Linux-Advocacy Digest #890, Volume #27 Sun, 23 Jul 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows98 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:31:13 GMT
Take it to a MS news group.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I hate things that half work, like the some
> hardware under Linux and also Windows 2k. I would
> rather have something fail dead than give me half
> assed performance. That being said, I have just
> spent the last 2 days trying, in vain, to get a
> simple, very simple, network of 3 PC's going under
> Windows 98SE.
>
> This all worked very nicely under normal Win98,
> although I had to use Wingate to share an internet
> connection.
>
> The hardware:
>
> 1. Pentium 450 with Linksys 10mb PCI card. Running
> Win98SE.
> 1 K6 450 with the same card running Win98SE.
> 1 Thinkpad with a Linksys PCMCIA 10/100 running
> Win95 OSRx
> LinkSys hub.
>
> Ok so I go through the installs of the cards and
> drivers and what not along with 50 reboots between
> all machines before everything was installed
> correctly.
>
> I can ping all three machines fine.
>
> Ok, so now I install ICS on the dialout machine (I
> use a modem), I take the diskette that was created
> and run it on the other 2 machines. So far so
> good. One minor problem though, nothing works.
>
> Turns out the host machine is not DHCP'ing
> correctly. So I assign static addresses to the
> clients and point to the host as a default
> gateway. This works but no DNS is working (ip
> addresses work ok). OK so now I put the DNS
> entries into each of the client machines. Now it
> works, but only if the host is already dialed up.
> Starting IE5 on the clients doesn't make the
> dialer dial. Ok so now I find this setting
> (default dialup?, I forget) and this works.
> Unfortunately now trying to copy files between
> shared disks is a crap shoot.
>
> Going either way from the Win95 machine works
> fine. Going from the Win98 machines between
> themselves fails with one of 2 cryptic messages:
>
> Sharing violation.
> or
>
> The resource is no longer available.
>
> What the hay does that mean?
>
> The kicker is that sometimes everything works
> fine. No reboot no nothing and it will suddenly
> NOT work, and then it will work again 10 seconds
> later.
>
> Figure that one out?
>
> Works one minute and fails the next? What kind of
> shit is this?
>
> After wading through MS papers on how to make this
> shit work, all day, I am totally disgusted.
>
> I have no clue as to what is going on here. No
> logs, no config files to look at, only some dumb
> fucking wizard who can't even pop a rabbit out of
> a hat. Even "I" can do that trick (I'm an amateaur
> magicician).
>
> I had everything working great under Win98 with
> Wingate and I was using Norton Firewall which when
> probed by Gibsons site showed stealth mode for
> just about every port.
>
> Upgrade to Win98SE (actually I have been using SE
> for a while but I just completed wiring my new
> house for ethernet etc) and it all turns to shit.
> Actually it wasn't an upgrade, it was a fresh
> install.
>
> BTW I don't even have Norton installed yet. Why
> complicate matters :)
>
> While I appreciate how easy Windows makes this all
> seem, it would be nice if it worked. At this point
> I can share the printer and that's about it.
>
> If I knew enough about networking (I admit to
> being clueless) I would switch to Linux, but the
> ip-chains and firewall How-To scared the hell out
> of me.
>
> Under Win98 Norton installed perfectly and worked
> great.
>
> Any available shoulders to cry on :)
>
> DP
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 11:44:36 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> ><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.
Jumping into a discussion *is* basic research, if you have more than
half a brain.
>> 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.
IE doesn't, and that appears to be the whole of the argument.
>> 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.
Last I checked, they were convicted of doing just that.
[...]
>> 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*.
No, you're trying to confuse people by pretending that Jedi's position
is wrong because it is based on the CS definition being the "right" one,
and you, being an MS droid, (or at least a troll), are using the
marketing definition to pretend that he's "wrong".
>> 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.
You're switching back and forth to whichever one will make the other
side "wrong" by taking advantage of the difference in definitions to
obscure the issues, just as MS does.
>> 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.
Your inability to synthesize information and derive from it the basis of
independent thought is clear.
[...]
>> 90% of the things shipped are necessary for the market to find purchase
>> or acceptance of a kernel desirable.
>
>As is IE.
Only according to Microsoft. Not according to the market.
>> 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.
I don't consider the last three to be necessary for an OS. Neither did
the market until MS bundled some in with the monopoly OS in order to
restrain trade. It won't surprise me if the market continues to expect
movie players and graphic viewers, and most probably web browsers even
after MS, but that doesn't make MS's restraint of trade legal, it merely
means the market is allowed to define whatever it wants however it wants
for whatever reason it wants. And the producers have the choice to
supply it, or lose business. Restraint of trade and monopolization is
not an option.
>Then explain why everyone except Microsoft should be allowed to do it.
Nobody should be allowed to force any choice on their customers. Only
Microsoft has been convicted of doing so. The typical justification for
targeting MS is their monopoly, which makes tying all the more obvious.
To many, the fact that Windows is a monopoly is the whole reason
integrating IE was considered wrong. They oversimplify the case, but it
isn't a real problem.
[...]
>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.
The Linux distributor does not own the code as intellectual property.
They are a distributor, not a developer. Linux is not a product; a
Linux distribution is a product. A producer is entitled to decide how
he wants to present his product to the market. A producer is not
allowed to tie two products together if the market shows any inclination
or desire to acquire them separately. If you don't like one Linux
distro's bundled application selection, then buy someone else's Linux
distro, or make a new one. None of these apps are "tied", even the ones
like GNOME or even KDE, which are as "integrated" with the OS as
Microsoft's browser supposedly is, if not in the same manner. If you
wish to acquire GNOME separately to add to some Linux installation which
doesn't include it in the distro, you are free to do so. Likewise, even
in those distros which include GNOME, you can easily get rid of it
completely, which you can't do with IE now that MS has "welded" it into
the OS.
[...]
>> There was no previous "market" for TCP/IP.
>
>Really ? Trumpet made quite a lot of money selling Trumpet Winsock, IIRC.
YRI. Trumpet made money selling TCP/IP stacks to *developers*, who
would bundle it with their apps which required networking. I got
trumpet for free, as most other people did. I wasn't even aware it was
being sold as a commercial product by itself. How much did you pay for
it?
>> 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.
Hmmm... I wonder if that's important?
>> 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 didn't say it was OK for MS to do this, and I was fully on topic. Try
not to direct the discussion away from the point, which is that MS
develops their software to deter competition more than to provide
functionality to consumers. That some functional benefit accrues to the
user when MS attempts to monopolize is potentially an important issue,
but you are going to have to recognize that MS bundled IE in order to
cut off Netscape's air supply before you can engage in such a
discussion.
[...]
>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.
The hope that you will be able to continue selling it is all the
incentive you need. Profits are about making money, not controlling
things. MS can spend all the money they want on developing their
product; it is either technical value or market demand which should have
"control of the software", not anti-competitive strategies. Producers
are supposed to be at the mercy of the market, yes. Is it "unfair" that
it is possible the demand for their product will disappear? Maybe, but
that's the way the market works. If you want to make money, you have to
risk spending decades and millions of dollars developing something that
nobody wants to buy. Ensuring that they need to buy it, whether they
want to or not, is not just criminal, but is literally "wrong".
>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.
More likely its that Apple has a proprietary hardware platform, as well.
[...]
>> 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.
Yet more misdirection! Apparently I was right, unless you include
flagrantly dishonest use of insulting terms like "hypocritical" as a
'different trick' from simple misdirection.
There is no "anti-Microsoft brigade" anymore. We're just part of the
general population again. Now there's just the "MS droids", who are too
naive or simple-minded to understand what Microsoft did that was
criminal and wrong.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 23 Jul 2000 15:45:34 GMT
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 01:48:28 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
>Why did the Chinese Communists contribute over $3,000,000 to the
>Democrats?
I don't believe anyone proved this -- so it's still a conspiracy theory.
BTW, you don't see the republicans enthusiastically pushing campaign
finance reform bills through now do you ? Hmmmm ... I wonder why ?
BTW, the Chinese communists are die hard Richard Nixon fans.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 11:51:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"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 ?
It is illegal to not compete with an inferior product, but to force
consumers to accept the inferior product in order to acquire another
product (in this case, also inferior, but that's beside the point).
Is it all anti-trust crimes which you think are "good business
strategies", or just tying as restraint of trade, a violation of section
1 of the Sherman Act?
>> >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.
If it was market choice, why do I observe a bunch of restrictions placed
on OEMs in order to force them to bundle MS Office instead of IBM's
suite or Corel's suite or Star Office or any other Office suit? Any of
these might fulfill a particular customer's requirements quite easily.
MS has pre-load office bundling about as well locked up, through the
same illegal maneuvers, as the Windows monopoly and the web browser
tying. It certainly isn't its competitive abilities which makes Office
the only one available from most OEMs; it is the contracts between MS
and OEM, which have little to do with consumer demand and everything to
do with MS demands. You'd have to be either blind or stupid to think
that MS "competes" with Office; they anti-compete with it, just like
everything else. They couldn't compete their way out of a paper bag,
from all appearances.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 23 Jul 2000 16:01:57 GMT
On 22 Jul 2000 19:50:04 -0500, Drestin Black wrote:
>Anyway, yes, string for math - lame to be sure, but, I never do endian
>operations, ever.
You need endian operations when (a) you write code that's portable across
hardware architectures which means that (b) networking code tends to
require endian operations. You should get out more.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 12:07:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Spud in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>> Don't these apps still need to be reinstalled if something happens
>> to the Registry?
>
>Depends.
Yes.
>In general, if Windows dies - which can happen;
Can it ever. Windows dies all the time; almost routinely.
>I had a
>server keel over and die last night, actually... thanks to a faulty
>drive.
Thanks to faulty design and a possible bug in a driver.
> Arrgh! - you probably will have to reinstall your apps. One
>of the nice things about MSI, Microsoft's new installer technology, is
>that it makes the process ridiculously easy and quick - especially for
>clients - and more so when managed by a 2K network.
And more so when you sell your soul to Bill Gates. What kind of a moron
would excuse, let alone celebrate, that you can only use the full
capabilities (I use the term 'full capabilities' guardedly, at best, in
this context) of their installation package if you are using a W2K
server?
>Example: I drop a bomb on a client PC. Oops. Drop a new client PC
>in, with Win2K Pro (or even Win98+2K client tools) installed - which I
>can do from a drive image in a matter of a few minutes. Log onto the
>server and voila! There's your desktop, just the way you left it.
>With your applications ready to use.
Drop an identical computer from the same OEM batch with identical
hardware and firmware on the desktop, or your "drive image" is going to
make you want to drop another bomb on a client PC. "Oops."
>In some cases (depending on the application and how it was configured)
>on initially running the application there may be a short delay while
>things that must run locally are copied over, but usually this is only
>a minute or two, and only happens once for a given application.
Only happens once under normal circumstances. Of course, that includes
Windows PCs frying themselves without the necessity of dropping bombs on
them. So when you start up your PC on a W2K 'network', it will take
twenty minutes copying all of the apps (using NetBIOS, I'm sure) from
the server (with no user controls, I'm sure). That sounds like fun.
Three cheers for automated 'solutions'. Thank god our computers are so
much smarter than we are. On the other hand, if they were smart enough
to avoid Microsoft, we wouldn't have a problem to begin with.
>All told, the process of removing the old machine, dropping in a new
>machine and getting the user back to work should be readily
>accomplised in under an hour, if you've spent a little time up front
>setting things up properly. For that matter, you can reduce that,
>too; if you've done the frontwork, your user can move to another
>workstation, log on, and get back to work - using their own settings
>and suchlike - in a matter of minutes, leaving you to finish the
>machine replacement.
Could have done that thirty years ago with Unix. Still can. You can
also provide all of these other benefits, without all the problems, with
a "few minutes" of scripting. I like the way the explanation of the
'feature' makes it clear that if anything doesn't perform
satisfactorily, it is your fault, for not having done whatever "up front
setting things up properly". This useful bit of "teflon
troubleshooting" is quite similar, and I'm sure just as handy, as
blaming Window's outrageously bad design on "bad drivers".
>In a home-user environment, it's not quite that simple. Then again,
>in a home-user environment, it's also not usually that critical.
Because in a home environment, people are used to getting screwed by
Microsoft and blaming it on their own incompetence. In a business
environment, that bullshit doesn't wash. There's just not enough profit
motive (how many billions was that?) for MS to give a rip about the home
user having their PC melt down on a regular basis, forcing them to
re-install all of their apps and losing all of their configuration
settings to Microsoft's "lock-in support" defaults.
--
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
******************************
