Linux-Advocacy Digest #816, Volume #27 Thu, 20 Jul 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard
))
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... (Bob Hauck)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: look, don't talk (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Gilbert W. Pilz Jr.)
Re: Maximum Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Maximum Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Maximum Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:03:27 -0500
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > > It was never NT's fault. An app dying is an app dying, not matter what
> OS
> > > it's on. If the app that's controlling your ship dies, the ship is
> > > uncontrollable. Doesn't matter what the OS does at this stage. And
> there
> > > was never any mention of blue screens/nt failure. It was always an app
> > > failure.
> >
> >
> > I hadn't heard any of this. While I'm willing to believe it, if proven,
> > I would wonder where you got this bit of evidence?
>
> Where's the evidence for *your* position ?
As I said, everything I have heard up to this point was that some
"divide by zero" error caused the entire network on board the ship to
fail. And as I said, I would like to see this evidence you have heard.
The only information I have is what I saw on news reports, on CNET, and
on other various news/media outlets at the time. I'm just asking where
I can get the information you used to come up with your hypothesis that
the OS was completely not to blame. In my opinion, if the app died,
this doesn't mean the entire network of NT machines should have died.
If in fact the entire network didn't die, but just the one application,
then every news outlet I got my information from was spreading lies.
Since the official press release originally came from the Navy itself,
and most of the reports I heard came from that release, I'm assuming you
have other information. I'm just asking where you got that information
so I can compare it with everything else that I have heard.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS advert says Win98 13 times less reliable than W2k
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:57:29 GMT
In article <JW7d5.1672$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snips]
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8kgkps$kur$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Microsoft is being very honest and very streight for a change.
> > They are saying that if all you want to do is play games, buy
> > a toy machine like Windows 98. If you actually care about the
> > information on your machine, and you want to stick with Windows,
> > you should buy 2000. True, the hardware is 3-5 times more
> expensive,
>
> I've got a listing here for an HP 600Mhz Celeron based box, 64Mb RAM,
> 10.2Gb HD, assorted other crud - sound, accelerated video, software
> bundle, etc. Price is $974. Add in another $100 to get an additional
> 64Mb RAM and you have a box perfectly capable of running Win2K. Add
> in the cost of Win2K (from this vendor, $299.99 for the upgrade, with
> a $100 rebate available) and you're talking a total increase in price
> of about $400 - versus the initial list of about $1000. That's about
> a 40% increase in system price... not 3-5 times, and that's including
> the added cost of the software; the hardware costs went up about 10%.
However, Windows 98 runs quite nicely on a Pentium 200, with 32 meg of
RAM, a 4 gig HD, cheap sound, cheap video, Windows 98, and Works - for
about $400.
Linux runs on a Pentium 90, with 16 meg of RAM, a 2 gig HD, cheap sound,
cheap video, Linux, and one of 3 office suites - for about $250.
> > If you want to save about 60% off the price of Windows 2000 hardware
> > and software, and are willing to pay about 20% more than 98, you
> > can get a fully configured Linux professionally installed on
> hardware
> > engineered to support Linux (and vice versa). You might even be
> able
> > to get a PC that runs BOTH Linux and Windows (Wine emulation).
>
> Linux's big problem right now isn't that it's a technically inferior
> product... it isn't. It's big problem right now is that it is
> competing against a system which already has a large installed
> software base.
No. Linux BIGGEST problem is that it is competing against a system
which is preinstalled by the OEMs under a contract that forbids these
OEMs from installing Linux on the same machines. They don't explicitly
come out and say "you can't install Linux", that would be too easy
to prosecute under antitrust, racketeering, and extortion laws.
Instead, Microsoft says "You can't modify any part of the boot sequence
from the first power-up to the final display of the first "desktop".
This effectively means that the OEMs can't install boot managers,
they can't install multiple partitions, they can't install virtual
machines (such as VMWare), and they can't configure Wine and DOSEmu
to use the installed Windows software. The very best they could do
is install a preconfigured Linux partition and give you a floppy for
LILO that allows you to configure Lilo post-production.
Furthermore, any reinstallation of either Windows 95, Windows 98, or
Windows 2000 will result in wiping of the Master boot record,
repartitioning of the hard drive (wiping out the Linux partition), and
setting the C: drive as the boot partition. This means that Linux
must be restarted and LILO needs to be reinstalled on the root
partition and Windows has to be fooled into thinking that the Linux
root partition is the boot partition - and all this must be done from
either a floppy or from Windows.
IBM, Dell, Gateway, Compaq, HP, Micron, and the other "Top 20" are
offering lines of preinstalled Linux workstations, many of which
include support for Wine which supports many windows 3.1 and
Windows 95 applications. Microsoft, of course is "encouraging"
software vendors to exclude this technology with APIs not available
on Windows 95 (DCOM, MSMQ, MTS) and peripherals not available on
Windows 95 (USB, DVD-ROM).
> Example: I use Office 2000. What has Linux got to
> offer that allows me to maintain all my existing O2K documents -
> including all the scripting and suchlike behind them?
You're asking the wrong question. What you have in you O2K documents
is information, information you would like to publish, archive,
distribute, print, display, and retrieve. O2K saves documents in a
default format which is neither efficient (uses a great deal of
storage), secure (microviruses, activeX viruses, vbscript viruses,
embedded ole viruses...), nor managable (not practically searchable,
archivable, displayable to non-O2K systems...). In effect, you have
hundreds, perhaps thousands of documents which you can't publish
or distribute (because of the viruses), you can't display them without
very expensive equipment, and you can't retrieve them from a very large
searchable archive (using search by content). You can print them,
but you can't publish them in a format that can be printed by others.
Put simply, you must either purchase very expensive hardware and
software for every person you intend to publish this document to,
including everyone they wish to publish their documents to. If you
have 1000 employees, you'll need to pay about $10 million every 2
years to support the routine upgrades (just because everybody
gets Windows 2000 and Office 2000 this year doesn't mean that
Microsoft won't be coming up with more "upgrades" (designed to
force you into buying more hardware and software when prices are
their highest, supply is at it's lowest, and "last year's model"
is at it's cheapest - worthless). And now Microsoft would like to
also add the cost of a service contract to the rest of your expenses.
You can purchase new machines, paying $5000 to $10,000 in labor,
hardware, and software costs to back-up existing systems, replace
with new systems, and recover back-up data into the existing systems.
If you want to follow the "rush", you'll pay the highest possible
price (around $10K) - and then you'll have to cut bonuses, raises,
and incentives by an average of $10,000 per employee. The Microsoft
lovers will be thrilled to get this new hardware (at everyone else's
expense), and most of the rest of the company will just figure it's
one more piece of software to learn.
But there is an alternative. You can compose the document in O2K and
save it as RTF, HTML, or XML documents, without the fancy virus
factories, and have content that can be managed by Internet archives,
published via inexpensive web sites, and can be printed using any
number of batch and fixed mode systems.
> > Microsoft is relying on it's ability
> > to keep Windows NDAs, Windows 98
> > "no modification" clauses, and obligatory
> > incorporation of Windows-only hardware,
>
> "Windows-only hardware"? How do you manage that? As far as I can
> see, if you could write a Linux driver for a given piece of hardware,
> you could use it under Linux. If hardware vendors aren't providing
> Linux drivers, there may be a reason for it... perhaps a perception -
> correct or not - that Linux is but a bit player, not worth the effort.
You create a proprietary protocol, like DVD-CSS, then you make everyone
sign an agreement promising to never disclose the content without
permission of the "board" (controlled by you-know-who), and impose
severe penalties (criminal prosecution under the trade secrets act,
shut-down of sites who even link to disclosure information, revocation
of the license to offer the products you've just spend millions tooling
to produce, and funding of a two-bit, third-rate contender to such a
degree that you are driven into bankruptcy). Microsoft has already
done this in the software industry to companies like Borland, Lotus,
WordPerfect, Dbase, and Brief - all punished for their support of
UNIX and OS/2 shortly after the release of Windows 3.0. They have
also taken similar actions agianst producers of rival "open standards"
products such as SCSI, FireWire, and Net Appliances (low-cost servers
supporting TCP/IP/Ethernet.
> > I don't know if Microsoft is just rolling over and playing dead,
> > hoping to get off with a gentle slap on the wrist from the Supreme
> > court, or if they have a new bag of tricks planned to torpedo Linux
> > systems and all Linux-friendly applications.
>
> To be honest, I'm not sure they care about Linux... at least not in
> terms of where Linux is today.
Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are acutely aware of Linux. It scares
the daylights out of them. Windows 95 was delayed nearly a year
so that Microsoft could create a "Plug and Play" capability that
rivaled and excluded Yddragasil "Plug-n-Play" (TM) Linux. This
system could self-configure ISA, EISA, VLB, and PCI motherboards,
but Microsoft instituted the PCI and ISA "plug and play" protocol
(which increased the cost of peripherals by about $20 each) using
a protocol which was contracturally protected from disclosure to
the Linux community.
Microsoft has a full-time staff of at least 10 people (as of the
first press release) whose primary job is to harass the Linux
community by every means possible. This group has sponsored a
number of "independent tests" carefully designed to make Linux
perform its worst and NT to perform at its best.
It appears that Microsoft has stepped up it's "anti-linux" campaign
adding staff to design systems that make Linux after-market
installation as difficult as possible. This includes Windows 98 SE
and Windows 2000.
> Where Linux will be in 2-3 years
> depends on a lot of things,
Keep in mind that we're really talking Linux/UNIX. The
combination of Linux and UNIX as a solution that allows low cost
development, prototyping, and even mid-tier systems under Linux
that can easily be converted to BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP_UX, and
others.
We're also talking Open Source vs
> not least of which is whether it can
> sustain the effort to provide a truly
> competitive solution for the
> home-user and office-user desktops
Linux has already done a remarkably good job of
creating a "user desktop" appliance in remarkably
short time. The "Desktop Initiative" was launched
in July of 1998, and by July of 2000 Linux is considered
by many to be a viable alternative to Windows. Many
people actually prefer Linux because it is so much more
flexible, reliable, secure, and stable.
> - which means, among other things,
> compatability with existing document formats,
Linux provides much better compliance with existing IETF standards.
Linux supports a number of standards which are ALSO supported by
Microsoft.
Linux supports a number of formats and standards that can be easily
implemented on Micrsoft Windows (95,98,NT, & 2000).
> even if with different software,
> and a vastly improved user interface (yes, it has improved a
> lot lately.)
Actually, KDE combined with GNOME and Java have created a user
oriented environment that offers features Windows can't even approach.
The ability to access remote workstations and servers using GUI
interfaces (application servers that offer XClient software).
Microsoft is already trying to play catch-up, and lacking most of
the underlying infrastructure and architecture required to compete.
They will rely on NDAs and non-compete contracts to prevent the spread
of Linux as much as possible, but Microsoft has burned so many bridges
with so many companies that they are very likely to find that when
push comes to shove, the only people who will still be choosing
Microsoft over Linux will be MCSEs, and most of them won't be too
thrilled when they discover that their MCSE certification is no
longer valid in the Windows 2000 and NG environment.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 40 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 7/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:11:23 GMT
On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 22:52:29 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, from the top of my head : "Visio Pro" (compiling diagrams &
>business/system processes). Is there a Linux equivalent?
Xfig is the closest I know of, but its library is not as extensive.
>Also give us a decent browser (with plenty plug-ins & decent fonts &
>wysiwyg printing) in Linux.
I don't think that wysiwyg is really how HTML was intended to be
printed. The whole point is to take advantage of the output device,
not to force a certain presentation.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:13:46 -0500
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "Nathaniel Jay Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Stuart Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8l6a6j$goa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Did you not hear of the first large ship the US Navy ran on NT? There
> > > were
> > > > several hundred NT machines running everything on board, all networked
> > > > together. Shortly after leaving harbour, the network crashed and
> brought
> > > > every single computer on board to a standstill. The ship was dead in
> the
> > > > water for over two hours before they got essential services back
> online.
> > > And
> > > > the cause? It was traced back to someone entering a "0" in the wrong
> > > place
> > > > in a PC in the stores - the resulting "divide by zero" error killed
> the
> > > > ship.
> > >
> > > So do explain to us all how a poor app is NT's fault?
> >
> > Do you really think that a divide by zero error should bring down an
> > entire network? I don't see how that is feasible (and if it wasn't for
> > this previous story, which I heard much about wouldn't even know it is
> > possible). Do you really think that is just one application error? And
> > if it is, shouldn't the OS have a little better protection?
>
> No I don't, and there was no reference to "bringing down the entire
> network". From what I can see, the app that was the crucial piece of this
> was basically shit and failed - if the app doesn't work there's nothing the
> OS can do about it, NT, Solaris, Linux etc. What I think is that the app
> should have had better protection and perhaps have been written right.
> There wasn't even any reference to the OS failing at all - that was
> inferred.
> In this case, it wouldn't have mattered what the OS was, there would have
> still been a failure - because the controlling app failed.
Well, I guess we heard two completely different stories on this then.
What I heard was that there was a divide by zero erro and the entire
network of NT machines onboard the ship went down. Whether that was
inferred to the people that spread that information (news/media) is
unknown to me, all I know is what I heard of the situation. The only
ones that really know are the ones that were there I guess.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: look, don't talk
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:24:52 -0500
Cihl wrote:
> --
> You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
> For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
> Do you wish to restart your computer now?
> [YES] [NO]
If I select no and try to continue working, will I get one message out
combining the previous and the new signature, and then a BSOD when I
attempt to find out why? If not, it isn't a properly implemented MS
system.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Gilbert W. Pilz Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 11:39:06 -0500
On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:36:03 GMT, "Marcus Turner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I remember the IBM OS2 SDK being priced at $2500 while the Microsoft SDK was
>about $100.
Exactly. Microsoft (having recently grown from a startup) understood
that there was a large and important segment of developers for whom
$2500 is basically out of the question. IBM couldn't get past its
Fortune 500 bias to see this.
Of course, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Microsoft was actually
on the side of small developers. If you happened to be successfully
with something that they viewed as threatening to any of their core
businesses and they would crush you like a bug using any and all means
at their disposal including some with dubious ethical and legal
implications.
I worry that what Microsoft is *really* being punished for is not its
offensive and illegal behavior in the software market, but its failure
to play the game the way Washington likes it to be played. If
Microsoft had been a little quiter about its disdain for the power of
the feds, if it had gotten into the lobbying and campaign contribution
game a little earlier I suspect things would have never reached this
point.
The federal government (in the guise of Eric Cartman) to MS: "I am a
cop, and you will respect my authority!!!!"
--
Gilbert W. Pilz Jr.
Senior Consulting Engineer
SeaLion Software, Inc.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:35:42 -0500
Brian Langenberger wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> : Now, I'm going to pose the question to those of you in here. Which is
> : correct? I was always under the impression that it was window manager
> : (and plural window managers), but before I write to correct her I
> : thought I should see what the concesus is. I'm assuming that her bias
> : towards Windows (or the editor's bias towards Windows) made every
> : appearance of the window into Windows and the word manager just got
> : capitalized along with it. So, what do you say? Is it 'window
> : managers' or 'Windows Managers'?
>
> "Windows manager" doesn't sound quite right. Even though the manager
> handles multiple X11 windows, the word "window" should remain
> singular. Just like while feeders may feed multiple birds, we call
> them "bird feeders" and not "birds feeders". So that's one error.
>
> Capitalizing the term is just plain silly. Window managers are a
> whole class of products, not a proper name of any particular one.
> We don't call Apache a Web Server, but rather a web server.
>
> The error could be the author's, but I'm inclined to believe the
> author knew what she was talking about more than the editor did.
> So perhaps it was a glitch in editing that resulted in this
> bizarre term. But that's just my guess.
That was likewise one of my thoughts. It is after all a Linux mag put
out by a company dedicated to Mac and Windows mags. My bet is that the
editor saw it, couldn't handle the idea of the word window (without
capitols and without the 's') and freaked changing every occurence of it
in the article. It made for an extremely annoying read, that's for
sure.
Of course, I've written them before with complaints about the "Windows
Centric" take on everything they do, and thus far got told to deal with
it. Their response was something along the lines of "Windows is more
important, so that is our focus." I asked why call it Maximum Linux if
it is in fact just another Windows magazine with a few Linux oriented
articles and got no response. So, only time will tell if they will
actually make Maximum Linux turn into a real Linux magazine. Although
reading some of the Colonel's columns are cool (he seems like a hardcore
Linux geek, hates WINE 'the Windows on Unix project' and thinks Corel
made a huge mistake in using it for its office suite).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:40:31 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> My take on it has been that for X that capitalization parrter should be X
> Windows, X Windows System. When the word window is not part of the name
> then window should not be capitalized as in "a X terminal window".
>
> For the window managers for X, unless window manager is being used as part
> of the name of the window manager, such as "GWM (Generic Window Manager)".
> At the beginning of a sentence "Window manager" is the correct form.
>
> I have checked with documents available from X.org and Xfree86.org, and in
> general they do seem to agree with my interpretation of the capitalization
> patterns. However there are exceptions such as in this readme file
> ftp://ftp.x.org/contrib/window_managers/gwm/gwm.README . The auhor of the
> readme in general does follow the patterns I have just mentioned but he has
> also used "Window Manager" twice in this document other than as a part of
> the name of the software; but then he does use "window manager" thrice.
>
> So I would say that "window manager" is correct and yet "Window Manager"
> does happen from time to time. So I suppose that the columnist and the
> editor could argue to defend their usage by citing documents such as
> gwm.README. Errors can happen but that is no excuse for a publication to
> use the consistant capatilization as was used in the article that your cite.
>
That's kind of my take on it as well. How about the consitant Window's'
(the s at the end of window every time)? As far as I know, it isn't
Windows Managers. I believe this stems from the Windows centric nature
of the magazine (and the publisher), but it could just be the fear the
MS is going to jump them if the use the word window without making it
into Windows. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximum Linux
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:44:25 -0500
John Arebir wrote:
>
> Maximum/Unleased/Kick-Ass
>
> These adjectives seem to attract certain types.
>
I suppose I'm supposed to be insulted by this, but I actually enjoyed
boot before it became MaximumPC, and MaximumPC isn't complete crap. But
thus far Maximum Linux has been a waste of money. Only time will tell
if they figure out how to actually make a magazine about Linux, but I'm
not holding my breath.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
