Linux-Advocacy Digest #789, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Perry Pip)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Perry Pip)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Perry Pip)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Perry Pip)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Perry Pip)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Perry Pip)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Perry Pip)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (Perry Pip)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Pan)
Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Pan)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:12:44 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Jul 2000 12:11:13 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "Phil" == phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Phil> There would also be a system whereby a package, newly
> Phil> installed, can "sniff out" other packages that it is supposed
> Phil> to work with and automatically connect to them. For example,
> Phil> if you have apache-3.1.0 installed and you then installed
> Phil> php-5.2.0, then PHP, because it normally works with Apache,
> Phil> realise that Apache is there and [handwaving] sort out how to
> Phil> connect up to it, possibly asking the user first.
>
> This is more an enhancement of the installation system rather
>than the OS per se.
Yes. Of course that depends on how you define the OS. (Is it just
the kernel...)
> Phil> 5. I'd use Python (or something like it) as the standard
> Phil> scripting language, C or C++ as the standard low-level
> Phil> language, and proabably something Java-like in
> Phil> between.
>
> I think that its unlikely that a standard scripting language
>will ever happen. Look at how many people still use sh.
I think you are right. I can see Python gaining mindshare from
Perl and Tcl/tk over the next few years.
> Phil> There'd also be a built-in OO database, and all these
> Phil> languages would have the built-in ability to store their
> Phil> native data structures in the DB, in a way that the other
> Phil> languages could read them.
>
> My own feeling is that commands should all have a switch which
>allows the export as XML, and that each command would keep its DTD
>somewhere standard. Unix excels at pipelining, and small commands, but
>these sometimes break when the output format changes, and the parsing
>breaks down. Structure the output into XML would make parsing a lot
>easier, and more robust,
And more complicated.
> but would still have most of the advantages
>of flat output.
With XML, you'd have to make sure the DTDs were all understandable by the
next stage in the pipe. Still, it'd probably be useful for some tasks.
I'd probably still prefer ascii for most tasks, e.g:
$ ps auxw | grep netscape
or:
$ wc *.cpp *.h | sort
are easy enough as it is.
--
***** Phil Hunt *****
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 07:57:19 +1000
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8l54s4$l08$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Ahhh but there is a problem therein. Until they realized and fixed a
> stupid > 49.7 day bug in THEIR uptime tracking software Windows boxes
> weren't > counting uptime correctly. Hows Windows going to catch up? How
> about if they > reset all these uptimes and start counting over, with W2K
>
> I found one NT box with 211 days at number 124.. it seems the bug is fixed
> or do i miss something??
You missed something. That 49.7 day bug only existed in Win9x.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 19 Jul 2000 21:55:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Jul 2000 18:08:13 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Here's a question for you: can you describe a simple program that can be
>> written in C or C++, but not is VB? If so, you've proven the flaw in your
>> own statement. If not, it should be very easy for others to judge your
>> knowledge of non-VB programming languages.
>
>OK - I'll take the bait. I can't. So, why don't you show us some C logic
>that can't be done in VB. Show me something I can't do in VB...
void endian_flip(unsigned short *word){
int temp = *word;
*word = 0;
for(int i = 1; i < sizeof(unsigned short) ; i++ ){
*word |= (temp & 1);
temp >>= 1;
*word <<= 1;
}
*word |= (temp & 1);
}
Show me how to do that in VB.
And how about writing routines that take variable argument lists. For
example:
#include <stdarg.h>
int sum(int num,...){
int result=0;
int i;
va_list ap;
va_start(ap,num);
for(i=0;i<num;i++)
result += va_arg(ap,int);
va_end(ap);
return result;
}
Note the above can be done with any combination of types, as long as the
routine has a way of knowing what types are passed to it in what
order. Can you do variable argument lists on your subroutines in VB??
Another good example would be an abstract linked list or tree of
pointers, that could then be used as a framework for creating linked
lists or trees of any data type. I can post some code if you want. Can
you do an abstract linked list or tree framework in VB??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 19 Jul 2000 21:55:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:40:34 +1000,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:13:02 +1000,
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> From http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~bergmann/history.html
>> >>
>> >> "BASIC (standing for Beginner's All Purpose Symbolic Instruction
>> >> Code)...the designers wished it to be a stepping-stone for students to
>> >> learn on of the more powerful languages..."
>> >>
>> >> 'nuff said.
>> >
>> >And this stops it being useful.........how ?
>> >
>>
>> Huh?? You really are a terrible reader. My quote of the article
>> clearly indicates what BASIC was intended to be useful for: training
>> beginners how to program.
>
>And this stops it being useful.........how ?
>
Never said that....!
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:52:05 -0600
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> Yes... and I think VB is closer to universal than C++ or Perl which most
> "good" programmers could figure out. I mean, "IF this THEN that ELSE
> theotherthing kinda stuff is what VB proudly touts, no semicolons, and
> brackets all over the place. Just write the code and get the job done. I
> like that...
Python
======
if this:
that
else:
theotherthing
No semi-colons, no brackets.
> But, if you aren't moving or have no intention to or have moved away from to
> Windows -
. . . then you've made a mistake, and have fallen victim to the "Vendor
Lock-In" anti-pattern.
> when windows is the predominant OS and only grows stronger, you do
> not see this as a limitation. I never need to port a VB app to unix, never
> happens. It's usually the unix apps that are porting to Windows...
. . . not all the world is a VAX.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 19 Jul 2000 21:56:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 23:25:11 +1000,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>However, VB is fantastic for quick & dirty apps, or for anything where
>performance (or lack thereof) is mostly irrelevant.
Yes, I agree.
>> But there are a great many tasks for
>> which it is not really suitable.
>
>Outside of a few performance critical areas, these would be ?
Anything on a larger scale than "quick & dirty". Or anything
interfacing with hardware (i.e. drivers).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 19 Jul 2000 21:57:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Jul 2000 17:26:02 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Really?? According to this Microsoft promoted study:
>> http://www.nstl.com/html/windows_2000_reliability.html Win2K is only
>> 13 times more reliable that win98, with an average of 2893 hours of
>> use per crash. And this is in a strictly controlled environment, i.e.,
>> common desktop apps, with regular reboots. A more intersting test
>> would be continous use in a multiuser software development
>> environment, where the behavior of undebugged apps can't be predicted.
>
>Crap: regular reboots? None.
>From the study: "planned reboots".
>muliple users at multiple sites, not a
>controlled environment.
>From the study: "academic and business environments as well as NSTL's
own laboratory" No indication as to what proportion in their lab, or
what specific apps and usage level the a machines were used for. It is
only reasonable to conclude these were not harsh environments.
>> Well 2893 hours =~ 4 months. I couldn't imagine IRIX, Solaris, and
>> even Linux crashing every four months. Even a properly configured
>> Linux machine will crash far less than once per year, in my
>> experience. And that inlcudes extensive application software
>> development use as well.
This fact remains true.
>There are vendors selling W2K solutions with 99.999% uptime
These are fualt tolerant clusters, not single machines. And do you
really think 99.999% is a high degree of fault tolerance?? Five
minutes per year?? Man-rated systems need to be at least a thousand
times better than that.
>> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP
>
>
>errrrrrrr! You don't have your copy of SP1 yet do you... fixed.
>(god I love being right)
>
If your so sure you're right, prove it. None of the Windows updates
available to date had any documention I could find on this bug. The
page on this issue denies a bug in Windows even exists and claims it's
a fault of the app. Their other bug report pages do acknowledge bugs
and when they are fixed. Provide proof.
>arf arf
Feelings hurt??
>
>> Bugs in the Linux kernel are fixed as they are found, with as many
>> patchlevel releases as needed, so it never builds up such a huge
>> list. And you can find out the current state of Linux development at
>> any time by reading the kernel mailing list:
>> http://kernelnotes.org/lnxlists/linux-kernel/
>> You can also get the entire kernel source code if you want. You can
>> also get involved and send in patches if you want. Can you do any of
>> this with W2K?
>
>why on earth would I want to? I wouldnt' presume to be an elite a programmer
>to be able to debug and fix entire kernels or an OS the size of W2K. I leave
>that to teams of professionals with hundreds of testers and millions in
>resources.
You don't have to read the code yourself if you don't want to,
Dristan. The point is the linux kernel is open for public review. It's
open technology. If you don't understand the huge advantage in that
that's your ignorance.
>And, if they are fixed as they are found, how does one person know when
>another is working on a problem? What if two fixes are made for the same
>problem? What if one of the fixes, breaks something that was fixed by a
>different person working seperately without knowledge of the first person?
>no thanks...
The code is under central control. Linus delegates specific parts to
the control of specific developers. Where a conflicting issue arises,
they resolve it on the mailing list or by private email. This is not
really all that different from a large closed project behind corporate
doors.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 19 Jul 2000 21:58:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 18 Jul 2000 17:47:34 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Glad to see that your simply criteria for a good langauge is based on it's
>name and original purpose dozens of years ago. Ignoring the evolution of the
>product... maybe we should do what borland did, change the name from turbo
>pascal to delphi and call it "new and improved" and people will convienently
>forget it's the same old thing...
>
Nothing has changed. It's easier but less powerful than other
languages. Good for simple applications, not for large complex ones.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 19 Jul 2000 21:58:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Jul 2000 09:20:44 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 01:13:02 +1000,
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> From http://www.fys.ruu.nl/~bergmann/history.html
>> >>
>> >> "BASIC (standing for Beginner's All Purpose Symbolic Instruction
>> >> Code)...the designers wished it to be a stepping-stone for students to
>> >> learn on of the more powerful languages..."
>> >>
>> >> 'nuff said.
>> >
>> >And this stops it being useful.........how ?
>> >
>>
>> Huh?? You really are a terrible reader. My quote of the article
>> clearly indicates what BASIC was intended to be useful for: training
>> beginners how to program.
>>
>
>Ahhhh but your own addition of "'nuf said." and your previous posts strongly
>imply that you consider BASIC to be nothing more than a novice langauge for
>students and that "more powerful languages" in that quote to mean that BASIC
>is not a powerful langauge itself. I think your bias against BASIC is
>obvious and a previous writer put it much better than I could so I'll let
>you read that post from MH.
>
No, I mean it's a simple language, good for simple jobs. Not for large scale
complex jobs, or jobs with specific hardware interface requirements.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 19 Jul 2000 21:59:28 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Jul 2000 09:28:23 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The fact is Windows is still unstable. If that hurts your feelings
>> that's your problem.
>>
>
>No, you see, the FACT is that Windows 2000 IS stable. Very stable. As stable
>as any other OS you could care to name. NT4 and W9x and before were not
>models in stability (NT4 post-SP4 was very good and at SP6 levels almost as
>good as W2K) - but W2K is a different beast. It's rewriting was FOCUSED on
>reliability and stability BEFORE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION. They've
>accomplished that goal. How do I know? I do not see W2K boxes crashing. I
>see W2K servers with uptimes of: "how long has it had power." There are test
>boxes running RC1 still up and running at MS today running the same 100% cpu
>load as they were back in November. There are two Final version copies of
>W2K Pro and Server running at ZDLabs that haven't been rebooted or crashed
>since December. Up and still running. That's how I know.
Let me know when W2K can stay up for years in a rigorous (software
dev) environment. Don't reply and say it will, reply when you can say
it has done so. Thank you.
Also let me know when W2K can do hard real time applications, both
embedded and non-embedded. Don't reply and say it will, reply when you
can say it is doing so. Thank you.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 19 Jul 2000 22:00:26 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 08:56:42 +0100,
Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's controlled enough. Certainly not software development
>> environments, or any other rigorous environment.
>
>Presumably business environments could include software development?
>>
Could, yes. But for a MS funded and publicized test??
>> And why did you leave out the part about Microsoft's own indication
>> that they do not provide OS crash protection from certain types of
>> application bugs? As long as that the case, W2k is gonna crash in
>> software dev environments.
>>
>Better to crash in software dev environments where the programmers can
>actually realise they've used bad techniques than if you've actually
>purchased the app and are running it in a live environment.
I'll bet you don't work in a software dev environment. For the app to
crash is needed for the developer to get his code right. For the OS to
crash is uneeded and unreasonable. In a multiuser software dev
environment it's intolerable.
>Software dev
>environments should in no way be considered stable.
>
In UNIX they most certainly are stable.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:58:07 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> If you suppose that MS went straight in 1979, then every example of
> their actual history which indicates they focus solely on
> anti-competitive tactics and have put passingly little effort into
> actual development and quality of goods, shows evidence of the
> hypothetical results. If MS had been straight, rather than
> non-existent, before 1979, then you might have a point. As it is, I'm
> still hoping that someone will attempt to support your supposition, as I
> would like to consider the issue further. It seems almost too extreme
> to note that MS hasn't provided any support for a theory they could
> compete without "an edge", and I like to test my thinking on the matter.
> Obviously, I can't debate the issue if there is nobody who even tries to
> support the alternative. Apparently, you seem unwilling to pursue such
> a discussion; perhaps someone might want to take up for you. I
> certainly hope so.
>
> Recognizing that it is a hypothetical case does not make all the
> information bearing on that hypothesis void and invalid, though I can
> understand why you might think examining that information would be
> damaging to your argument. Because it clearly shows an aversion, if not
> inability, to competing on the merits of their products.
>
> --
> 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! =-----
Just so you realize, this is not an attempt to actually start a
conversation with you T. Max, just to make a point.
You dismiss the person you are debating with (re-read those paragraphs
above) and his views and then tell him that he is incapable of making an
opposing viewpoint. You beg him to debate you, then tell him he is not
able to. This is exactly the arrogance that bothered me in our
conversation. Why don't you try just once making a point without trying
to say everyone but you doesn't matter?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:04:56 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 13:30:15 -0700, Pan wrote:
> Perl Tk is OK for small apps but it doesn't scale upwards that nicely,
> largely due to it's callback-oriented nature.
Yes, I realize that. Perl is simply an easier starting point.
Did I really see that the c++ libraries Netscape used to develop
javascript are open source? I couldv'e sworn that I stumbled across
those libraries the other day...
Don, what do you mean when you say that Perl doesn't have any privacy?
Is that OO_speak for parent->child relationships? Or did you mean that
you don't like that anyone can read a script? Not needing to compile
text is a benefit.
--
Pan
www.la-online.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: [OT] intuitive (was Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:04:04 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> >"The interface leverages off of existing learning by conforming to
> >previously learned patterns."
>
> I don't know; it still sounds an awful lot like an over-complicated way
> of saying 'familiar', to me.
What would you expect of a computer scientist?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:06:54 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:35:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 20:55:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>>>>Like Compaq, which explicitly supports half a dozen OSs on their
>>>>>servers? And if I looked, I'm sure I'd find plenty of others, too.
>>>>
>>>> That's certainly relevant (NOT) to the common consumer.
>>>
>>>Well sure, but neither is Linux. :)
>>
>> When they don't have to go to the same sorts of places they
>> would need to go to find a reproduction of some 80 year
>> old automobile, then it will be relevant in terms of claims
>> regarding "free markets".
>
>Cool - they don't. I've got a dozen clone shops within 20 minutes of
Fly by night operations with no established reputation and
nothing to lose by screwing you six ways to sunday. I can
just see the bulk of consumers just overflowing with
anticipation with that prospect.
>my house - and that's only the ones I know about. So, your argument
>has been disproved. :)
No it hasn't.
Despite these figures, I can count one hand the number of small
computer shops in my hometown that have survived longer than a
Quantum Harddrive warranty.
[deletia]
Nevermind the fact that you're typically lucky if such a store
(chosen at random) even carries a selection of mundane items,
nevermind a good selection interesting or obscure ones.
You'll have more luck with a Computer Renaissance than you
would with the average cottage computer shop.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:07:45 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> That said... Tcl and Perl are both interpretive languages (note that
> Perl is compiled into an intermediate form).
I thought that Perl is interpreted entirely at run-time.
> VB is compiled.
> Whether this means anything for GUIs is not at all clear.
VB is a bloated dog.
--
Pan
www.la-online.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 08:16:20 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > Given the only reason people are "forced" (and I use the term very
> > loosely) to buy MS software is because everyone else also uses it.
>
> Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> rational discussion seems fruitless.
Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of Reality, rational
discussion seems fruitless.
I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple fact that
machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of choice have
*always* been available. You'll have to work hard to convince me the
computers I've bought in the past without any OS and with OS/2 don't exist.
> Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue.
False.
> Unless you built
> your own machine from parts, or went to the most obscure
> hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county, there was no way
> to not buy Windows bundled with your computer.
False. Certainly big names like Dell, Compaq etc weren't carrying
non-Windows PCs, but that's because they cater to the majority market, and
the majority market is only interested in Windows.
Or would you like to see the government leaping into and controlling the
computer retail market, forcing vendors to carry products with little demand
and wear the extra cost, as you would like to see the government jump into
and control OS design ?
> This is fine for
> hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average Consumer, this meant that
> there was no choice.
There was no choice because.....there was no choice. Until very recently
the viable alternatives to Windows were the Mac, and that's about it. Even
today, the only really viable option to Windows is Mac. This is not
Microsoft's fault, no matter what you might think.
Are you seriously trying to contend that Linux 1.2.xx based distros were
real competition to Windows and Mac ?
> > Please explain how anything the DOJ does is going to change that.
>
> Change what?
The fact that right now the only real options are Windows or Mac. Linux
will really become more so over the next few years, but that will have
nothing to do with the DOJ.
> Your skewed view?
Certainly no more skewed than yours, and I'll wager a lot less so.
> > Not a thing will change. Why anyone thinks otherwise defies belief.
>
> You may be right. Unfortunately.
>
> But then, you may also be wrong. Only time will tell.
>
> MS *has* been found guilty of criminal behavior. The proposed solution
> is dubious, obviously, but until they win on appeal or in the Supreme
> Court, MS are criminals.
Yes, well, by your much touted legal system OJ is an innocent man.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
