Linux-Advocacy Digest #877, Volume #27 Sat, 22 Jul 00 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Star Office to be open sourced ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Some REAL fun before weekend ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (phil hunt)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:14:35 -0400
Rich Teer wrote:
> On 21 Jul 2000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> > Actually I was dissing the paper clip because its crap, and
> > it annoyed the hell out of me when I saw it. What I wanted from the
> > new version of windows, was greater stability, more flexibility, and
> > less bloat. What I got was a paper clip. I was not a happy man.
> >
> > I was even less happy about how much effort it was to switch
> > the office assistant off....
>
> Oh, I dunno! What's so hard about:
>
> format C:
> <insert UNIX CDROM>
> boot cdrom
Hmm. I would feel a little weird doing that on my machine at work.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:23:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Quite possible. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
>> I think it may be so contrary to your experience that you might consider
>> any statement of it to be difficult to understand.
>
>There you go with the insults again!
There you go with the assumptions again. I meant that literally, not as
an insinuation of a lack of experience on John's part.
>> Again, I think this resolves on a preconception of a singular task,
>> which I didn't take for granted. I would suggest that it could be
>> reasonable to call any system which this statement applies to a
>> "workstation". On a desktop, not only is the interactive task the most
>> important, it is often the only end-user task to speak of.
>
>You have a very narrow view of "desktop", one that is quite antiquated.
It was invented by the market, not me.
>I always have many interactive tasks running simultaneously on my desktop.
>PMT allows me to switch between them instantaneously (by that I mean so fast
>that the human senses can not detect the time). CMT does not allow that.
This is just the kind of silly statement which causes this to be a
religious question, when it rightfully should be a technical issue.
PMT's benefit is to allow the background processes to continue to
function at optimal balance with *process switching*. The matter of
task switching at the human level does not really enter into it that
much. This leads to such common but badly interpreted statements as
"Cooperative Multi-Tasking is not really multi-tasking."
>> The priority of tasks is entirely independent, and certainly not
>> determined, by CPU cycles. Tasks have priority for reasons end-users
>> (and their bosses, often) determine, not CPUs and engineering
>> efficiencies.
>
>Hence PMT.
Hence, hopefully someday, something better than PMT. Engineering
efficiency is *not* the be-all and end-all of criteria for acceptability
in the real world, merely another advantage weighed against all others.
An assumption that a single balance is possible is as meaningless as an
assumption that a single balance is optimal.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:28:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>On a PMT system? Darn near impossible if the scheduler's any good.
>(The Amiga's wasn't particularly wonderful; one easy way to give
>the system fits was to run a task at a high priority, which more or
>less locked out everyone else.)
NT has the same problem, though not so bad as to lock everything else
out. More often, they just lock *up*, because they are designed with an
assumption that they (or more importantly, related processes which
they're dependant on) won't ever get starved for CPU time thanks to the
wonder of PMT. And if I had a quarter for every time the "MAPI Server"
locked up in Windows9x, mandating a reboot to restore full system
functionality, then I'd have retired in comfort several months ago. I'm
not claiming it was CPU starvation that causes this; I don't know what
it is, beyond the general 'bad design'. But obviously your point is
valid; one can't use a badly designed system as an illustration of a bad
principle, merely of a bad design.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some REAL fun before weekend
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:30:13 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> Or:
>
> Microsoft .NET will take computing and communications far beyond the
> one-way Web to a rich, collaborative, interactive environment. Powered
> by advanced new software, Microsoft .NET will harness a constellation
> of applications, services and devices to create a personalized digital
> experience-one that constantly and automatically adapts itself to your
> needs and those of your family, home and business.
>
Does that it mean it uninstalls Windows and replaces it with Linux?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:41:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:41:16 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in
>the
>> >>
>> >> It's not moot at all.
>> >
>> >It is moot in anything except computer science. Ie, most of the world.
>>
>> <sarcasm>
>>
>> ...yes, we all know that computer science has nothing
>> to do with actual computing...
>>
>> </sarcasm>
>
><sarcasm>
>
>Yes, I'm sure most people you ask will identify ntoskrnl.exe instead of
>Windows 2000 as the Operating System.
>
></sarcasm>
>
>Proper CS definitions have very little to do with how those definitions are
>used in the real world.
That isn't what you said. You said that proper definitions are
meaningless. The "real world" (the market) knows what it calls an OS,
and that is a completely accurate and correct definition for the market.
CS knows likewise what its own rigorous definition is. Neither agree
with Microsoft that it is "whatever we want to call an OS and force you
to accept in order to use whatever you call an OS." Your point is moot.
>> Next you'll be telling us that Civil Engineering has
>> nothing to do with bridge building.
>
>An entirely different analogy to what I said.
No, it is not an analogy, in either case, and it is as correct in both
cases. Your point is moot.
>> >> It defines an industry standard and allows a reasonable
>> >> start for a definition of what does and doesn't constitute
>> >> tying for an OS vendor.
>> >
>> >Then by the computer science definition, anything that isn't a kernel
>> >constitutes tying.
>>
>> Pretty much.
>
>Glad we agree that every OS being sold is being "tied".
We agree that the CS definition is not the same as the market's
definition. You assume that they need to be. In fact, you assume that
they are, but disagree with both the CS and the market's definition.
Sounds like you are making stuff up so that you can try to support a
moot point, to be honest.
>> Although, some of it is tolerated more than others. This is
>> typically the sort of stuff that tends not to wipe out
>> aftermarket products or is necessary to be able to use that
>> kernel at all (shells, text editors, core APIs).
>
>A text editor is in no way necessary to use a kernel. Neither are 90% of
>the things that ship with every commercial OS on earth.
90% of the things shipped are necessary for the market to find purchase
or acceptance of a kernel desirable. Including a text editor, as well
as shells and APIs for core OS services. Which is to say, not
middleware or browser services.
>They *are* required to make the OS _useful_. Then again, for most people,
>so is a web browser and an email client. Go and ask a few thousand Windows
>users what they consider to make the computer more useful - IE or notepad.
>I know what my money will be on.
That people find applications make a *computer* useful, the only thing
that makes an OS *useful* is the apps that are available for it, not the
ones that are built into it. That, and whether it has a decent text
editor and shell/interface.
>I also recall the inclusion of a TCP/IP stack in Windows 95 "wiped out" the
>aftermarket TCP/IP stack for Windows industry. Not many people were
>complaining. Ditto for disk maintenance utilities and multimedia tools.
There was no previous "market" for TCP/IP. There were markets for
communication packages of a great variety, all of which included TCP/IP,
because TCP/IP was robust *and* freely available to anyone. Leave it to
Microsoft to try to "de-commoditize" it by playing games with dialers
and applications, and for MS droids to use it as a fictional example of
MS supporting "interoperability".
[...]
>I see. So Microsoft should be developing OSes for their competitors.
>
>> They own the interfaces.
>
>Really ? Microsoft own x86, the BIOS, PnP etc ? Fascinating, I never knew
>that.
Wrong interfaces. Not that anybody thinks you chose the wrong
interfaces by mistake, since the entirety of the discussion up to this
point have been about interfaces between OS and application software,
not OS and hardware. You know why people get annoyed at trolling?
Because its so stupidly obvious, that's why.
>> The whole reason that there are multiple Unixen and Multiple
>> Linux is is that the interfaces aren't owned by anyone and
>> in the case of Linux, neither is the OS itself.
>
>So anyone is free to wander off and make an exact copy of AIX ? How, pray
>tell ?
More misdirection. Don't you know any other tricks?
[...remainder snipped as just too incredibly boring to bother
with...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:43:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Because, to compete with "the browser" (primarily Netscape) which
>threaten[ed,s] to make the OS obselete, Microsoft have turned Windows into a
>delivery system for Internet Explorer.
That is illegal.
>They don't need to compete in office suites, because no other office suite
>can compete.
And that is fantasy.
[...more trolling snipped...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:52:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>Copyright law has ZILCH to do with functionality, merely the expression
>>>>-- which means that programs are *written*.
>>> Which is the reason it is important to realize that they are not
>>> "written" in the way that *any other* intellectual property is, because
>>> they are functional works of design and engineering, not merely
>>> literature. Not even literature, for that matter.
>> Think: cooking recipes. Functional literature. It either produces
>> a piece of bread after being interpreted by a person, or it doesn't.
>
>Good example, too. It turns out that recipes are only partially
>copyrightable. The list of ingredients cannot be copyrighted, but the
>cooking instructions can be.
I think the critical difference between this and software is whether the
purchaser can use cooking instructions without a list of ingredients,
and still expect it to produce a piece of edible bread. Cooking
instructions are intellectual work. A list of ingredients is a work of
functional physical requirements: engineering. The functional work is
not copyrightable.
One might argue that a program which uses a library is simply a list of
ingredients, not cooking instructions.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 19:54:09 -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
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >> Quite possible. If you have any suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
> >> I think it may be so contrary to your experience that you might consider
> >> any statement of it to be difficult to understand.
> >
> >There you go with the insults again!
>
> There you go with the assumptions again. I meant that literally, not as
> an insinuation of a lack of experience on John's part.
Actually, I think it is because you have no idea what you are talking about, so
can't possibly explain it. Wasn't it you who said the teacher was responsible
if the student didn't understand something?
>
>
> >> Again, I think this resolves on a preconception of a singular task,
> >> which I didn't take for granted. I would suggest that it could be
> >> reasonable to call any system which this statement applies to a
> >> "workstation". On a desktop, not only is the interactive task the most
> >> important, it is often the only end-user task to speak of.
> >
> >You have a very narrow view of "desktop", one that is quite antiquated.
>
> It was invented by the market, not me.
>
If anything, the market has created the demand for a desktop that can handle
many tasks at once. You have it backwards. Human beings can and do multitask
in daily life. It makes sense, and the market demands it, that a desktop
computer be able to handle the multiple tasks that a human being wants to do.
>
> >I always have many interactive tasks running simultaneously on my desktop.
> >PMT allows me to switch between them instantaneously (by that I mean so fast
> >that the human senses can not detect the time). CMT does not allow that.
>
> This is just the kind of silly statement which causes this to be a
> religious question, when it rightfully should be a technical issue.
> PMT's benefit is to allow the background processes to continue to
> function at optimal balance with *process switching*. The matter of
> task switching at the human level does not really enter into it that
> much. This leads to such common but badly interpreted statements as
> "Cooperative Multi-Tasking is not really multi-tasking."
>
After all the explanations by many people, including myself, you still don't get
it. CMT constantly runs into problems with process switching at the human
level. PMT does not, unless you are memory bound and thrashing, in which case
no scheduler can help you.
>
> >> The priority of tasks is entirely independent, and certainly not
> >> determined, by CPU cycles. Tasks have priority for reasons end-users
> >> (and their bosses, often) determine, not CPUs and engineering
> >> efficiencies.
> >
> >Hence PMT.
>
> Hence, hopefully someday, something better than PMT. Engineering
> efficiency is *not* the be-all and end-all of criteria for acceptability
> in the real world, merely another advantage weighed against all others.
> An assumption that a single balance is possible is as meaningless as an
> assumption that a single balance is optimal.
As has been explained to you many times, PMT is not simply about some
"engineering efficiency" (there's that nasty word again). PMT lets a computer
respond to a human being in human terms. CMT does not. If you have a better
idea, great. Let's hear it.
Gary
------------------------------
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: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 13:20:24 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:23:12 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (phil hunt) writes:
>> On 21 Jul 2000 16:58:35 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>I mean seriously have computers actually made people happier?
>>
>> Seriously, I doubt it.
>>
>> I also seriously doubt whether agriculture, the wheel, writing, antibiotics,
>> the motor car, or any other technology made people happier.
>The human potential for unhappiness is unlimited, and not
>influenced by material posessions.
>I'm quite sure that in almost all circumstances, no matter how
>difficult, some are happy, and mamy are unhappy. It's improvements
>that manage to make a large(r) percentange of people happy, for
>a while. Then we get used to the situation, define a new baseline,
>and revert to our previous mix of happiness and unhappiness.
That's right.
--
***** Phil Hunt *****
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 10:15:00 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:41:16 +1000, Christopher Smith
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot in
> >the
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not moot at all.
> >> >
> >> >It is moot in anything except computer science. Ie, most of the
world.
> >>
> >> <sarcasm>
> >>
> >> ...yes, we all know that computer science has nothing
> >> to do with actual computing...
> >>
> >> </sarcasm>
> >
> ><sarcasm>
> >
> >Yes, I'm sure most people you ask will identify ntoskrnl.exe instead of
> >Windows 2000 as the Operating System.
> >
> ></sarcasm>
> >
> >Proper CS definitions have very little to do with how those definitions
are
> >used in the real world.
>
> That isn't what you said. You said that proper definitions are
> meaningless.
No, I said "The computer science definition of an "operating system" is moot
in the
consumer world". Jedi's expected context snip removed that last part. As
usual, Max, you're jumping into discussions wihtout performing your basic
research.
> The "real world" (the market) knows what it calls an OS,
> and that is a completely accurate and correct definition for the market.
And Windows quite easily meets that definition. As do MacOS, BeOS and Linux
distributions.
> CS knows likewise what its own rigorous definition is. Neither agree
> with Microsoft that it is "whatever we want to call an OS and force you
> to accept in order to use whatever you call an OS." Your point is moot.
Last I checked, Microsoft weren't forcing anyone to buy Windows.
> >> Next you'll be telling us that Civil Engineering has
> >> nothing to do with bridge building.
> >
> >An entirely different analogy to what I said.
>
> No, it is not an analogy, in either case, and it is as correct in both
> cases. Your point is moot.
>
> >> >> It defines an industry standard and allows a reasonable
> >> >> start for a definition of what does and doesn't constitute
> >> >> tying for an OS vendor.
> >> >
> >> >Then by the computer science definition, anything that isn't a kernel
> >> >constitutes tying.
> >>
> >> Pretty much.
> >
> >Glad we agree that every OS being sold is being "tied".
>
> We agree that the CS definition is not the same as the market's
> definition. You assume that they need to be.
On the contrary, I'm trying to enlighten jedi to the fact they *aren't* and
*will never be*.
> In fact, you assume that
> they are, but disagree with both the CS and the market's definition.
You haven't a clue, Max. I agree with both the CS and market definition,
but which one is used is entirely a matter of the context of the discussion.
And coming from the field of CS, I'm acutely aware the two are worlds apart.
> Sounds like you are making stuff up so that you can try to support a
> moot point, to be honest.
I have yet to make anything up.
> >> Although, some of it is tolerated more than others. This is
> >> typically the sort of stuff that tends not to wipe out
> >> aftermarket products or is necessary to be able to use that
> >> kernel at all (shells, text editors, core APIs).
> >
> >A text editor is in no way necessary to use a kernel. Neither are 90% of
> >the things that ship with every commercial OS on earth.
>
> 90% of the things shipped are necessary for the market to find purchase
> or acceptance of a kernel desirable.
As is IE.
> Including a text editor, as well
> as shells and APIs for core OS services. Which is to say, not
> middleware or browser services.
Please demonstrate why a text editor, graphics viewer, movie player and
sound recorder have more "right" to be included in an OS distribution than a
web browser.
Then explain why everyone except Microsoft should be allowed to do it.
> >They *are* required to make the OS _useful_. Then again, for most
people,
> >so is a web browser and an email client. Go and ask a few thousand
Windows
> >users what they consider to make the computer more useful - IE or
notepad.
> >I know what my money will be on.
>
> That people find applications make a *computer* useful, the only thing
> that makes an OS *useful* is the apps that are available for it, not the
> ones that are built into it.
Please explain why there should be a distinction between the applications an
OS can run, and the ones that ship with it. Then reconcile this with, say,
a Linux distribution, where the applications that ship with the OS are a
fairly large chunk of those avalable for it.
> That, and whether it has a decent text
> editor and shell/interface.
>
> >I also recall the inclusion of a TCP/IP stack in Windows 95 "wiped out"
the
> >aftermarket TCP/IP stack for Windows industry. Not many people were
> >complaining. Ditto for disk maintenance utilities and multimedia tools.
>
> There was no previous "market" for TCP/IP.
Really ? Trumpet made quite a lot of money selling Trumpet Winsock, IIRC.
> There were markets for
> communication packages of a great variety, all of which included TCP/IP,
> because TCP/IP was robust *and* freely available to anyone.
Trumpet winsock was a dialer and TCP/IP stack, nothing more. Although it
was often bundled with Netscape.
> Leave it to
> Microsoft to try to "de-commoditize" it by playing games with dialers
> and applications, and for MS droids to use it as a fictional example of
> MS supporting "interoperability".
Please try to stay on topic. Just to remind you, we were discussing why it
was ok for Microsoft to include TCP/IP and disk maintenance software in
their OS, despite it being available from third parties.
> >I see. So Microsoft should be developing OSes for their competitors.
> >
> >> They own the interfaces.
> >
> >Really ? Microsoft own x86, the BIOS, PnP etc ? Fascinating, I never
knew
> >that.
>
> Wrong interfaces. Not that anybody thinks you chose the wrong
> interfaces by mistake, since the entirety of the discussion up to this
> point have been about interfaces between OS and application software,
> not OS and hardware. You know why people get annoyed at trolling?
> Because its so stupidly obvious, that's why.
So Microsoft aren't even allowed to have control of the software they have
spent decades and millions of dollars developing ? Wow, I can't think of a
better incentive to be successful than that.
Of course, no-one seems to harass Apple or any other proprietry OS developer
for doing the same thing. Must be that Anti-Microsoft Dichotomy.
> >> The whole reason that there are multiple Unixen and Multiple
> >> Linux is is that the interfaces aren't owned by anyone and
> >> in the case of Linux, neither is the OS itself.
> >
> >So anyone is free to wander off and make an exact copy of AIX ? How,
pray
> >tell ?
>
> More misdirection. Don't you know any other tricks?
I am merely trying to the extent to which jedi (and the rest of the
anti-Microsoft brigade) is hypocritical.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 10:16:27 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Because, to compete with "the browser" (primarily Netscape) which
> >threaten[ed,s] to make the OS obselete, Microsoft have turned Windows
into a
> >delivery system for Internet Explorer.
>
> That is illegal.
I see. It's illegal to compete with a superior product ?
> >They don't need to compete in office suites, because no other office
suite
> >can compete.
>
> And that is fantasy.
No, it's observable market choice. Something you tend to champion. Unless,
of course, it disagrees with your own (often ill-informed) opinion.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
