Linux-Advocacy Digest #735, Volume #27 Mon, 17 Jul 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen) (Jacques Guy)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Darren Winsper)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ("John W. Stevens")
Open letter to T. Max Devlin
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Tim Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:57:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>I don't know - it wouldn't suprise me (although it would surprise me if they
>were anything but a tiny minority). Much as I dislike ms's business
>tactics, I would stop short of comparing them to drug barons. Much of ms's
>success is based on reasonable products (on average - individually, their
>software ranges from worse than useless through to a few very good products)
>and excellent marketting - they just use illegal practices to get an extra
>push. They would still be a large, successful software company even without
>breaking the law.
Well, if you'll forgive me, *that*, I've got to disagree with. As a
bald supposition, of course, it stands on its own; anything could
happen. And if you're thinking that the charges for which Microsoft
stands convicted are the limit of where we might allow that MS has
broken the law, you have a legal truth, but I wouldn't call it the real
truth.
Examining the evidence, it doesn't seem like this proposition stands up
to reasonable consideration. Bill Gates and Microsoft haven't ever show
any ability to compete on technical merits. Their entire history is one
anti-competitive practice after another. Each one not so much legal as
difficult to prosecute. That "extra push" they get from illegal
practices is there stock in trade. Many people observe in the numerous
"Microsoft Innovation" threads that their value to the consumer seems
more due to their appropriation of any advances that the industry
generally has to offer.
The only reason, in fact, that the "stroke of genius" which started the
whole mess, maintaining control of DOS licensing on the IBM product
line, paid off is because it allowed the resultant per-processor scam.
And that seems to be the first and last development from Microsoft of
any true note.
There's every reason to believe that Microsoft might be a company, but
certainly not a large and successful company, if a competitive market.
As far as I can tell, they've never had to compete in a competitive
market.
In fact, I wanted to keep my mouth shut (for once), but if we're going
to bring up drug barons, it might be worth observing that Microsoft's
market power is purely and entirely based on the necessity which taking
their product instantly causes for more of their product in the future.
The natural "lock in" of software, the dependency on it for access to
your data, is, in fact, greatly enhanced by the producer in a direct and
concerted effort to increase the dependance on their product, with
nothing more than a dubious future foreseeable for the consumers of
their wares.
I tend to think there's a whole lot of parallels between drug barons and
Microsoft.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[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: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:58:42 -0500
> >Let's have your take on it.
>
> The oversight of an elected body rather than the whim of a
> Robber Baron that is in a position to do anything it likes
> being rather out of the control of the "invisible hand" at
> this point.
>
> Government is occasionally a necessary evil, usually to
> counteract some other evil. Hopefully, all such evils
> are checked in the end. This includes corporations.
History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this sort of thing
than a government. Government may correctly provide some oversight to business,
but when the government itself gets involved in business you can bet the bank on
failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
--
Mark
------------------------------
From: [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: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:03:58 GMT
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:58:42 -0500, Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Let's have your take on it.
>>
>> The oversight of an elected body rather than the whim of a
>> Robber Baron that is in a position to do anything it likes
>> being rather out of the control of the "invisible hand" at
>> this point.
>>
>> Government is occasionally a necessary evil, usually to
>> counteract some other evil. Hopefully, all such evils
>> are checked in the end. This includes corporations.
>
>History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this sort of thing
>than a government. Government may correctly provide some oversight to business,
>but when the government itself gets involved in business you can bet the bank on
>failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
Without such oversight we wouldn't have to worry about this
entire argument as Microsoft as it is now would never have
had the opportunity to come into existence.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:09:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>It is all about choice. No one (except real fanatics) objects to Windows
>being the most popular OS, or MS Office being the most popular office suite.
>What people object to is being forced to use them whether they like them or
>not. One of the effects of the split is that MS is going to have to fully
>document and explain the Win32 API (if the court had ruled that the API was
>to be reveiled without splitting the company, ms would have been able to
>keep the documentation out-of-date - new versions of the API would only be
>publically documented after they had already used it for new versions of
>Office and other apps).[...]
Since I'm so often accused, and so often appear, I'll admit, like a
"real fanatic" according to David's description, I wanted to repost and
remark on his statement. I don't think I could agree more with what he
says here.
I don't have anything against Windows. I do think that the market will,
when the rubber meets the road. I have on many occasions taken the
opportunity to point out that I think it is a shoddy piece of work, that
most of the "value" is dependant purely on lock-in and familiarity.
That it fails randomly and is horribly over-complex, in no small part by
conscious choice, and that it attempts to over-trivialize both the
difficulty and importance of actually integrating multiple software
components to provide enhanced and extensive OS-level services. I think
primarily this comes from two specific sources, and the market will
reject or modify both when the results Paul describes take place. One
is the failure of the registry approach, and the other is the
implementation of middleware directly into the OS. I see these two as
both having been implemented primarily to allow extension of the
original DOS per-processor monopoly, and not on technical merit. Either
one is conducive to fantasies, and they are both decent ideals for
guiding further development. A single structural format for
configuration information, and wide and deep OS level services, are both
goals to reach for. But neither can be engineered by caveat, and the
current implementations are all but unusable, in my opinion.
So I might sound like a fanatic, but I'm quite willing, and even
extremely eager, to let the market decide. I think the market is every
bit as eager to do so, as well. It might be a handicap having to get
out from under Microsoft's illusionary bar, the fantasy that their Win32
API is OS, middle ware, and applications all rolled into one. But
Windows will still be around for quite some time, as will Office, I'm
sure.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:15:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[...]
>> >I disagree with most of your post, but I *must* fight the
>> >temptation to argue with you into the "rounding error" zone.
>>
>> As much as I agreed with Mr. Brown's sentiment, I'm not here for his
>> pleasure, nor are you. If you'd like to discuss it, please do so.
>
>It is not Mr. Brown who compels me to cut short my response, it
>is my work-load.
Touche. Sorry.
[...]
>> And yet despite all those wonderful qualities, you still have to pay
>> for Windows' crappy design. I pity you. But if you don't want my
>> pity, I'll be glad to consider that you benefit from and encourage
>> such crappy design. You get my pity, or my animosity.
>
>A dichotomy from T. Max Devlin!?!?!
Thanks for noticing, but it was a rhetorical device.
>Those are your choices. We choose to be proud of our ability to give
>our customers results instead of excuses and lectures on "Windows'
>crappy design".
Ooh, you got me. How about you give them results *and* an explanation
of Window's failure to support interoperability with itself and complete
disregard for interoperability, or even co-existence, with other
systems?
I know it sounds preachy, but I think they expect you to give them
advice on technical matters.
>BTW, I will be out of town and out of touch for another week. I will
>be conducting the voodoo ritual of joining an OLE server with an
>ActiveX client in an unholy union.
Don't forget your sow's gizzards. I mean MCSE disks.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:33:24 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451743 (Tholen)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> Not as long as Joe Malloy is around.
[...]
> Who are those?
[...]
> You're presupposing the existence of source code.
L'a vraiment que dalle a foutre alors, le mec.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:37:54 -0400
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:00 -0400, Ed Cogburn
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
>> me!
>
>
> Microsoft considers anyone writing PC software besides themselves to
>be a threat.
Yep, just like Ford considers anyone else making cars besides
themselves to be a threat. Welcome to the business world.
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[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: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:37:39 -0500
I have no problem with some government oversight. I think there are plenty of
examples to show that unchecked business is as bad as unchecked government. But what
I truly dread is a government that gets involved in business beyond strict oversight.
The profit motive is essential for business; it is destructive for government. We
must do what we can to keep those two groups separate.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 13:58:42 -0500, Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Let's have your take on it.
> >>
> >> The oversight of an elected body rather than the whim of a
> >> Robber Baron that is in a position to do anything it likes
> >> being rather out of the control of the "invisible hand" at
> >> this point.
> >>
> >> Government is occasionally a necessary evil, usually to
> >> counteract some other evil. Hopefully, all such evils
> >> are checked in the end. This includes corporations.
> >
> >History has shown that there is no group consistently worse at this sort of thing
> >than a government. Government may correctly provide some oversight to business,
> >but when the government itself gets involved in business you can bet the bank on
> >failure. Nobody does business worse than government.
>
> Without such oversight we wouldn't have to worry about this
> entire argument as Microsoft as it is now would never have
> had the opportunity to come into existence.
>
> --
> The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
> where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
> component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to build
> their own works.
>
> This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
> in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
> anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
> |||
> / | \
--
Mark Kelley
Agriculture Information Systems
Purdue University
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: 17 Jul 2000 19:41:26 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:40:12 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have access to a copy of the final version of Windows Me. Seems to work
> fine with everything I've thrown at it, although they seem to have dropped
> Voodoo drivers from Me. The current Voodoo 3 drivers seem to work just fine
> with it.
The strange thing is, I finally got the Voodoo2 drivers to install
using the same method that failed, more or less. The problem was, when
it detects new hardware, it gives the hardware a generic name and I
have to guess which drivers to shove in (For example, my WinTV and
Voodoo2 cards are both PCI video devices).
> I use Netscape so I can't really comment.
Somebody's a glutton for punishment. I really dislike IE's lack of
standards compliance and MS's latest proprietry push, but I really like
the way the toolbars are customisable and the fact that it's stable
(Well, 5.5 is not as stable as 5.0 I've found, but never mind).
> >> The big jump in the Windows desktop was with Windows 95.
> >
> >Definately. In fact, with GNOME and KDE I now see a lot of
> >similarities in peoples' reaction to that with the launch of Win95.
> >"Oh, M$ ripped off RISC OS", "Win95 == MacOS87" etc. etc. The only
> >difference I see now is it's everyone complaining that KDE and GNOME
> >are copying Windows.
>
> I don't know about Microsoft ripping off RISC OS,
A lot of RISC OS folks screamed "they ripped off the icon bar" for
months after Win95 was released, just read some old Acorn Users :)
> if they did they left
> behind one of the best bits - RISC OS supported dragging from apps to the
> file manager, unlike the mini explorer that became File | Open and File |
> Save.
Yes, but did you see how the RO save box behaved? It would have been
nice if it didn't tend to dissapear once you clicked away from it.
> I know more about KDE and there are some similarities to Windows 9x/2000
> desktop.
Indeed, but GUIs are all ripped off one another these days. KDE was
designed to be familiar enough to Windows users to allow an easy
transition, but it's not really a clone. KDE2 is even less like
Windows.
> >KDE, OK, I can see the similarities. Visually, they are quite similar,
> >but that's about where the comparison ends. The KDE panel is quite
> >different to the taskbar and the 'running programs' panel is at the
> >top. You can even have a MacOS-like menubar at the top.
>
> Microsoft seem to be sprouting 'app bars' all over the desktop. The LHS is
> the Start button, to the right, Quick Apps and to the far right, the time
> and the 'system tray'.
Indeed, it is quite nice in its new customisable form, but it's still
not really like KDE's. KDE2 supports applets in the panel much like
GNOME, and you can't really say Windows does that.
One thing I do like that MS added is the address bar. If you rip it
off and stick it at the top of the screen, it doesn't obstruct other
apps and when you type in a URL, up pops IE loading that address. IIRC
there is an applet for GNOME that adds this functionality, and I really
like it.
> MOTIF has very thick borders and grooves.
Indeed.
> The default button has a big
> recess around it. It's not ugly, but on a 1024x768 screen, its a bit too
> big!
I disagree, I think it's as ugly as hell. I really dislike the
scrollbars, and the drop-down menu button looks horrid, Windows does it
much better IMHO. RISC OS had a nice one too.
> >I actually keep hidden files on, they remove some clutter and it's
> >easy to turn them back on when you want to alter them.
>
> Writing device drivers and DLL's, it's easier to keep 'em on.
I guess so, but that's not exactly most people :)
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:49:15 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:36:24 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Steve Mading wrote:
> >
> >Tell me, did you "Win" with the winmodem?
> >A) Yes
> >B) No
> >
> >
> >If the answer is B, then it is a LOSEmodem.
>
> I think the term UNmodem works much better...
In keeping with the lastest advertising fads, I suggest:
Modem!Not
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Open letter to T. Max Devlin
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:58:27 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello,
There are some basic facts that you have to realize and acknowledge.
You are not the most intelligent and educated person posting in the usenet
newsgroups and the internet mailing lists. You are not the person with the
most expericence in computers in the on-line world. You are not most
skilled computerist on-line. Everyone who has ever tried to claim those
acknolwdgements from their peers have been exposed to the be the arrogant
fools that they infact were. In many cases they were hoisted on their own
petards. If you are even average you would be lucky.
The field electrical/eectronic computers history that spans more that a
century and extends even further back through the use of programmable
mechanical computers. The electronic computer field has inherited the core
if its jargon from those of its parent fields that include mathematics,
electronics, mechanical computing, engineering, etc. In addition it has
developed a large and rich sublanguage of its own. You have to accept to
learn and use the jargon of any field you enter, if you want to be able to
communicate with those who are in the field. For you to want someone to
WANT to say things using your words, phrases, and idioms, is the
personification of arrogance.
For you to determine what is acceptable language for others to use ignores
the jargon of the field is an insult to the pioneers who have created the
field and all those who have made readily available computing platforms a
reality, is the height of hubris. WIth appologies to the great scientist,
if you hav a computer that is better and can compute faster and better that
those of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, and 70 years ago, this is only because you
computer was built on the foundations built of those older computing
platforms. Their users, operators, programmers and creators were those who
blazed the trail to permit you to have access to your current computing
platform. What makes you think you know better than all of them?
You can not teach anyone on the in this newsgroups anything, in that you can
not make any one learn short of brain washing. You can present your
applicable knowledge and opinions in these news groups and someone may learn
something from your comments but you can not teach them anything. I know
that many members of the on-line community have learned from me, based on
the thanks I have recieved, but I would never have the attitude that I could
make them learn as you seem to believe you can.
Beside the issue of jargon, English is a large and rich and evolving
language with multiple ways to say the same thing--all with equal validity.
The English language has an inheritance from the Picts, Celts, Vikings,
Romans, Normans, Angelo, Saxons, Jutes, Francs, and many other peoples.
These sources provides us a large pallete of words, phrases, and idioms to
select from. Many meanings have multiple ways of being stated and many
words also have multiple meanings--all valid.
I find your messages to date and the attitude they present to be insulting
and indictive of a pompus fool.
Good day.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:04:03 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "V'rgo Vardja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8kmlmh$1bh2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <snip everything>
> >
> > Use Windows 2000 Professional...
> >
> > Most Winvocates would agree with you, Win9x is a stinking pile of dog shit.
> >
>
> Aren't these the exact same shit-heads who, only 10 months ago, were
> babbling incoherently about how Lose98 was so excellant that absolutely
> NOTHING could be better?
No - different group of shitheads ... the shitheads that actually
like win98 still like it just fine.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
