Linux-Advocacy Digest #201, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
RE: Windows98 ("David Cancio")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Leslie Mikesell)
RE: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking Intelligent
Windows Advocates...) ("David Cancio")
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone (Leslie
Mikesell)
Testing, testing, testing (Gary Chu)
Re: Stability of the Culture of Helpfulness (J Bland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:52:01 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:23:28 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fair enough. Ignore my other reply to Colin then.
Done.
> My impression is that Microsoft really didn't know what the hell it
> was going to build when it was working on NT, so it covered all bases.
Legal bases as well, the varations of the promised user interfaces was a
result of the not knowing what would happen in court in their case agains
Apple.
Some of the comments I have seen in this thread had me thinking that the
silly season was here. Like Windows NT could not have had a interface based
on Windows 3.x, because Windows 3.x was not yet out the same for the 486 and
the devlopment of the 586 (Pentium). As well as the remaining comments
against my positions and statements in this thread.
Most of my statements in this thread are supported by documents provided by
Microsoft itself. Not supported by the information available on-line from
their web sites, rather supported by the hardcopy documents supplied by
Microsoft at the time of the development of Windows NT.
Website documentation can be altered to creativly modify history remove
references to promises not delivered, but the hardcopy documentation is as
good as being set in stone.
A copy of the book "Inside Windows NT" published by Microsoft Press that was
provided as a handout during a Microsoft Wndows devlopers seminar. The
seminar took place before the release of Windows NT.
We were instructed to develop software for Windows NT on Windows 3.1 hosts
using the wins32 addon, so that our software could be available when NT is
released. How could this be possible if Windows 3.1 was not yet available
until aftr Windows NT? The book cites the 80386 and the 80486 as existing
platforms. Other hand outs cited the future of Windows with the 586 How if
the 486 was not yet out and the 80586 was not yet being planned?
The book and the handout promise support for ALL windows programs. The book
limits the suppor for Dos programs to those that do not need direct hardware
access. BUT, a handout that more current that the book, (titled "Providing
hardware access to MSDOS programs under VDM") outlined methods that HAD BEEN
implemented to permit Dos programs that need direct hardware access to run
on Windows NT, providing that it is implemented on computer with the
particular hardware actually present. This was supplemental to the virtual
hardware access that is provide for some feature today by VDM today.
There were more promises such as: full support for unix programs written to
the POSIX standards once recompiled for the NT platform. Full support for
OS/2 programs in binary form on Intel processors and source code
recompilations on other processors. Future support for other API and
emulations when needed, including MacIntosh programs, NetWare NLM's, BSD,
Unix, Vax, VMS, and PDP's. (About the BSD unix, Vax and VMS, that is not my
error, it comes from Microsoft.)
Almost everything that people have taken exception to in my position are
supported by these documents. The exceptions are the opensource drivers by
hardware companies and Microsoft distributing Window's 1.x and 2.x as
freeware.
I am supprised to the reacation against open source hardware drivers. At
one time no hardware devices came with any drivers. The manufacturer would
supply the documentation of the interaction of the device with the host
computer, often it was included with every copy of the device sold. It was
then the job of the operating systems programmers and other interested
parties to develop what every driver they would need to handle the device.
After a while some manufactureres started writing drivers by way of ROM's
containing the Bios extensions for the devvice. Then the manufacturers
started providing device drivers and some where along the line they stopped
providing the documentation of their hardware as they used to. Also
Microsoft came out with their "assistance to the hardware manufacturers"
which "required" non-discloseure and non-competition clauses.
We often hear about the high cost that hardware manufacturers have had to
endure to provide device drivers. With what I was proposing would relieve
the hardware manufacturers of this burden or at least reduce it for them to
a level as low as they prefer. The cost savings could be passed on as lower
prices for the consumers or they could take the money they are saving and
plow it right back into hardware R&D, resulting in more and better and more
economical hardware for all of us.
The Freeware distribution of "olderware" is not unheard of. In fact it
often has beneficial results for the company that does this. I say: If it
was a marketable software product and it still has value why not sell it?
If it is "valuless" what is there to loose by giving it away? Why lock it
away in a vault and benefit no one at all?
> When Windows 3.x skyrocketed in popularity they decided to run with it
> and we now have the monopoly we know and love today.
Love? The only monopoly I love contains Park Place, Boardwalk, and Marvin
Gardens.
------------------------------
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:06:36 GMT
In article <8ilsep$inu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>In article <Dit35.16612$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>
>>FAQS are good, sometimes! But again it doesn't fullfil the original posters
>>comments that you can get the same type of information for free with Linux
>>in the same packaging as is contained in the Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
>>Resource Kit. Fact is you can't. You can buy, usually for less the same type
>>of information in a bound copy for Linux as Microsoft Press is selling for
>>$209($29.86/volume U.SofA prices). It may not be a whole lot less if it has to
>
>>span the same 7 volumes.
>
>Note, though, that the real details and the ability to change them
>come only with access to the source code.
Yes... but that doesn't help you set up a DHCP server or whatever. FAQS help,
sometimes. Web sites also, but a book can often be the best tool.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
Limited engagement - Olympic Torch gala in Alice Springs, Australia
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=609126&a=6708709
------------------------------
From: "David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Windows98
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:04:53 GMT
> As has been beaten to death in the past, windows98 is clearly the best
> gaming platform that exists at the moment. Its also really good for
people
> who use their computers only rarely, and then only for looking at
> highly proprietary document formats.
I think it is (at Intel PC world) the best multimedia platform too (guess
it
is the same than gaming one).
> Its awful for everything else.
Okay, I agree ... for almost anything.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 20 Jun 2000 08:17:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> It's a known bug. It usually happens if you connect to other shares on
>> other machines.
>>
>> Pete
>
>In all fairness, Microsoft does have a patch for that on Windows
>Update. I think it's the general update. It works nicely on my
>machine.
Damn. Doesn't work on mine. Maybe I should try it again.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: 20 Jun 2000 02:25:31 -0500
In article <8in4sr$ejk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Website documentation can be altered to creativly modify history remove
>references to promises not delivered, but the hardcopy documentation is as
>good as being set in stone.
>
>A copy of the book "Inside Windows NT" published by Microsoft Press that was
>provided as a handout during a Microsoft Wndows devlopers seminar. The
>seminar took place before the release of Windows NT.
[...]
>There were more promises such as: full support for unix programs written to
>the POSIX standards once recompiled for the NT platform. Full support for
>OS/2 programs in binary form on Intel processors and source code
>recompilations on other processors. Future support for other API and
>emulations when needed, including MacIntosh programs, NetWare NLM's, BSD,
>Unix, Vax, VMS, and PDP's. (About the BSD unix, Vax and VMS, that is not my
>error, it comes from Microsoft.)
Thanks. I'm sure I remember that claim as well, but I think it
was made in a video that was shown at pre-introduction conferences.
It may have been in a hardcopy handout but I most likely discarded
it a long time ago. I wonder if it is still possible to find copies
of that book? I was very interested in the support for unix
programs at the time because NT would have been cheaper than the
386 sysV's that were available - but of course it turned out
not to be true.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: RE: A Better Wintroll Than Wintrolls (was: Re: Desperately Seeking
Intelligent Windows Advocates...)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:28:36 GMT
> On the other hand, almost every advocate of
> Linux/Mac/BeOS/BSD/whatever also has some exposure to WinDOS at some
> level and knows better than any Wintroll (most of whom aren't
> computer-literate and some of whom aren't literate in any sense) about
> both the weaknesses and strengths of the WinDOS platform.
Do not mix. A lot of Linux (Unix) advocates are so convinced about its OS
superiority that it's been a long time since they have tested another one.
Only
people (like me) and several in this news group that have to work with Unix
and
with NT (2000) (and may be several more OS's) can speak with knowledge. I've
seen a lot of Windows 2000 bashing before it came out, do you call that
literated ?
Anyway, Mac users are not as computer-literated as Unix ones at all; and in
my
honest opinion, Mac's have a worse OS than Windows NT or 2000 is (even worse
or equal than Windows 95/98, at least in reliability).
> If I had more time I'd try myself just for the heck of it. (I use
> Linux and sometimes the *BSDs, but have no particular animosity toward
> any OS other than those made by Microsoft, and even those have some
> strong points although they are far outweighed by the bad ones.)
Each OS has good and bad points, you've said. May be or not because of
the
OS itself, but they are there.
> : I know, I know... intelligent & literate would contravene a pro-M$
> : position, but one can but hope.
I am not pro-Microsoft, just do not like lies. I prefer Unix, and I
prefer open
source code too, but, don't like stupidly bashing Microsoft without having
tested
it, or just because it is Microsoft. That company has some good code here
and there.
> It would be like trying to get someone to make an intelligent and
> literate case for racism. Almost by definition it's impossible. But
> once you've argued with enough racists (as I have) you get to the
> point where you could make a better case for *their* side than they
> can, although it would be a weak case nonetheless.
In this case, I agree.
> : I'm looking for someone who can actually think and write rationally and
> : logically, and who is willing to do so in Microsoft's favor.
Okay, but you should agree in the fact that a lot of let's call
linvocates at this
group use to be ... too rude ? And discuss not too rationally or logically.
> I might but only as a devil's advocate. I don't use Windows or any
> Microsoft product by choice, and while I do have to use them at work,
> I'd prefer not to and am constantly trying to find ways to migrate
> away from Microsoft "solutions" and toward open/nonproprietary ones
> wherever possible.
That's what each rational person would do I think, but ... today is still
difficult, although less than yesterday, and I hope than more than tomorrow.
> First, Windows is everywhere, on the desktop at least, and is thus a
> _de facto_ standard. Writing for Windows guarantees by far the
> largest market share, both now and for the foreseeable future. In
> many markets it simply doesn't pay to write cross-platform code,
> especially GUI code (which is notoriously difficult), just in order to
> reach the 5 or 10% of the market that doesn't run Windows at least
> part-time.
GUI code difficult nowadays ? I think there are enough GUI visual
designers around. Anyway, there is Java too, isn't it ? (though I do not
like it too much).
> Second, Windows offers an unparallelled depth, breadth, and variety of
> third-party software that not only has never been matched in the
> history of computing, but is never likely to be again (since it is
> likely that diversity, not another monopoly, will be what eventually
> reduces Windows to a less dominant role).
But not still ...
> It may be that Windows is
> not the ideal platform for any single application, but it is clearly
> the best "all purpose" platform viewed from the standpoint of
> available software, in large part because it is the *only* all purpose
> platform from that standpoint.
Agree fully, and more for home user.
> BeOS has little software;
I don't like Be even if it had more software, it is not multiuser, it is
propietary too. What the Hell is Be hype ? I have tested it and found
nothing wonderful. May be I have not tested enough ?
> Linux has
> lots but much of it is not as consistent or user-friendly as its
> Windows counterparts, and it does some kinds of multimedia poorly
> (chiefly due to limitations in X).
That's the key for home user.
> The Mac, while it has some very
> high-quality apps, doesn't have very many of them.
And besides it is more expensive (even now that they have changed
to PCI, IDE and the such PC architecture). Anyway, that's what I would
call a porpietary market (with hard and soft in the same company).
> If you want a PC
> to do everything from sound editing to scanning to serving small Web
> sites to creating and editing word processing and desktop database
> documents, Windows is not only your best choice, but pretty much your
> only choice.
Well, finally I find someone that like me prefer Unix, but even so, he
can
see the present.
> Finally, Windows has two things that most other platforms do not: MS
> Office and Internet Explorer. Like it or not Office is the _de facto_
> standard for document creation and exchange within large
> organizations, and more and more Web pages are optimized for IE so
> that over time it will be more and more difficult to have a
> decent browsing experience without it. There are other Office-like
> programs, but they are less featureful than MS Office and may not be
> able to import and export to/from Office formats reliably; similarly,
> there are a few other decent Web browsers but they are either
> unfinished (Mozilla), buggy (Netscape), or expensive (Opera . . .
> expensive at least compared to free/gratis). The three combined don't
> equal IE's share at present, so naturally Web developers are writing
> mostly for IE.
God ! True 100%; what's more, I think anyway that IE is better than
Netscape is (may be just a preference). Anyway, IE is not a bad product.
We all know that security holes are almost at every place nowadays, be
it IE, Netscape, Linux kernel, gnapster, etc ...
> I think my arguments are logical and factually correct. Their biggest
> problem is neither fact nor logic, but what they *omit* - for
> instance, that many of the very advantages I believe Windows
> possesses, it possesses partly or completely for the reason of its
> being a monopoly, which in turn came about because of unlawful and
> dishonest activities on its part; or that both developers and users
> would be far better off if there were sufficient competition that
> writing portable code, portable drivers, open file formats and
> protocols, etc. became the rule rather than the exception. Also note
> that I pointed out some real shortcomings in the competing OSen, and
> even acknoweldged some of their strengths (this does wonders for
> credibility - it makes one sound less like an irrational zealot), but
> still managed to paint all of them in a less than positive light.
I have almost no arguments in here, because just agree with most of
yours, but I think I always post logically (at least I try to do it).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: 20 Jun 2000 02:32:34 -0500
In article <0KE35.19314$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>>>in the same packaging as is contained in the Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
>>>Resource Kit. Fact is you can't. You can buy, usually for less the same type
>>>of information in a bound copy for Linux as Microsoft Press is selling for
>>>$209($29.86/volume U.SofA prices). It may not be a whole lot less if it has to
>>
>>>span the same 7 volumes.
>>
>>Note, though, that the real details and the ability to change them
>>come only with access to the source code.
>
>Yes... but that doesn't help you set up a DHCP server or whatever. FAQS help,
>sometimes. Web sites also, but a book can often be the best tool.
Actually the README, TODO, BUGS, and release notes included with the
sources are the best places to find details about quirks and
problems. If you just want to use a package in it's normal
way all you need is an example configuration which is usually
included, and the manual page which is always included. If you
have a real problem the best thing with most packages is to
join its support mailing list, post the problem and the author
will answer - this would certainly work with DHCP and is better
than a book.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Chu)
Subject: Testing, testing, testing
Date: 20 Jun 2000 07:58:12 GMT
OKOKOKOKOK
--
Wysłano ze strony http://newsreader.linuxnews.pl
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J Bland)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Stability of the Culture of Helpfulness
Date: 20 Jun 2000 01:26:33 GMT
> o Buy and use a boxed set of a good Linux distribution, so
> a good manual is available for it. Keep it handy in a
> central place for all users.
>
> o Buy at least six good books on Linux and keep them avail-
> able in the same place. Have a sign-out sheet so people
> can find them when they've disappeared.
>
> o Set up an internal News (NNTP) server for company use only,
> with a few newsgroups for Linux support.
[etc]
> o Each Linux user in the company should spend time helping
> less knowledgeable users, for example by answering ques-
> tions posted in the internal company support newsgroups
> and by adding items to the FAQ.
>
> o Each knowledgeable Linux user in the company should spend
> time answering questions in the external -- community --
> Usenet newsgroups.
>
> o Make sure everyone in the company gets a copy of this
> document, and keeps it handy. 8^)
Wow, wouldn't life be GREAT if it really worked like that ;0).
Imagine it; a world in which people were actually trained to use their
computers effectively and their company set it up so as to help their
employees help themselves and each other.
I'm getting goosepimples just thinking about it...
Frinky
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
