Linux-Advocacy Digest #791, Volume #27 Wed, 19 Jul 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: I just don't buy it (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (R. Tang)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Arthur Frain)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just don't buy it
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 18:44:14 -0400
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 17:26:23 +1000, Ian Pulsford
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>There has been some discussion about M$ .NET. I just don't see the
>advantages of it from a home user perspective or a business perspective.
>
>1. Is a home user really going to want to store private documents on
>some remote server?
You mean the same ones who currently use Hotmail and FreeDrive.com?
Yea I think they will. Many people use online services and prefer them
to regular applications.
>2. Why would I want to log onto the internet everytime I want to write a
>short letter or note?
You wouldn't have to but when you're connected everywhere it does make
a lot of sense to simply automatically save a document to a central
location. Currently I save it locally and upload it to my
freedrive.com account.
>3. Why clog up internet bandwidth more with stuff that really belongs on
>the home PC/business file server?
I don't think sending a ~100k word document over the Internet is gonna
cause to much extra traffic.
>4. What company would trust strorage of information to a server on the
>internet?
>From what I've read of .net it seems anyone can provide such services.
I suspect most large OEM's will offer such a feature standard on their
machines the same way they offer Internet access now.
>5. Hard drive capacity gets bigger every year, no need for
>'internetwork' disk space.
It's not about space though. It's about having access to your data
anywhere. As with many Microsoft technologies, this isn't overly
innovative. I could use FTP to achieve almost the exact same thing.
The innovation is making this easy to use for everyone. That's what
Microsoft is best at.
>6. Intel, AMD, etc want to sell faster expensive processors, not cheap
>thin client gear.
This has nothing to do with thin clients for the most part. As far as
renting applications, I believe they still run locally. Your .net
server would handle licensing.
>7. Everyone already has an office suite of some sort
Many use Office. I suspect many would use a new version when it comes
out.
>8. What can .NET do that an intranet + an internet gateway cannot do?
It makes things easier. The innovation comes from providing new
features to people who otherwise would not have access to them. Many
of my co-workers would love an easy way to bring their work home
without using floppy disks but most can hardly manage that task.
If user A could login and save things easily to his online storage
space, go home and work on it he'd be very happy. It can be done now
fairly easily but we're not just talking two PC's sharing data online.
I think it's about time someone created such a set of features.
PREDICTION:
Within 2-3 years there will suddenly be GNU .NET. Everyone saying what
a bad idea it is now will be praising GNU .NET and proclaiming it the
Microsoft killer.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:36:31 -0600
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > . . . because, after all, CMT is a proper sub set of PMT.
>
> Eh ? How can a user space app in a PMT system grab the CPU to the exclusion
> of all other processes ?
Set that app to the highest possible priority, and never make blocking
IO calls.
WARNING! Doing this on some OS'en *WILL* cause that OS to misbehave, or
actually crash!
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:39:05 -0600
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> Depends on the PMT scheduler.
>
> My guess is that the system would only require exclusive use of the CPU
> for such things as servicing an interrupt, and then only for very
> short periods of time.
Even in a CMT system, a "hog" process gets interrupted by hardware
events.
I suspect that interrupts were not considered "tasks" by the original
poster . . .
> One could of course have a timer interrupt -- in fact, IINM, most PMT
> systems have just such an interrupt, to enforce quantum switches, and
> to implement virtual timers which may be of use to programming types.
Yep.
> I suspect that's a bigger problem than the PMT/CMT thing. (Note that
> VMS had the concept of "page locking", which means that a page in
> the working set could never be swapped out.
Unix does, too.
> Properly used, this
> could in theory increase responsiveness; improperly used, of course,
> it could gum up things horribly.)
Yep.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 17:49:28 -0500
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8l43oh$bid$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stuart Fox wrote in message <8l42ul$ohj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >Well, most NT Admins I know agree that
> >SP2 was terrible, SP3 was OK, SP4 was better, SP5 was better still & SP6
is
> >best once the initials bugs were ironed out...
> >
>
>
> SP2 was terrible, SP3 was quite good, but things went downhill after that.
> SP4 was a rush job to cover some Y2K problems, and introduced some new
> features and almost as many bugs as the original NT. SP5, 6 and 6a exist
> mainly to fix the bugs introduced in SP4. Now SP6a is pretty much as
stable
> as SP3, at the expense of having problems running older Win16 and DOS
> software that runs fine under SP3. In my company, we rely on several
older
> software packages so I insist that all machines run NT 4.0 + SP3, no more
> and no less.
>
>
I'm curious - what package will run under SP3 and not SP6a?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (R. Tang)
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: 19 Jul 2000 22:23:47 GMT
In article <8l52n9$ht5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"R. Tang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8l4dsk$3fi2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8l4a6f$qgh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:39752aad$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> >> Why bother repeating the effort of the court case? Go read
>> >> >> Judge Jackson's findings of fact. This task has already been
>> >> >> done.
>> >> >Very few facts can be found there.
>> >> Are you for real? Its "factual" enough that now M$ is hanging on
>thread
>> >> praying and paying that US Supreme Court will not make them into
>> >ieces. ---
>> >> Its over and you need to get a life.
>> >
>> >Pfft. It's a long document containing largely a *single* judge's
>> >_opinions_, and very few facts.
>>
>> Wake up. This is the real world, baby, not Usenet.
>>
>> That kind of argument cuts little ice in the legal world; with the
>> kind of defense Microsoft put up, there's little chance of higher courts
>> altering the Findings of Fact.
>
>Which in no way is ever going to change what I think about them. Blind
>conformance to the law is a path I'm just not going to consider.
Nor is blind loyalty to Microsoft.
You have yet to demonstrate which position is more reasonable, nor
have you show anything more than waving unpleasantness out of the way.
--
-Roger Tang, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL]
- http://www.abcflash.com/a&e/r_tang/AATR.html
-Declared 4-F in the War Between the Sexes
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 15:59:51 -0700
From: Arthur Frain <[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?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > The difference is the the Left wants government to own all business, and
> > > the Right wants business to own the government.
> > Neither the Left nor the Right care at all about
> > business. The Right wants to regulate your personal
> > behavior in your bedroom and on the 'net, and force
> > religion on schoolkids,
> No, that's NOT a "right wing" issue, that's a RELIGIONIST issue.
It's the Same Thing.
> YOU have fallen prey to the propagandistic term "religious right"
> in truth, there is no such thing, as most of the religious
> fundamentalists
> want nothing to do with socialism.
Nope. The religious fundamentalists just want all
those donations to keep pouring in so they can
buy more expensive suits and Republican Congressmen.
Besides, opposing socialism is the same as
opposing King George - it was fun while it
lasted, but neither is around anymore.
> Right Wing / Left Wing is about GOVERNMENT+ECONOMIC systems.
> It has nothing to do with sexual morality or religion.
So you believe George W. B.S. (it's a regex) would
choose Supreme Court Justices based on their
interpretation of the Commerce Clause, rather than
their opinion on Roe v. Wade or prayer in schools
or homosexuality in the Boy Scouts? I don't think
so. Perhaps you're suggesting that aliens rather
than the right wing outlawed the teaching of
evolution in KS?
> > while the Left wants to
> > regulate your speech, if not your thoughts, and is
> > otherwise too busy building [insert easily
> > identifiable minority group here] studies programs
> > to be concerned with anything as mundane as what's
> > actually happening in the country, even if it's
> > happening to those easily identifiable minority
> > groups they pretend to study.
> All of which are in support of the Left-wing variety of Socialism.
Socialism? Doesn't exist any more. The Left (and the
Right as well) are solely concerned with culture
wars, and could care less about government or
economic systems - after all, they all have good
jobs, so what's the problem (and culture wars are
by their nature interminable, so they guarantee
employment on the left and the right)? The *.studies
professors I've known could care less about
something as irrelevant as economic or political
theory - and that was at least 20 years ago. The
last relevant thing Al Gore did was invent the
Internet.
Socialism is concerned with things like workers,
ownership of the means of production, social
justice - know of any left wing programs that
are concerned with those issues? Heard of any
Unemployed Studies courses? Any serious suggestions
about nationalizing anything? Any movements to
reduce the racial bias in the enforcement of drug
laws? Even the best that MS lovers can claim is
that Sun and Netscape pushed the DOJ into the
antitrust suit - I hardly think that Sun and
NS are the new left.
IMHO, the key to understanding American politics
is to remove from the discussion anything
remotely related to useful politcal action.
Arthur
We are evolving, in ways that Science
cannot measure, to ends that Theology
dares not contemplate. - E.M. Forster
------------------------------
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 22:45:19 GMT
In article <DWkd5.334$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson) wrote:
> In article <8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue. 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. This is fine for
> >hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average Consumer, this meant
> >that there was no choice.
> >
>
> Hmmmm.... you are new to this whole computing thing aren't you!
Hmmm, you're new to this whole English thing, aren't you?
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 22:52:21 GMT
In article <8l3kot$9f9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Linus Torvalds) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >MS Word has been getting *worse* since about 1995. The guy who came
> >up with that stupid paper clip wants to be shot. What *were* they
> >thinking of?
>
> What?
>
> I love that thing!
>
> Not that I've actually ever _used_ it, but every time I see it dancing
> around in somebodys corner going "boink boink" and looking stupid and
> cute at the same time I _want_ it.
>
> Never mind the _rest_ of Word. Which I could (and can) do quite well
> without, thank you very much. But that dancing paperclip needs to be
> ported to Linux. Pronto!
>
> Linus
Good Lord. I don't care if you wrote the damn OS. If the future of
Linux is a bouncing piece of tin trying to come up with suggestions for
how to properly format my letter, I'm slashing my wrists.
-ws
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 22:51:34 GMT
In article <Iqld5.489$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 16:45:23 GMT, Paul E. Larson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>In article <8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >>>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.
> >>>
> >>>Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue. 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. This is fine
> >>>for hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average Consumer, this
> >>>meant that there was no choice.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Hmmmm.... you are new to this whole computing thing aren't you!
> >
> > You've got to go back awhile before you start to see
> > multiple brands of computers/OS supported by more
> > than just the 'hole in the wall' types of stores again.
> >
>
> For Linux, at least, as early as 1994(when I started looking at it) it
> was possible to buy computers from nationally advertising companies,
> all you had to do was buy a magazine(Linux Journal)!
Which means absolutely nothing to Joe and Jane Average Consumer. Like I
said, fine for hard-core geeks who *already know* where to look, but,
for Joe and Jane Average Consumer, there was no choice.
Did Wal-Mart even carry Linux Journal in 1994?
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:03:12 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Lars Träger wrote:
>
>
> WRONG. It is *not* precisely the opposite with PMT, it's the scheduler
> that decides - if if that sucks you're in trouble. Take the Amiga for
> example, priority based PMT - but high priority tasks block lower
> priorities. Works great most of the time.
>
> Lars T.
Ok, I guess I should have said PMT with a decent scheduler.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 19:08:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <8l4a6f$qgh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:39752aad$1$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >
>> > >"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:8l35h4$a6m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> : The statement above has absolutely no facts to debate. Instead of
>> > >reciting
>> > >> : the anti-MS "evil Microsoft" line try laying down some proven
>> incidents
>> > >of
>> > >> : wrongdoing on Microsoft's part.
>> > >>
>> > >> Why bother repeating the effort of the court case? Go read
>> > >> Judge Jackson's findings of fact. This task has already been
>> > >> done.
>> >
>> >
>> > >Very few facts can be found there.
>> >
>> > Are you for real? Its "factual" enough that now M$ is hanging on
>> > thread
>> > praying and paying that US Supreme Court will not make them into
>> ieces. ---
>> > Its over and you need to get a life.
>>
>> Pfft. It's a long document containing largely a *single* judge's
>> _opinions_, and very few facts.
>>
>>
>
>Enough facts for Microsoft to be convicted of breaking numerous laws.
>
>
>It only takes one judge, btw.
And only one law, too. The Sherman Act, in fact. Two charges, one on
section 1. (Tying, 'integration' of IE) And one on section 2.
(Monopolization, coercion of OEMs, etc.)
The first one, tying, is actually a bit dubious. If the Supreme Court
*doesn't* over-rule that conviction, then its going to have a lot bigger
of an affect on the software industry and technology as a whole,
possibly even media and entertainment, then the breakup of Microsoft
itself is going to have. This is because it would throw out the
fundamental *per se* rule concerning all tying cases, essentially.
The particular rule, which qualifies the activity as criminal regardless
of any other considerations, has always been that bundling is either
implemented to deter competitors or of benefit to the user. This
dichotomy was valid, because it was assumed that producers could not
afford to re-engineer and re-package two products together and then sell
them at the same price as one of the originals, because of the cost
involved, which would depreciate their own ability to compete. But it
is a false dichotomy when you examine today's "virtual products" and
economies of scale, not to mention the overwhelming importance of
advertising in contrast to technical merits. The social phenomenon of
"favorite as best" which advertising exploits is not un-akin, however,
to the very "network effect" which is also of some critical importance
in this case.*
If it cannot be assumed that a product bundling which serves some
objective benefit to the consumer is not also a violation of section 1
of the Sherman Act, restraint of trade, then there will certainly be
extensive ramifications in market behavior and business practices. It
might be debatable whether the reaction would be that restraint of trade
becomes un-prosecutable, but it could also mean that all integration of
two products into a single product without providing the originals a la
carte is illegal. No more "MTV with 14 channels is only 10% more than
MTV by itself". Continuing this thinking, it shouldn't be assumed that
this will make MTV much more expensive, nor much less expensive.
However, it should be recognized that the purpose of a market is to
lower the cost of goods to the consumer; bureaucracy and regulation is
just as good at delivering if you don't mind expensive and shoddy goods
with no innovation. And the essential argument behind prosecuting tying
as restraint of trade in anti-trust law is that removing someone's
ability to provide individual products to the consumer can not be
impeded by someone who has the ability to combine products if the
consumer wants to buy the products individually. This also illustrates
why it is considered at least nominally distinct from monopolization
itself.
On alt.destroy.microsoft, David Petticord and I discussed the potential
ramifications of this decision. It seems possible that if "the
government" is allowed to "tell a business how to make their products",
which is to say if the government continues ensuring that the market,
not the producers, decide which products are acceptable to the market,
that even software upgrades, installation of extraneous features in
standard products without explicit acceptance by the installer, and all
forms of restrictions on OEM configuration by software developers, might
well be a thing of the past. Without the false dichotomy of the
"technical tying test", there is reason to believe they would all be
considered restraint of trade. The market would rather not have them,
and they are primarily implemented to restrain others from engaging in
trade fulfilling various separate demands, not to benefit the user.
I'm sure the potential responses will include everything from fear, to
confusion, to grateful appreciation.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
