Linux-Advocacy Digest #892, Volume #27 Sun, 23 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :( (Paul E. Larson)
Re: Why use Linux? (Arthur Frain)
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Why use Linux? (Chiefy)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451749 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!! (Arthur Frain)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("Yannick")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Some Miserable weekend with Windows :(
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:26:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>Got it all working now at last. It turned out to
>be pilot error, too few beers (or maybe too many,
>I forget) and that blasted Norton Antivirus
>program.
>
Rule1 - Never use Symantec products.
Rule2 - Goto Rule1.
Paul
--
"Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie." -- Frenzy 1972
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 11:15:21 -0700
Spud wrote:
> I note, with some amusement, the implications of this. "Microsoft has a
> bug! It's bad" - the implication being that some comparable system - eg
> Linux - has *no* bugs. I'd be very surprised indeed to discover that Linux,
> it all its glory, contains not one, single bug anywhere. Or perhaps the
> author is suggesting that Linux, unlike Windows, magically fixes bugs
> without the need to ever install patches or updates? Again, I'd be very
> surprised.
> Yes, Windows 95 and 98 - and even 2K - out of the box have bugs. Last I
> heard, so does Linux. And BeOS, and MacOS, and...
> So what's your point?
The point is that you're arguing that Win98 is easy
to use at the same time you're arguing that it has
bugs that make it extremely difficult to use.
My daughter's brand new HP Win98SE based computer
cannot handle a simple thing like finding the
Network Interface Card. Every time she boots from
power off, Win98 installs a second NIC which
prevents her from networking at all. If you delete
one NIC both disappear. It takes about 8 to 10
minutes to fix this (nearly five minutes waiting
for one reboot), and you can't (for example) install
the card/drivers manually because it's PnP, you
can't tell Win98 to *not* detect the second card
(which isn't there anyway) without shutting down
all PnP.
I was going to show her what the network setup
should look like on the other Win98 machine we
have, but when I went to Control Panel | Network
to point out what the proper installation
should look like, I found that machine also
has *2* NICs (from Win98's point of view) even
though only one is physically installed. This
machine actually works that way, though.
I don't doubt that any OS has bugs somewhere.
That's the same as saying all of us have
sexual desires. But we are not all rapists,
and most OS bugs are not as glaring,
annoying or frequently encountered as the
bugs in Windows. I have never encountered
a bug in Linux (2.0 or 2.2) that has
required even a work around, much less required
me to re-install my network every time I
power on, or reboot the machine every 50
days, or have to worry about my machine
being trashed by a 'Good Times'-like virus.
Windows isn't an OS, it's a POS.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 14:54:43 -0400
"Clell A. Harmon" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 02:34:40 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.fan.bill-gates;
> >> >> >> All of this discussion about Microsoft renting apps with .NET
> >> >> >> got me to thinking...what are we facing if, in fact, Microsoft
> >> >> >> does start renting apts???
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Microsoft Apts 2000
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> WINDOW
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No apartment may ever have more than one window. Residents might
> >> >> >> forget which window they were looking out of and get confused.
> >> >>
> >> >> [...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Hilarious! Where'd it come from?
> >> >
> >> >I wrote it.
> >>
> >> No, really.
> >
> >Do I have to post a damn copyright notice?
>
> Steal one of those too?
you're not funny, you're just droll.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chiefy)
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: 23 Jul 2000 19:16:54 GMT
On Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:49:15 -0700, Spud did say to the dudes:
[snips
>Again, let me reiterate; if you're doing typical _home_ use things -
>maintaining your 10 page web site, writing letters, doing home accounting,
>etc - then the occasional crash isn't a big deal; at most it's annoying,
Forgive the late interjection but I have to dive in.
There is no excuse for a software induced crash. Not acceptable.
Ten years ago, maybe, but not now. Linux doesn't crash.
I can honestly say that I have not suffered a single crash in the 12
months, that it's been in use here, and the Linux box is running for 20
hours or so every day.
I think one of the biggest gripes that users of other OS's have with MS,
is Bill Gates' over exaggerated claims about his products. It's not long
since Bill was advising the world to discard their Unix/Linux servers
and re-equip with his stuff.
MS/HotMail are currently using Apache 1.3.6 on a FreeBSD box!
Why doesn't Microsoft use Microsoft software?.
LGB
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451749
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:24:48 GMT
Here's today's Tinman digest:
1> That alone is insufficient to qualify as pontification.
Incorrect, Tinman. The absence of any reasoning on your part is
quite sufficient.
1> Don't you know, Davie?
Who is that, Tinman?
1> On the contrary.
Even more pontification.
1> ("
What's that supposed to mean, Tinman?
1> I already have,
I wasn't talking about some previous alleged spelling error, Tinman.
I was referring to the new one that you claimed I made.
1> yet you persist, to no end.
You persisted with a new claim of a spelling error on my part, Tinman.
1> That is self-evident.
On what basis do you claim that it is self-evident, Tinman?
1> On the basis that is it readily apparent.
On what basis do you can that it is readily apparent, Tinman?
1> The amount of time you spend tholenating is a good example.
I don't spend any time "tholenating", Tinman.
1> One acts in a tholensque manner.
Illogical, Tinman.
1> If you didn't tholenate, you wouldn't be involved in these threads.
Illogical, Tinman.
1> The amount of time you spend conversing is a good example.
Incorrect, Tinman.
1> Discourse free of tholenisms qualify.
What do you consider "tholenisms", Tinman? That's sufficiently
subjective to enable you to get any result you want.
1> Deja
And how did Deja allow you to do that, Tinman?
1> And then we stopped tholenating and began conversing.
Incorrect, Tinman.
1> See above.
The above is subjective, Tinman, allowing you to get whatever
result you want.
1> Tholenation isn't discussion, Davie.
Who is that, Tinman?
1> How ironic, coming from you, Davie.
Who is that, Tinman?
1> See above.
The above is subjective, Tinman, allowing you to get whatever
result you want.
1> Your utterance is hardly an example of anything I've said.
Non sequitur.
1> ('
What's that supposed to mean, Tinman?
1> See above.
The above is subjective, Tinman, allowing you to get whatever
result you want.
1> Again, your utterance is hardly an example of anything I've said.
Non sequitur.
1> ('
What's that supposed to mean, Tinman?
1> Hit the turntable, Davie, you're stuck.
Who is that, Tinman?
1> Hit the turntable, Davie, you're stuck.
Who is that, Tinman?
1> On the contrary.
Even more pontification.
1> My experience.
Classic circular reasoning.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:21:28 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> 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.
Right...they just gave the money back for no apparent fucking reason.
God, how gulible are you???
> 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.
>
Regardless, Beijing and Moscow are VERY closely allied.
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:22:32 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> 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.
Drestin only works on Micro-shit because he's a professional(tm)
as opposed to a professional.
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!!
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 11:52:55 -0700
Spud wrote:
>
> "Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > And I am not saying the current versions from MS
> > > are perfect as they are far from perfect, but they are a lot
> better
> > > than they were 3 years ago. And so is Linux for that matter, even
> more
> > > so in fact.
> >
> > > How about discussing Win 2k or Win98se or Linux SuSE 6.4 and
> Caldera
> > > 2.4 instead of RedHat 5.2 and Windows 95?
> >
> > Based on recent experience, Win9x is sufficiently
> > descriptive. I don't know (or care) anything about
> > W2K or NT from personal experience, although I've
> > heard plenty of negatives from users.
> But not a single positive, right? Let's make sure we filter things
> appropriately so we only represent the things that make _our_ side
> look good, right?
Are you looking for a complete and thorough review of
Win98? I was responding to the statement "a lot better
than they were 3 years ago'. Three years aga I could
at least get Win95 to work right out of the box - now
it seems even that isn't possible.
But I'll have to remember that every time someone has
a criticism of Linux, they're "filtering" things to
make their side look good, right? Don't want to ignore
all the good things about Linux, do we?
> > whole machine. CTRL-ALT-DEL produced the ever
> > lovely blue and white "System Busy" screen.
> > One more CTRL-ALT-DEL produced a blank screen,
> > with nothing else possible besides power down
> > and reboot. NN now works fine again.
> >
> > This is, to repeat, a completely unmodified just
> > out of the box system from a reputable mfg with
> > no added hw or sw - just MS all the way. This is
> > no different than several years of similar
> > experience with Win95 - I find the suggestion
> > that MS is improving hard to believe.
> Says the man who doesn't _care_ about NT or 2K, despite them being
> considerably more stable.
MS doesn't recommend W2K for consumer use. How is
W2K relevant to the fact that MS's Win9x series
of consumer grade OS's are still crap and are not
improving? And why would I consider giving the
money it takes to buy W2K to a company that produces
crap like Win98, and isn't even embarassed about it?
> As to your configuration... yes, it may have been MS all the way - but
> who set it up, and how?
Hewlett-Packard, I assume. It came straight out of
their box.
> When I got called in to look at an HP box not
> too long ago, I discovered that it hand dozens of unused devices and
> drivers installed; apparently the logic is "install everything, let
> Windows figure out what it needs". While this reduces workload at the
> install end, it is not the optimal way to configure Windows - and it
> often leads to faults of the sort you describe, where things simply
> start failing for no apparent reason.
Have you bought a new PC recently? There is no
way to screw up the initial setup, because the
only way to do the initial setup is to load a
disk image from CD. Why is it always necessary
to blame the user or other third parties for
things which are obviously MS's fault? And what
does this say for Windows ease of use if the
average person or a major technology company
like HP is unable to set it up properly?
As far as I could tell, everything was set up
properly. It just crashed. Nothing unusual there.
> Check your config. To make doubly sure, boot in safe mode, then check
> the drivers installed - you might be surprised at the mess someone's
> made.
The original config was correct when the crash
happened. I checked all of that stuff when I
setup the User ID and Workgroup names.
It turns out that now the mess is made by Win98.
Every time the machine is rebooted from power off,
Win98SE installs a second NIC. When you delete the
second NIC, both disappear. So now, every time my
daughter turns on her computer and wants to network
with another Windows machine (or any machine for that
matter) it is necessary to:
1. Go into Control Panel | Network and delete
one NIC (which deletes both).
2. Reboot, at which time Win98 reports "new hardware"
and installs the NIC. (You can't manually install
PnP HW on Win98 - there's a dialog box that tells
you that)
3. Reboot to complete the install. (This reboot
takes about 5 minutes)
4. Go back to Control Panel } Network and install
the NetBEUI protocol, which Win98 doesn't do automatically.
5. Reboot again.
You'd think I could install NetBEUI before the reboot
in step 3, but if I choose 'cancel' for the the 'Do
you want to reboot now?' dialog, the machine hangs
and has to be reset. This causes Win98 to detect a
*second* NIC, and if you delete that, both disappear,
and you're back at step 1.
This is, of course, the famous Windows "ease of use".
And I haven't even gotten into how abysmally slow
the network performance is.
Windows isn't an OS, it's a POS.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 19:30:43 GMT
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
8l6en9$ia0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Yannick wrote in message ...
> >> You mean people will get what they pay for, and pay for what they get?
> Is
> >> that such a bad thing?
> >It's not a bad thing for the customers on the short run. But cash cows are
> sometimes
> >needed to develop new products...
>
> That is certainly true, but the new products should stand on their own after
> they are established.
Established... interesting point.
You'll notice that all PC OSes in the last twelve or five years have needed about
five-seven years to get some technical completion and/or commercial success.
This was more or less the case for Windows (Windows 3.1 was the real start of the
thing).
This was the case for OS/2 (which had a great success once it was
able to run on reasonable machines, and with full support of DOS and Windows 16 bit
applications).
It's being the case for linux.
It was about the same problem for BeOS. There are surely other examples.
Now, take NT (which is quite a different system from Windows 9x, even if
they share some of the upper layers and have partially common APIs.
You will find that this 5-7 years period comes near... year 2000.
So you may say that Windows NT reached some kind of technical completion
with Windows 2000. It's true that the step seems quite big since NT4.
The whole point of this is that NT needed a cash cow until now. Now it should be
able to stand on its own, let's hope it does because if the company gets broken up,
it will really need it.
As for Win9x... Well, this is a particular case. It has the commercial success because
it is a replacement of Windows (16 bit, I mean). But the goal is to have some middle
point between a consumer OS and a professional OS. Technically speaking, the goal
is not completely achieved : Whistler would be best. To sum it up : there is still a
lot of things to do to Win9x, which is only five years old and is burdened by legacy
and hardware multiplicity. It desperately needs a cash cow or we will have to pay
it at retail price. Ouch.
>
> >When I said in the short run, I meant, would we have Windows 2000 if there
> hadn't be the
> >Office cash cow during all those years ?
>
> If Windows had to be developed without Office money, I think we (or rather
> you - I have fortunately avoided W2K so far) would have a much slimmer and
> more efficient system. There would be less to Windows, but more does not
> mean better.
Slimmer, yes... but more efficient ? I think windows suffers a lot from its
wide audience. Lots of different hardware, lots of different software. Lots of
strange combinations of both. You'll tell me that a well designed system does
not suffer from this. This is partially true. There are hardware and software
that do not respect the rules, and there is a minimum set of rules to follow lest
you have a system that spends all its time rising barriers and preventing apps from
doing things, from fear it becomes dangerous for the system. Besides, there is legacy.
It's not easy to deal with legacy.
So you have MS, who needs to support lots of strange hard & soft, who needs to support
its legacy to keep its market share, who needs to develop new things for the system to
stay up to date. And on the other side understands that Win9x will never do the trick
and will need to be replaced by Win2K... All of this with moderate prices because free
linux
is trying to force the door open.
Do you really think they could avoid using Office money ? Of course, not THAT much
money.
By far, probably. Office was the cash cow for the whole company. But yet, without any
Office money? I'm not sure of this.
>
> >
> >As for the OS, until all personal users apps (home software, video games,
> etc...) get
> >ported to linux, users _at home_ don't have much choice whether or not to
> buy windows...
>
>
> This is definitely a limitation, but the "lack of applications" barrier is
> getting lower all the time. Wine is also steadily improving, letting people
> run Windows programs on Linux.
>
> >The fact that the OEM versions are cheap used to be a way of illegal
> competition. Now it
> >is still a hard blow at anyone who wants to sell a new commercial OS, but
> the main
> >competitor of Windows today is linux, and is, in most cases, free.
> Therefore, keeping the
> >OEM version at a low price is a way to reduce something that has become,
> for some time, an
> >almost inevitable cost.
>
> It will be a while before a large proportion of buyers do not want Windows
> on new PCs, but there are already some who are not interested in Windows.
> There are also plenty who want to run NT, but find they need to buy a Win98
> licence with their PC anyway. What is important for consumers is that they
> should have the choice. If they don't want Windows, they should not have to
> pay for it (even at the low OEM cost). Even more importantly, OEMs should
> be allowed to install other OSes as well, letting the customer choose. BeOS
> offered OEMs the chance to install their full OS for free - some OEMs would
> have jumped at the chance, but their "agreements" with MS means that they
> cannot install dual-boot BeOS and Windows without paying full retail price
> for Windows.
>
Yes, their forcing of Windows on the PCs is not acceptable. I do not deny it.
Understand my whole point here. I believe that what was needed was regulation.
Fighting MS on illegal points. Biting them each time they jumped over the
fence of law. Making the pre-load completely free, including forbidding
MS to use pricing techniques to force OEMs to choose Windows.
That is a way to fight the monopoly. What I wanted to point out is that breaking up,
they (the DoJ) are going to destroy what is good in MS, harm the customer,
increase costs, and do nothing to the monopoly problem.
> >
> >
> >> In the office suite market, the price might come down so that MS Office
> >> actually starts to look like value for money. Without the OS / apps
> tying,
> >> people will again be free to choose in the apps market, and if they do
> >> choose Office they pay a more realistic price for it.
> >They've always been free to choose but for the price. If Office is cheaper,
> >then more people will choose office. I don't complain personally, but I
> think
> >this is not a way to lessen MS's relatively dominant position on this
> market segment.
> >
> MS already have a dominant position in the office suite market. I agree
> that a lower price will not help that, but if we can break the assumption
> that Windows and MS Office are inevitably tied together, and break the OEM
> combined pre-install deals, then customers will have a more open choice for
> applications.
>
>
> >> Competition will inspire much greater "innovation" in both Windows and
> >> Office than their current tying.
> >If the splitting, results in more competition. Those two companies are not
> >going to compete among themselves, or at worst not much.
> >
>
> I was thinking of competion between the two MSes and other companies.
I meant that either APPS-MS goes multiplatform, therefore
competing indirectly against OS-MS, either it stays tuned with OS-MS, and
the initial problem is not solved. Same way of reasoning if OS-MS tries
to help other APPS companies.
(snip)
> >> It is all about choice. No one (except real fanatics) objects to Windows
> >> being the most popular OS, or MS Office being the most popular office
> suite.
> >> What people object to is being forced to use them whether they like them
> or
> >> not. One of the effects of the split is that MS is going to have to
> fully
> >> document and explain the Win32 API (if the court had ruled that the API
> was
> >> to be reveiled without splitting the company, ms would have been able to
> >> keep the documentation out-of-date - new versions of the API would only
> be
> >> publically documented after they had already used it for new versions of
> >> Office and other apps). This will allow the Wine developers to fill in
> the
> >> gaps in Wine, so that users can run MS Office on Linux or any other UNIX
> (or
> >> soon BeOS) system.
> >Sorry, but I don't know : does Wine implement some sort of COM ? 'cause I
> guess
> >that's absolutely necessary to get Office to run on Linux.
> >
>
> I think it does - if not, it is in development. They are nearing the stage
> where Wine 1.0 will be released (i.e., when they think it is solid and
> complete enough for general use by everybody). Certainly it seems that MS
> Office, and other MS programs, have been some of the hardest to get running
> properly under Wine (because of the undocumented API calls or features), but
> it is also one of the programs that Wine developers have concentrated most
> on, as it is what people need to run using it.
>
> >
> >> Do you think the increasing
> >> "integration" between the OS and apps actually improves the products? A
> lot
> >> of users, when they have a free choice, choose other applications like
> Word
> >> Perfect, Lotus Smartsuite, or whatever. A lot also choose Office freely,
> >> but the point is that there is nothing so important or useful about the
> >> integration that makes it essential when choosing applications.
> >I think the integration, as far as office is concerned (the integration of
> IE is quite
> >another matter), is not so much important for the users as for the
> developers.
> >They can share "good practices".
>
> This makes sense within the application suite, but integration with the OS
> is another matter.
>
1. See <rWme5.1332$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in thread
" Re: A point (was Re:Happy Independence Day)" where I explain how
integration could benefit everybody, including competitors, if some
crucial parts of the architecture of IE were made public.
2. The work on database systems can help where the OS needs to
manage internal databases. The work on UI can help enhance the UI
provisions of the system. The way the wordprocessor organizes
document can benefit to the system's help system, etc...
Sharing good practices is about integration of the company, not the
software itself.
(snip)
> Other companies will certainly be immediate beneficiares of the breakup, but
> I believe this will lead to more choice for the end users. Not everything
> will improve, but overall it will be to our best.
Choice is not an end in itself. Having the tools we want to do what we want is the
end. Choice is an excellent means most of the time. Not always. You'll notice
that computer industry always suffer from lack of standardisation. But of course
there is a difference between standardisation and having only one way of seeing things.
On the general point, remember this : I am not against reducing the monopolistic
dominance of MS and forcing competition. I'm against destroying MS, especially
if it does not efficiently solve the problem of monopoly.
Besides, consider this : the US courts may be competent in this affair according
to law. But if you try to consider the problem in a realistic way, there is a limit to
this competence. If you are solving the problem in a soft manner, OK. If you break
up the company, I will kindly remind you that you are taking the risk of _destroying_
Microsoft. Whose products are used worldwide and daily for lots of important tasks.
Which means shaking the economy of the whole planet. The US are certainly not
_that_ competent.
Yannick.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
