Linux-Advocacy Digest #15, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("JS/PL")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? ("Spud")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Windows98 ("Spud")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:50:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>You clearly don't understand the difference between 1) not *allowing*
>Linux boxes to be sold, which you haven't proven and 2) there being no
>demand for Linux boxes. And if there was demand, I have every reason
>to believe CUSA would stock Linux boxes.
So you rest your case on blind faith and ignorance, is that your
position?
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Another one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:48:49 -0400
"Clell A. Harmon" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:31:33 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >Denial ain't just a river in Egypt....
> >> >>
> >> >> I suppose you wrote this joke too Aaron?
> >> >
> >> >Are you an idiot
> >> >
> >> >a) no
> >> >b) yes
> >>
> >> Oh no, now he thinks he's invented the dumb-fuck poll joke.
> >>
> >> Put your shrink on danger money Aaron...
> >
> >How much are you willing to pony up?
>
> Are you claiming to have invented the dumb-fuck poll joke
> Aaron?
We'll resolve this after you put your money on the table.
--
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] ()
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:50:49 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:18:07 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 01:35:55 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Are you blind? You're denying facts that are staring you right in the
>> >> face. It's unbelievable. Microsoft comes right out and says that IE was
>> >> integrated to kill Netscape, and you deny it!
>> >>
>> >> What part of...
>> >>
>> >> "The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp, we have to []
>> >> position the browser as "going away" and do deeper integration on
>> >> Windows."
>> >>
>> >> is unclear?
>> >
>> >Microsoft never said "lets kill Netscape by integrating our browser".
>> >Integration of the browser during a time when internet usage had exploded
>is
>> >simply adding value to the existing product. Customers wanted an
>integrated
>>
>> ...by conveniently killing a competitor that doesn't have a free
>> distribution channel to nearly every desktop user as well as several
>> natural monopolies which with to fund software development.
>
>They didn't have distribution channels, yet they themselves admitted to
Sure they do.
They have coreleone style contracts with the PC vendors that
make up the supermajority of systems sold.
>distributing something along the lines of 100,000,000 copies of their
>browser software the year that they convinced the government help them
>compete in the free market?
>Sounds like MS was really doing some damage. Netscape just couldn't handle
>the fact that the long free ride on top was about to take a change for the
>worse because an obviously better product had hit the scene.
That fact can never be established really.
Exploder got a free ride into it's market.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:00:55 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8locu6$218j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8lo610$icb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> How far out of your way have you gone to avoid finding out the truth?
> >
> >I've been reading the same news reports, web pages etc as everyone else.
> >
> >> I suggest you read some of the PC vendor's trial depositions and
> >> why they had no choice but to agree to pay for an MS license for
> >> every processor they sold whether the customer wanted it or not.
> >
> >Specific examples would be nice.
>
> Start with IBM's.
Where can I find it ?
> >An argument by the PC vendor of "we had to stock only Windows because
that's
> >all our customers wanted" isn't go to be particularly convincing.
>
> That's not what you'll find.
>
> >> >Alternatives have always been accessible. Sticking your fingers in
your
> >> >ears and repeating statements to the contrary will not make them true.
> >>
> >> Of course, after you paid for windows by buying a PC from
> >> a major vendor you could delete it.
> >
> >PCs without Windows have always been available. This "major vendor"
> >condition always gets thrown in eventually because it's the only way
people
> >like you can make your point remotely true.
>
> Most people buy from major vendors. That's what makes them major.
> If Microsoft controls what they are allowed to offer, they
> control what most people will get.
Except they don't. The OEMs control what is available, and base their
control on what the majority of the customers want.
If only 1 out of 500 customers wants a machine without Windows, why should
OEMs be forced to pander to them ?
> >However, it's not relevant, as
> >"major vendors" will sell to the majority market (or rather, that which
> >maximises their profits) and have no obligation, legal, ethical or
> >otherwise, to stock a product for every potential customer.
>
> The PC vendors aren't the issue here. There is no evidence
> that they would not have been perfectly happy to sell other
> operating systems all along. Read the vendor depositions
> against MS to see why they didn't.
There is no evidence to suggest they *would* have been interested in
providing and supporting multiple OSes, either.
> >Your arguments of "you couldn't get it from a major manufacturer" are
akin
> >to saying "I couldn't buy a Rolls Royce off Ford".
>
> Hardly - the PC vendors should not be controlled by MS's anti-competitive
> practices.
They aren't.
> >> The people who tried
> >> to get refunds were refused - another thing you could hardly
> >> have missed if you were at all interested in the subject.
> >
> >On what grounds, were they refused ?
>
> MS didn't feel like paying up and I think the PC vendors who
> sold it were contractually prevented from giving them.
I see. Some links to the actual events ?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:53:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Paul E. Larson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
>>Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
>>Writings and Discoveries;
>>
>And that is what you should have provided in the first place.
Quotes from statute are hardly what should lead a discussion, though
they are usually helpful, aren't they? Perhaps you should have looked
it up first. This isn't a random college textbook, you know. Its the
Constitution of the United States. I dare say we should be able to
assume you're already familiar with it.
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:53:45 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:11:38 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> ...they don't know well enough to be aware of the distinction
>> between operating systems and buy the first thing they come
>> across.
>
>Ignorance is no defense. Why is it anyones concern that "the average joe"
>isn't self-discovering all of his available options.?
We've covered that already.
Joe Normal doesn't want to spend the equivalent of a high
end refridgerator on or in a marginal and untrusted merchant.
Tivo & perfect replaceability: Alive and well at retail.
BeOS & network effects: Gasse can't give it away.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:56:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> You're trolling. And those smilies are annoying. Its like watching
>> Bill Gates with that little smirk, spouting complete nonsense and
>> expecting people to believe it. How droll.
>
>Thing is...people do believe him. Have you checked the polls recently. Those
>warm sweater commercials are quite a success.
Bullshit slick marketing generally is. That's why it is unethical. If
it didn't work, it would merely be stupid. Polls have no value except
to the ignorant. The tide is definitely turning for poor Bill. And we
would hope this is a blow to the general encouragement of ignorance
which such practices, and you, promote.
--
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: "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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:05:10 +1000
"Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > > Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Microsoft doesn't force you to use IE as your primary Web browser.
You
> > > > > can use it to download Navigator and never use again, if that's
what
> > > > > you want. So what's the problem?
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft's repeated claims that you couldn't remove Explorer
without
> > > > irreversibly crippling Windows, for one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > IE is far more then the browers. Removing IE will damage windows.
Removing
> > > the web browsers will effect nothing.
> >
> > Removing kfm will damage KDEs ability to act as KDE.
>
> kfm isn't distributed as a product. IE was and is and so is Windows.
IE and Windows are distributed together. IE for Windows is also distributed
seperately, and when installs upgrades parts of the OS.
As of IE3, IE becomes part of the OS by replacing and upgrading OS
components.
Presumably you think Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to distribute OS updates
for free ? You'd rather pay for them ?
> That's Illegal product tying. MS's breaking Windows and shipping a
> unworkable version of Win95 to comply with a court order was (according
> to the Judge) one of the reasons they lost credibility and why the FoF
> does not reflect MS's version of the facts.
Just taking out IE will break Windows. You have to replace all the
components that rely on it *not* to break Windows. Just like, well, any
other part of the OS, really.
> So much for the tactic of winning all battles as at all costs. One
> might want to learn from these mistakes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:57:44 GMT
On 27 Jul 2000 06:48:21 GMT, Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8lo8l4$m1g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Yes and no. Predecessor systems were an abominable mix of
>>inhomogeneous, one-of-a-kind, sole-purpose, pork-barrel projects that
>>were so incompatible that they couldn't cooperate well enough to crash
>>each other. As for entire specialized shipboard subsystems going
>>out-of-service, it happened far too often, and the Navy's Smart Ship
>>program was conceived to address that deficiency, among others.
>
> However, why WinNT and not some Unix-like OS or OSes?
...or better yet: a process control OS with an established
record like QNX?...
[deletia]
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:58:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Microsoft leads the trend. Microsoft is the trend. I don't see any
>> other software vendors lying about their products
>
>Have you checked the screenshots of some of those games? And compared with
>the box picture?
Yes. None of them are even misleading, AFAIK, and certainly not lies.
That's a rather trivial attempt at an argument. I'm glad to see were
getting somewhere. At least you seem to recognize how tenuous your
position is, if this is where it leads.
--
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.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:58:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Jensen in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>: "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>: > Microsoft leads the trend. Microsoft is the trend. I don't see any
>: > other software vendors lying about their products
>
>: Have you checked the screenshots of some of those games? And compared with
>: the box picture?
>
>Told by a computer software salesman:
>
>Q: Know the difference between a used car salesman and a software
> salesman?
>
>A: A user car salesman knows when he's lying.
LOL! Oh, I'm gonna remember that one. ;-)
--
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] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 06:59:08 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 02:53:33 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Paul E. Larson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
>>>To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
>>>Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
>>>Writings and Discoveries;
>>>
>>And that is what you should have provided in the first place.
>
>Quotes from statute are hardly what should lead a discussion, though
>they are usually helpful, aren't they? Perhaps you should have looked
>it up first. This isn't a random college textbook, you know. Its the
>Constitution of the United States. I dare say we should be able to
>assume you're already familiar with it.
...or at the very least capable of looking the damn thing up
on your own...
...it's not exactly the sort of thing you need Westlaw for.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 17:08:33 +1000
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8lok5s$2l9f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8lojc1$bsg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >What is insane about DLLs (note, how they are designed, not used) ?
> >>
> >> There is no enforceable mechanism for splitting up the namespace so
that
> >> applications don't tread on each others' (and the OS's) toes by
> >> overwriting DLLs.
> >
> >That falls under the "design restrictions" part. They couldn't just add
> >"read-only" style permissions to the system directory, because it would
have
> >broken a *lot* of software. Witness the huge amount of software NT
breaks
> >if you set it up securely.
>
> Being able to overwrite the original copy isn't so much the
> problem as the need to do so. There is no way to have
> two versions of a DLL loaded at once. A program can load
> a private copy from it's own directory if the original
> hasn't already been loaded, but only one can be active
> at once.
I was under the impression you could have two compies of different
versioned, but same-named DLLs loaded simultaneously.
Although, don't the filenames change with major version changes ?
> >Which other OSes provide such a mechanism, anyway ? What stops me
> >overwriting a Linux shared library with one of the same name ?
>
> You can if you have write permissions, but you don't have to.
> There are several ways to have multiple versions of the same
> library in use by different programs at the same time, including
> supplying your own path to search for them.
I believe the key words in the other person's post were "enforcable
mechanism". Supplying your own path is not an "enforcable mechanism".
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 03:01:18 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >Every software maker "dictates their own licensing terms" and it is
> >> >completely legal.
> >>
> >> No, business people (non-criminal type, putatively ethical variety)
> >> *negotiate* licensing terms. Thugs and gangsters "dictate" licensing
on
> >> "their own terms". Such terms generally being "an offer you can't
> >> refuse." All on the up and up, so say the consigliere.
> >
> >$45 for an OS that retails for $200 isn't a bad offer. Hardly what one
might
> >call....how you say...strong-arm monopolistic pricing.
>
> $45 dollars for seventy five cents worth of CD? Christ, that's about as
> monopolistic as you can get, IMO.
And I suppose it just pisses you off when you fill your gas tank and are
forced to pay over and above the electrical cost to pump it into your tank.
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:04:15 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Spud wrote:
> >
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > Platform-endian to neutral conversions and back, however, are
very
> > > > handy things. Example: I have to send data from a big-endian
box
> > to a
> > > > middle-endian box; what use is a big-to-little endian here?
None
> > at
> > > > all. However, a halfway well written snippet of C code with a
> > defined
> > > > neutral format doesn't care what the endianness of the
platform
> > it's
> > > > compiled on is, it just works. :)
> > >
> > > Try dumping a jpeg from a big-endian platform onto tape, and
then
> > > loading it up onto a little-endian platform, and get back to me.
> >
> > Simple; write it out in an endian-neutal format, and have your
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> There is no such thing.
Twaddle. Here's a byte order for 32-bit unsigned longs: ABCD.
Here's another: DABC. And another: DCBA. And so on. Pick one, use
that for your actual storage format, and then it doesn't matter if
you're on a big, little or middle-endian machine, they can all read
(and write) the data quite happily, using a single function for each
of the read and write operations. Let's say we pick DCBA. Is that
big endian? Nope. Is it middle endian? Nope. Is it little endian?
Nope. Oh, but all three can use it without problems; voila, a netural
format.
> A number is either stored in Big-Endian, or Little-Endian format.
> There are no other practical alternative.
See above. Us computer geeks do it all the time.
> > conversion routines convert to whatever's native. I've done lots
of
> > this sort of thing, the mechanics are pretty basic.
>
> Translation: one MUST do a Big-Endian => Little Endian *or*
> a Little-Endian => Big-Endian conversion if the platforms
> differ in this respect.
No; whatever endian to neutral, neutral to whatever other endian.
> I WIN.
Fine, have a cookie.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 07:08:46 GMT
In article <8lomgp$da$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > kfm isn't distributed as a product. IE was and is and so is
> > Windows.
>
> IE and Windows are distributed together. IE for Windows is also
> distributed seperately, and when installs upgrades parts of the OS.
>
> As of IE3, IE becomes part of the OS by replacing and upgrading OS
> components.
>
> Presumably you think Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to distribute OS
> updates for free ?
Not when "The major reason for this is . . . to combat Nscp"
> You'd rather pay for them ?
>
> > That's Illegal product tying. MS's breaking Windows and shipping a
> > unworkable version of Win95 to comply with a court order was
> > (according to the Judge) one of the reasons they lost credibility
> > and why the FoF does not reflect MS's version of the facts.
>
> Just taking out IE will break Windows. You have to replace all the
> components that rely on it *not* to break Windows. Just like, well,
> any other part of the OS, really.
You say this like it's something that can't be helped. It's not. It's
something that was done intentionally by Microsoft to lock Netscape out
of the market.
"I don't understand how IE is going to win. The current path is simply
to copy everything that Netscape does packaging and product wise. Let's
[suppose] IE is as good as Navigator/Communicator. Who wins? The one
with 80% market share. Maybe being free helps us, but once people are
used to a product it is hard to change them. Consider Office. We are
more expensive today and we're still winning. My conclusion is that we
must leverage Windows more. Treating IE as just an add-on to Windows
which is cross-platform [means] losing our biggest advantage -- Windows
marketshare. We should dedicate a cross group team to come up with ways
to leverage Windows technically more. . . . We should think about an
integrated solution -- that is our strength."
I find it rather funny that Mr. Allchin doesn't even suggest that
Microsoft add innovative new features to IE. He just accepts that the
best Microsoft can do is "copy everything that Netscape does packaging
and product wise."
> > So much for the tactic of winning all battles as at all costs. One
> > might want to learn from these mistakes.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Spud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 00:09:32 -0700
[snips]
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You're failure to see the utility of such methods indicates a
> > > lack of experience.
> >
> > Indeed; I've only been in the computing field 21 years.
>
> yet you write like a novice Windroid.
>
> Why is that?
Because, by your way of "thinking", anyone who can actually point out
that in fact, you're full of hooie, is by definition a "novice
Windroid", perhaps?
Example: I still haven't seen you support your claim that I "keep
proclaiming" that "Linux lags behind Windows." Are you happy being a
demonstrable liar? Will you continue to dodge the issue? Or will you
scrounge up the integrity somehow to admit you screwed up?
Nah, never happen.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
