Linux-Advocacy Digest #319, Volume #27 Sat, 24 Jun 00 23:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (Salvador
Peralta)
Re: Where is Linux going? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
RE: Where is Linux going? ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 01:35:44 GMT
On 24 Jun 2000 20:04:59 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>The commercial "FrontPage" version may need special protocols
>>to do that web-overview pane thing it does, but the free version
>>does not support this feature at all.
>
>Since I don't use it, I've forgotten the details, but I think
>the original version did not have ftp and required the
>extentions on the server side to automatically publish
That is correct. They did offer an ftp add-on as a download, but the
original package did not include it. I'm sure it was just an oversight
that the ftp thing didn't make the CD pressing.
The extensions also provide a number of so-called "bots" for things
like email forms and site searches. Basically CGI scripts, but all in
one large ~2 MB executable. It was common for users to use these
without realising the need for server-side support, which my company
did not have for a while due to serious security problems with the
early releases.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:06:37 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> I doubt it. Libertarians routinely come up with the most
> ridiculous justifications for harmful activities by business-
> men.
It also occurs to me that they seldom address the extent to which
government investment has fostered economic growth in countries like the
united states. Our current economic boom is due, in no small measure,
by protocols that were funded by the government and a communications
infrastructure that have been paid for with a mixture of public and
private funds.
Simply saying that increased taxes leads to decreased consumer spending
is a rather shaky edifice on which to base an opinion about economic
growth. Say what you will about public education, but countries that
have widespread public education have higher literacy rates than
countries that do not. Countries that invest public funds in
infrastructure such as roads, telecommunications, water works, electric
works, etc. tend to have a stronger base upon which to build a diverse
and successful economy than those which do not. Countries that provide
for the weakest elements of a society, and which protect their citizens
from the often dynamic and painful shifts associated with markets tend
to have political and social stability which in turn creates a better
environment for commerce and economic growth.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is Linux going?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 19:19:50 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cihl wrote:
>
> You forgot something. Both Gnome and KDE are, right at this moment,
> working on office suites.
VistaSource (aka Applix) makes the best office package curreently
available on linux, imho. They also appear to be doing a great job of
attracting developers. Since they already have a head start over both
the gnome and kde groups, I believe that they will continue to stay out
front for some time
> The Corel-Linux distribution is, without a doubt, one of the worst
> Linux-distributions ever created.
Agreed. But since I bought some shares of corel last week at just under
$4 per share, I'm hoping that they will improve in the near future.
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 24 Jun 2000 21:24:54 -0500
In article <XN655.21967$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't have much of a problem with MS incorporating standard
>> features that are correct within their capability. However
>> delivering non-standard MSCHAP to every desktop was certainly
>> an attempt to force ISPs to replace their existing dial-up
>> equipment with NT/RAS servers and most certainly evil.
>
>That seems consistant with your "Unix good/not Unix evil" approach;
>the TCP/IP stack conforms to Unix's, so its good. MSCHAP
>doesn't, so its evil.
Things that interoperate are good, things designed to break
other products are evil. MSCHAP broke every existing
dialup service, most of which were done in dedicated
hardware from a large number of vendors in spite of
your repeated meaningless references to unix. Of course
MS offered NT/RAS as a replacement at precisely the same
time they dropped this client on every desktop. Just
a coincidence, I suppose...
>I gotta give you marks for consistancy.
It is MS that shows this consistent behavior. I am
just observing.
>[snip]
>MS must know perfectly well that their POSIX emulation
>isn't actually useful.
Yet you defend their action in selling it where posix
compliance was a requirement???
>[snip]
>> Something that
>> fools you into using these non-standard changes is evil.
>
>I do not seriously accept this notion of MS software as
>an agent of deceit, pulling the wool over the eyes of
>programmers everywhere. :D
Then you just aren't paying attention, or you are
so vendor-locked yourself that the situation just
doesn't happen. Maybe you need to get out more.
>[snip]
>> >You say they've demonstrated it. When? How?
>>
>> At precisely the time when unix/samba started taking a substantial
>> share of file services, MS released a service pack that broke
>> the authentication model that made samba easy to use.
>
>As I've said, if you are going to rely on NT's internal implementaiton
>details, this is what will happen to you. MS does provide a way to
>do things like SAMBA that doesn't depend on undocumented
>stuff.
Remember this was in the context of other companies developing
things to compete with MS services. My point (this time)
was not about the evilness of not documenting and sticking
to these wire protocols, but about the inhibiting effect
that has on competition.
>[snip]
>> Huh? How does using one standard prevent you from also
>> implementing others?
>
>It doesn't. It's *restricting* yourself to the standard that does.
So implement all the standards you need. Or get the standards
updated if you have invented some new concept they don't already
handle.
[snip]
>> >> More likely because no one trusts the next version release or
>> >> service pack to work the same way.
>> >
>> >That isn't so. Lots of people write software for MS OSes;
>> >obviously they *are* willing to trust MS not to break their
>> >stuff on the next service pack.
>>
>> Care to count the bodies among the ones that trusted MS?
>
>And yet they just keep lining up.
Yes, monopolies have a way of taking away your choices.
>I think these companies know something you don't know:
>specifically, they know that MS is one of the more benign
>platform vendors around.
I don't get that impression at all reading (say) the deposition
from IBM against MS.
[snip]
>> >> Having given up your choices to a monpoly controlling one thing
>> >> should not force you to give them up in all related areas.
>> >
>> >It doesn't of course, but you've shown how this isn't limited to
>> >related areas or 'leveraging'.
>>
>> What have I shown that isn't related?
>
>You've shown that AT&T was prohibited from expanding into
>computers because of their monopoly on phones, even
>though they had not in fact leveraged their monopoly to do so.
Right. Being a government-granted monopoly they followed
the legal requirements instead of going ahead and breaking
them (at least in this case). The reasoning was that having
end-to-end control of data would wrongfully leverage the existing
communications line monopoly.
>[snip]
>> >That would seem to argue they should be cheering MS on in their
>> >efforts to dethrone Netscape, surely?
>>
>> What an odd comment. I don't recall Netscape ever bundling their
>> browser into an OS with a monopoly on the desktop and insisting that
>> it is an integral component that can't be removed.
>
>I do recall Netscape bundling their browser with every computer
>they could. You said... "dictating what everyone sees when
>they connect to the Internet"; I'd say Netscape was doing a better
>job of that then that MS is doing now!
I must have missed that. I never saw Netscape bundled with
hardware. Was it on anything close to a majority of machines
shipped for some time?
>> I'm not sure
>> that Netscape even did anything to attempt to force hardware vendors
>> to pre-install copies. Where has anyone ever used Netscape other
>> than by choice?
>
>Come now. Netscape was clearly a monopoly. What other choice had they?
I used mosaic myself. Others who were using Netscape had to
track it down themselves, so it was clearly their choice to
have it on their machines.
>> It is directing them to obey the law.
>
>A law which *apparently* details the features an OS may contain.
In what way an existing monopoly can use its power would
be a better description.
>> That may have an effect
>> on software design, but an indirect one.
>
>There's nothing indirect about "take Internet Explorer out". This
>is a direct design decition; Thou Shalt Not Have Web Browsing.
I thought there was a rather large portion of the trial that
covered whether internet browsing was in fact an operating
system function or not. This was a finding of fact, not
an arbitrary decision.
>> Much like court decisions
>> on medical issues can establish whether something is legal
>> even though the court does not design medical procedures.
>
>I do not know if the courts tell doctors how to perform sugery;
>but at this point it wouldn't surprise me much.
I recall a recent case that made the news where a surgeon carved
his initials on a woman's abdomen after completing an operation,
and yes, I expect that the court will tell hem he shouldn't have
done that...
>[snip]
>> Why do you think it is so important to continue to include
>> a no-extra-cost component and force everyone to keep it
>> by claiming it can't be removed?
>
>Probably some sort of word-domination plot. But what has that
>to do controlling *television* networks?
What do they have in common? Control of information? Big
money? The ability to run commercials with Bill Gates
promising the best is yet to come to anyone who wonders
why it isn't good enough yet? There must be something.
>[snip]
>
>"Interpreting" the law and making it up as they go are pretty
>indistinguishable.
Like being told you can't bundle something, and then continuing
and pretending the same thing is integrated instead?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: RE: Where is Linux going?
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 22:28:08 GMT
The same history again ? Do you think that persons are going to tie
again to a OS & Applications developer ? Be serious. Besides, as
a GNU/Linux user I've found Corel Linux simply horrible. Anyway,
KDE and GNOME are developing open source office suites, and if
GNU/Linux wins (as it is already doing), it will be with open source
code.
------------------------------
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: 24 Jun 2000 21:46:35 -0500
In article <BN655.21963$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Well, if you are going to rely on the internal inplementation
>> >details of NT, you can't be too shocked when this happens.
>>
>> Yes, this is precisely why wire protocols are the correct
>> level of interoperability.
>
>Hmm?
>
>Are you saying that wire protocols are teh correct level of
>interoperability *because* they leave you dependant on
>internal implementation details, so you break more
>easily?
No, MS supplies enough broken products - you clearly don't need
interoperability for that.
>Surely you don't mean *that*.
Correct, what I mean is that by using standard wire
protocols you gain the ability to use any implementation
you want, under any vendor's OS, changing either end
separately.
>[snip]
>> >They made no such attempt. They merely trying to make Java
>> >a useful Windows-development tool *as well* as as
>> >cross-platform boondoggle.
>>
>> Right... It was just accidental that if you built something
>> in J++ it wouldn't run even under Windows as an applet
>> under Netscape. Sure it was.
>
>This just isn't reailty.
Perhaps it has been changed after the uproar. It was
the reality when we used it. There was no indication
that it was not going to work with Netscape.
>J++ could build portable *and* nonportable classes.
I didn't do this myself so I'm not sure I am describing
it correctly, but the impression I got was that you
had to give up the visual tools that were the main
reason for using it in the first place to do portable
code.
>[snip]
>> >I think you underestimate the intelligence of Windows programmers;
>> >we're clever enough to know the different between portable
>> >stuff and Windows specific stuff.
>>
>> No, I've seen it firsthand. The guy in the next office spent
>> weeks building a java applet under J++ that for no obvious reason
>> would not work under Netscape. Then days finding out how he had been
>> tricked.
>
>Okay, so there is at least one Windows programmer who writes
>cross-platform code but doesn't bother to find out what's portable
>and what isn't.
Java, by definition is portable. The problem was that the MS
version wasn't really java, even though it was represented
as such.
>I stand corrected.
When we tracked down what was really happening we found that
many others had made the same mistake. And MS was in the
courts, again...
>I nevertheless cling to the notion that most of them, when they want
>to write portable code, do check. It's not like you wouldn't have to
>with any *other* Java tool.
No, it is really sad that you think an MS programmer should
automatically expect his programming tools to be broken.
Visual Cafe had no similar problem at all. We developed
both applets that worked correctly across platforms and
server-side servlets that ran the same on both NT and
Linux servers with it, just copying the compiled byte
code around.
>[snip]
>I don't think the authors of the Sherman act ever
>envisioned it being used in a market where virtually
>everyone has a 'monopoly' over some niche or other.
>They were thinking of commodity markets; and oil
>in particular, as I understand it.
'Niche' products don't end up on every desktop in the
country and as a side effect control what you see as
you connect to the internet.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
