmarkers to publish - can't provide an informed opinion either.
Hitler, Stalin, and Castro eliminated the problem of competition by
taking direct control of the press, executing reporters who tried
to cover the "resettlement camps", arresting people who listened
to illegal radio transmissions, and seizing the property to fund
the "proper thought".
Microsoft isn't using the American political system, that's too
unstable and vulnerable. It's much easier to take control of the
information infrastructure, use that control to obtain damaging
information and pass it on to the places where it will do the most
damage.
Microsoft doesn't piddle with individuals, who might be too idealistic
to respond to economic pressure. They do their work on corporate
executives who stand to lose everything if their competitive and
confidential information falls into the hands of it's competitors.
The same software that is used to check licenses and software
configuration (remember that little question you answered when you
first installed Windows 95 upgrade to that Windows 3.1 system?) can
be used to collect a list of contracts, your e-mail, or the personnel
files of your boss. Those appointments on your palm-pilot - accessible.
Bill Gates believes that everyone is motivated by fear and greed.
If you offer them more, or threaten to take away
what they have, then they will react in a predictable
manner.
The most frightening thing to Microsoft executives is
anyone who behaves unpredictably. If they offer you
200 shares of stock per year and you turn it down,
or they offer you a promotion and you turn it down,
or they threaten to fire you and you give them your
resignation and request to wave the two weeks notice,
they have a hard time dealing with that.
The most dangerous man in the world is the man (or woman)
who has lost it all, more than once, and gained it back,
more than once. These people realize that greed is an
illusion, that real opportunity isn't the "quick buck" that
can be just as easily pulled away, and real loss isn't the
short term setback that may be a dissapointment, but need not
be a crisis.
These people create their own opportunity and expect setbacks
as a car driver fills his gas tank and expects to refill it.
Failure isn't a thing you are, it's a result you didn't produce.
If you fail, you can persue a different goal, produce the result
later, or identify the result you did produce, and move forward
from there.
I've been a regular part of 20 "once in a lifetime opportunities",
including selling the first CB Radios used to beat speed traps,
selling the first VCRs, setting up the first Video Rental programs,
selling the first personal computers (presold a TRS-80 3 weeks before
they were announced), working with the earliest UNIX systems, working
with the Internet, and working with Linux.
A "once in a lifetime opportunity" doesn't look like a great idea
in the early stages. The first cable television networks offered
the same 4 networks and one or two junk channels, little more than
a camera and a Betamax recorder in someone's basement.
The first Music Videos were more like tapings of live concerts
with some nice shots of unusually dressed audience members. Alice
Cooper was one of the great pioneers of Music Videos because he
encouraged his audience to come dressed as strangely as possible.
The first Video Cassette Recorders couldn't even play porno movies.
You could tape the Superbowl, or saturday morning cartoons, but the
blank tapes were $30 each and only held 2 hours.
The first PCs were monsters, about the size of a Microwave Oven
with a long row of switches across the front. It took 30 minutes
to toggle in the paper tape loader. Micro-soft BASIC was a
disfunctional subset that barely crammed into 2k of ram, with enough
room left over to write a 20 line "shorthand" BASIC program.
The first Internet interoperability tests were dismal. You had FTP
and Telnet, and even telnet was an adventure on MVS systems. There
was something like a CMS or TSO interface, but a 3270 form was out of
the question. And security -- serial lines that could be tapped with
a pair of wire cutters and some electrical tape.
The first "Hub" was actually at both Boulder and Colorado Springs
Colorado. DEC and HP had offices in Colorado Springs near UCCS,
and both HP and IBM had offices that were local to CU Boulder.
Reading each other's e-mail was so easy you could do it accidentally.
And my first Linux system fit on 4 floppies, took 20 minutes to
"boot" into it's 4meg ramdisk, and only supplied GCC and the core
UNIX commands (ls, cat, mv, grep, ed, awk, and uemacs ). It only
supported "basic" IDE, VGA text through BIOS calls, and RS-232 serial.
Of course, today, CB radios have evolved into cell phones that grow
out of everyone's ears, most people have at least one VCR and many
have camcorders. The average viewer has an average of 50 channels
to watch on either cable, digital cable, or digital sattellite dish.
The music video is a major part of most commercials, most films,
and most musicians must give good video as well as good audio.
The PC now comes in sizes ranging from wristwatches and palm-pilots
to laptops to "towers" with gigaflops processors, gigabyte ram, and
terrabyte hard drive arrays.
The Internet has reached the point where companies give out their
URL rather than their telephone, and 80% of all personal purchase and
95% of all corporate purchases are influenced by Internet provided
information.
Linux will eventually reach that same critical mass
where people will expect what Linux can provide and
will wonder how we tolerated the daily crashes of
Windows 95 and the single-function servers of
Windows NT and the thought of a workstation without
it's own integrated server will considered as primitive
as BASIC in ROM and loading programs off paper tape.
> Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Gerald Willmann wrote:
> >
> > >> CNN is conducting a poll whether MS should
> > >> be split up and if yes into how
> > >> many parts. Please take a minute to vote for a good cause.
Keep in mind that what this measures is the number
of people who care enough to respond to the lobbiests
of choice. It does however give a sense of how quickly
the troops from both sides can be mobilised, a ratio of
troop strength, and a sense of relative interest among
those who give a darn.
> > >> -> http://cnnfn.com/poll/microsoft_breakup.html
> > >>
> > >> thanks, Gerald
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >
> > >Justice is not the product of opinion polls. Besides, I want
> > >Microsoft destroyed by Linux, not the DOJ.
Actually, the Executive and Judicial branch were deliberately designed
to protect the interests of the minority from the interests of the
majority in the House and Senate.
The court must weigh the interests of the majority (Microsoft users)
against the interests of the minority (Linux users). There's nothing
wrong with the fact that Bill Gates and Microsoft made a whole bunch
of money, if they did it only by providing the best possible choice
from a field of choices. The DOJ didn't even try to argue that point.
Even if Microsoft did gain it's Monopoly through fraud, extortion,
blackmail, and bribery, the DOJ made no attempt to prove that case and
Judge Jackson's findings of fact conclude that in the absence of such
evidence, that Microsoft obtained it's monopoly legally. The reality
is that most of the evidence of illegal activities was suppressed by
a series of settlements which became unenforcible because of
Microsoft's clever reinterpretation of key phrases.
Microsoft is getting some of it's own medicine. The DOJ is being
deliberately obtuse where it wants to make sure Microsoft won't nullify
the agreement with a "letter of the law" reinterpretation, and they are
being deliberately specific where they want there to be no
misunderstanding of minimum acceptable behavior.
The biggest challenge for Mr Boes was trying to craft a remedy that
would be "wiggle proof".
Microsoft of course attempted to create it's own proposed
remedies which were completely frivolous. It would be like
Ted Bundy telling the judge "I'll apologize and let you fine
me $100 dollars payable out of my future book deal if you will
give me time-served and 6 months parole.". Microsoft was accused
of a crime, convicted of a crime, and had been found to have committed
numerous counts of numerous illegal activities. Essentially, Microsoft
had been proven by the evidence, especially the testimony of it's own
corporate executives, to be a habitual offender and they considered it
"business as usual" and an "unalienable right".
Ironically, Microsoft denies that it engaged in illegal bundling yet
also asserts in the same briefs, filings, and press releases that
extracting the application code from Windows and extracting the
Windows code from the applications would be nearly impossible.
Essentially they are saying "I didn't rape anyone and haven't raped
anyone and won't rape anyone, but I'm a sex addict and I can't be
expected to stop raping people so you should stop interfering with my
right to 'persuit of happiness' ".
Put another way Microsoft is saying:
We didn't bundle applications with Windows.
We didn't give Microsoft Applications exclusive information.
We didn't compete unfairly using these advantages.
but
We can't unbundle the applications without breaking Windows.
We can't survive without our exclusive proprietary information.
If you take away our advantages, we'll go broke in a year.
And Microsoft has included this rhetoric in it's filings for appeal.
Furthermore Microsoft has said:
We didn't exclude any competitors from the market.
We didn't exclude Netscape from the market.
We didn't exclude any other applications from the market.
but
We can't allow Linux to share our machines because it will kill us.
We can't allow Netscape to replace IE because it will cause hardship.
We can't allow other applications on our platform because then we
wouldn't be able to make innovations that are incompatible with
competitors products.
Then we have the classic:
Microsoft is responsible for the success of the economy because of
the success of the Internet and the World Wide Web.
Microsoft obtained all of the internet infrastructure,
specifications, and protocols published Public License code and
specifications.
Microsoft obtained most if the code through publicly available
sources such as NCSA, IETF, and BSD through third party agents.
but
Microsoft got a late start on the Internet market and needs
special lattitude to catch up.
Microsoft would go broke if it published it's protocols and
API specifications.
Microsft needs to protect it's technology from Linux developers
who could implement competitive products if they had access
to USB protocols, PCI PnP protocols, and DVD-CSS protocols.
Finally:
Microsoft has defeated the Department of Justice in the Appellate
court based on a technicality and legal loopholes.
Microsoft has violated the spirit and intent of numerous settlements
by arguing the letter of the law.
Microsoft has suppressed the largest body of evidence through sealed
court records that prevent victim corporations from discussing
any aspect of the grievances and possibly illegal behavior with
the department of Justice.
Microsoft has prevented voluntary cooperation with authorities
including investigation of criminal charges because Microsoft
Nondiclosure agreements forbid any publications, interviews,
or witness cooperation without a Microsoft lawyer being in
attendance.
BUT:
Microsoft doesn't need to be broken up, they could just comply
with a behavioral remedy.
Microsoft shouldn't be subjected to restrictions that are too
specific, especially those that explicitly state specific
target products and applications.
Microsoft can't be expected to obey restrictions that are too
broad and sweeping, that leave the spirit and intent of the
enforcment up to the FTC, the DOJ, and the Compliance Officer.
Microsoft should be allowed to make up it's own definitions the
way it has in other cases, settlements, and decrees, so that
it will be able to provide the correct interpretation when
these issues come up. The same way that bundling explorer
was merely an Operating System Enhancement, and cliff tiered
pricing was merely quantity discounts.
Can you see where Microsoft might have a credibility problem?
Can you see why some of the "Packed Appellate Court" Judges might
have a bit of a problem with Microsoft's refusal to comply with
the spirit and the intent of the law.
Microsoft, particularly Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, and Mr Alchin are
living in the dilusion that just because they were able to beat
a consent decree order on the basis of hair-splitting, technicalities,
and diversionary tactics, that they are now above the law and that
the Appellate court will do whatever Microsoft wants it too, including a
judgement that prevents an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Finally, Microsoft believes that if it prevails, it will still be able
to enforce it's contracts in all 20 of the original plaintiff states,
that it will be given Carte Blanche to engage in unrestricted
anticompetitive behavior, and that it will be allowed to engage
in reprisals such as "Media-less Windows 2000" charging much more
to OEMs that actually want to provide CD-ROMs to their retail
customers.
> > your hoping for to much.
> > Linux will never destroy Microsoft.
I would hope not. Linux shouldn't destroy Microsoft. Microsoft
is still a huge company with excellent resources and could still
maintain a substantial market share, even if it were compelled
to coexist entirely with Linux.
In a dual-boot system, many people would choose Windows most of the
time, maybe even all of the time.
In one survey, 63% said they would like to have the choice of
operating systems. In a different survey 35% said they'd like to see
Microsoft dismantled. In yet another survey, only 7% would give
up Microsoft Windows entirely.
If Microsoft's future truly depends on it's ability to continue to
engage in illegal activities, some of which may go beyond the scope
of mere antitrust violations, then Microsoft could and should go broke.
If on the other hand, Microsoft is providing a product that users
enjoy using, that they are comfortable with, and that they feel
completely satisfied, then that market will continue to provide
Microsoft with a strong and thriving market. Microsoft may
experience a modest revenue drop in the first year, but after that,
there's no reason to expect that Microsoft's share wouldn't grow
as fast as the rest of the desktop/settop/laptop/palmtop market.
> > Niether will the DOJ unless thay
> > force Windows too do evything like DOS and Linux
The DOJ isn't asking Microsoft to publish their code. Other versions
of UNIX implment published specifications such as TCP/IP, HTML, HTTP,
Berkely Sockets, RPC, and SMB using both proprietary and Open Source
code. For 25 years, the Internet has avoided federal statutory
regulation by the FCC because everyone voluntarily complied with
standards issued by the IETF, NCSA, and NSF. Everybody contributed
their favorite toys, and everybody pulled from the common pool.
Sure, there were a few clunkers that didn't do so well, but the
majority of the proposals were sufficiently detailed that reference
implementations could be built to certify proprietary implementations.
Microsoft wants a one-way street. It can take anything it wants, but
can't be asked to give anything back. It wants to put it's own
proprietary protocols and standards out on the internet, and create
a system that can't be managed for security and audits. Microsoft
wants us to turn the Internet into the equivalent of the "Floppy Boot
Track" (where numerous viruses, worms, and hacks were hidden from
unsuspecting users).
> > and tell MS they can only sell Generally Not Useful (GNU) (cr)apps
Like Mosaic (Internet Explorer to you).
Like BSD Sockets (winsock to you).
Like sendmail (Messenger, Outlook, and Exchange to you)
Like IPC (MSMQ to you).
Like LDAP (Active Directory to you).
Like Kerberos (Security Services to you).
Microsoft has adopted it's "Embrace and Extend"
(Embrace like an anaconda embraces a gazelle, and Extend
like an anacondo swallowing the gazelle).
There are about 200,000 UNIX and Linux programmers who are
a bit tired of watching Microsoft's 17,000 employees take
credit for our work, then attempt to extend it under
nondisclosures designed to exclude the UNIX and Linux community.
If Microsoft doesn't want to give anything back. If Microsoft
insists on nondisclosure agreements for every innovation it makes,
then they should forfeit all of the Open Source code in their entire
library immediately.
No one is asking Microsoft to put the Windows kernel or even the
windows libraries into Open Source. We are simply asking that
Microsoft provide the same level of detailed specification that
we provided for them, especially if they think they want to
extend one of our standards.
There have been a few times when we've adopted Microsoft standards,
but we had to reverse engineer the hell out of them, without even
the benefit of a complete specification. Linux did adopt DHCP
(which Microsoft gave out because Linux/UNIX were about to offer
dynamic RARP). Linux did adopt SMB (which Microsoft gave out
because Linux/UNIX was about to offer an open source NFS).
UNIX even adopted DCOM to CORBA (Microsoft gave out DCOM because
CORBA vendors were offering free CORBA clients and ActiveX/CORBA
via JavaBeans).
> > and they half to make all there help files into MAN pages. HA-HA!
Yes, god forbid you should put the entire documentation repository to
all applications, library calls, and utilities into anything that
could be researched without starting up every single application
separately.
No, we'd much rather hunt through 300 applications, 800 ActiveX
descriptions, and 200 OLE definitions in an integrated IDE that
dictates which editor, debugger, libraries, and compiler I MUST use.
The Integrated IDE was a necessary evil back in the days when MS-DOS
let you run one task, when windows would crash if you tried to run
a text editor, a debugger, and a compiler shell on the same PC.
But today, we have Windows 2000, which claimes to run dozens of
applications concurrently without crashing. Why not let me have
my choice of editor, my choice of compilers, debuggers, and libraries?
We'd much rather stuff every variable setting for every application and
function Microsoft has ever invented into the Registry and treat it as
one huge pandora's box which must only be altered by Microsoft.
The registry isn't really a Microsoft innovation, X11 had its Xrdb
(X11 Resource DataBase). It was very similar to Microsoft's registry
except that it could be set a number of different ways, including
app-default scripts, .xinitrc scripts, or graphical user interfaces.
It could also be saved in a similar manner.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 90 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 21:59:04 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Let us know when you have a mainframe in your living room.
>
> Better let your wife know first though :)
I suppose you just are not aware of the fact that you can get a P390 card that
plugs into your PC and supports the full S/390 instruction set. You can run
OS/390, VM/ESA and Linux on it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Thinking of running Linux? Read this first before you try.............
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 01:52:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ok so you have had it with Microsoft and all the semi-legal tactics
> they have employed over the years.
Illegal, not semi-legal. Big difference.
> We all feel the same way and in fact there are more Microsoft
> supporters that want to see Microsoft split up than most would
> believe.
Because a stock split is always a "good thing"(tm).
> Putting all the legal jargon aside, we reach the question "so what
> about Linux?"
> Most of you have read about Linux and how it is a "free" alternative
> operating system that will compete with the likes of Windows and the
> monolith of Microsoft.
> To the Napster generation this sounds as good as free beer did to the
> 1967 anti-establishment generation.
Free dope, moron. My generation didn't drink "bud", we smoked it.
> Unfortunately the reality is that nothing is really free.
> Is your time worth something to you.
> If so, you will be spending a lot of it reading contradicting How-To's
> and convoluted Linux documentation.
Didn't have to read a single how-to to install this system.
> How about hardware support and applications support?
All my hardware is supported out-of-the-box with Caldera. It wasn't
supported by MSFT when I loaded NT on this system a few months ago.
> Take a casual walk through CompUSA and see how many Linux packages you
> find.
I've got five boxes of shrink-wrap Linux software I purchased locally.
And I live in a farm town with only one software store.
> Ask a sales rep about Linux and see what kind of answer you get. Ask
> your friends about Linux and see how many are running it.
Ask a sales rep about anything, and you're likely to get a stupid
uninformed answer. Not all of my friends run Linux, we've got one rebel
who's a FreeBSD freak.
> Ask your future college what laptop they want you to buy. Ask your
> future company what email system and what corporate platform they use.
Now you have a good point there. If your "future" college doesn't have
UNIX/Linux in their curriculum, my "present" employer won't even
interview you. Not even for a position in our Windows group. Our
e-mail system is non-Microsoft, and our "corporate platform" is
intentionally diverse.
> Windows is about standards.
Horseshit. Windows is about hijacking and lobotomizing standards.
> Linux is the wannabee on the block. Sure
> you get 500 applications included with your Linux CD. Do you really
> need 10 different editors? Five different compilers? 20 different
> utilities to enable your printer to print?
> 10 different dialup programs?
Ain't it neat? I actually get to pick the one I like the best, instead
of having some bozo from Redmond make that decision for me.
> Take an honest look and make a decision.
> How about data that won't work with anyone but another Linux user?
How about data that only works with Microsoft? Haven't you got this
completely bass-ackwards?
> Sure basic Excel and Word documents work, but do the sophisticated
> ones work?
Absolutely.
> Nope, and I speak from experience.
Goddamn teenagers think they know everything. Look kid, stay in school
but pick a backup career choice, like plumber or carpenter, so I don't
have to support your unemployable worthless ass with my taxes.
> Linux is truly not an option for most people.
> It is a joke of a system.
> Don't believe it? Try it for yourself at http://www.cheapbytes.com
> For $1.99 you can try any distro you wish and draw your own
> conclusions.
OK. So how much W2K can I get for $1.99?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:08:13 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> I picked POVray as a benchmark because 3D Photo Realistic pictures
> interests me. It's a Real World application. I was curious, which OS would
> it run faster on. I was expecting to see both Windows and Linux to run at
> roughly the same speed - but what do I descover - Linux is _slower_ than
> Windows.
>
> Now if Linux is slower than Windows for this, would that not imply that
> Linux is probably slower for other things as well?
Nope. You just haven't been listening. And you never answered my question.
Did you use the version of POVray compiled for 386 or the one compiled for
686?
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
