Linux-Advocacy Digest #307, Volume #28 Tue, 8 Aug 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Linux: To Deploy or Not Deploy... (Larry Cosner Jr.)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Jim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:04:02 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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;
> >> [...]
> >> >There is no such thing as a dishonest mistake. You cannot tell a lie
if
> >you
> >> >do not know the truth.
> >>
> >> I don't accept those two statements has being related by logic. The
> >> second is correct, but has no bearing on the first, which is incorrect.
> >
> >The bearing it has on the first is in defining the word "dishonest".
> >
> >Again, you cannot make a dishonest mistake. Being dishonest requires the
> >truth be known.
>
> Known by whom; the one making the mistake, or the one detecting the
> mistake?
The one making the mistake, of course. What relevance does the knowledge
some person has to the knowledge some other person may or may not have.
> It is true that one is not a liar if one is merely ignorant of
> the truth.. This does not, however, entirely discombobulate the meaning
> of the phrase "dishonest mistake". A dishonest mistake is an
> intentional mistake, one motivated by dishonesty, and there is such a
> thing.
You mean a lie. I'm not surprised if you're going to call me a liar, Max,
you have a habit of doing that to people whose arguments you cannot refute.
You may be surprised to know, however, that you calling someone a liar does
not make them one.
> And its worth observing that you seem to practice it routinely
> in your insistence that observation and contemplation is not sufficient
> to recognize Microsoft's behavior as both criminal and unethical.
Working on whose definition of "ethical" ?
> You
> make the mistake of not considering much of the evidence, and your use
> of obfuscation and misdirection and general flum-flummery in conjunction
> with this pretense of naivete indicates it is a dishonest, which is to
> say false, mistake.
I have considered all available evidence. That I, someone who does not have
an irrational hatred of Microsoft, should draw a conclusion different to
yours, is not something you should consider strange or dishonest.
> You know the truth is that these are reasonable
> considerations, whether the truth is that MS is wrong or not. You
> simply want to avoid confronting your mistake in reasoning by resting on
> tell-tale "we cannot know" and "that's not MS's problem" arguments, and
> so many of your statements concerning Windows and Microsoft constitute
> dishonest mistakes.
If you want to point out any mistakes I've made, feel free.
> >> In a consumer market where convenience is a major selling point,
> >> accessible means "doesn't have to be looked for." As if you've never
> >> read Jedi's sig.
> >
> >I probably have, but I certainly don't remember it. Since jedi resides
in
> >my killfile, I also rarely read his posts.
>
> To paraphrase 'Finding an alternative in a free market shouldn't be the
> equivalent of a quest for the holy grail.'
>From my recollection of history, find the Grail was significantly more
difficult than opening a computer magazine and reading bit.
> >And PCs sans-Windows could be located easily. It required the enormously
> >mentally taxing task of opening a computer magazine.
>
> As opposed to the actual process of locating a PC which the overwhelming
> majority of the milliions-strong PC market implements, which is to call
> a well-known and ostensibly reliable and enduring major PC manufacturer,
> or visiting their large, clearly marked stores or complete-feature rich
> web sights.
>
> Finding an alternative to Windows shouldn't require an alternative
> process in finding a PC.
Wny not ? Finding most rare and niche items requires a different process to
finding common ones.
Finding a can of XXXX beer in the USA probably requires a rather different
process to finding a can of Bud.
> >Anyone dropping a few grand onto a purchase without doing basic research
> >deserves everything they get.
>
> Thus, the "that's somebody else's fault" dishonest mistake is clearly
> evidenced.
If someone buys a product that they haven't researched, and then finds out
it's not what they want, then who else's mistake would it be ?
> >> And the key to your position resolves to "might", and an argument of
> >> ignorance.
> >
> >No, an argument of probability.
>
> And the empirical or research-based data which supports this probability
> is sadly missing, I must point out. Your willingness to second-guess
> the market is not matched, apparently, by your ability to double-check
> your assumptions.
There is a plethora of empirical evidence supporting the position that
non-Windows PCs are not popular.
There is very little supporting the position that Linus is a viable
alternative.
> >Evidence indicates that even today, Linux is unpopular in the consumer
> >market. This is despite the generational leap in interface and usability
it
> >has made in just th last 12 to 18 months.
> >
> >Evidence strongly suggests Linux was not available to the consumer market
> >because it was not in demand.
>
> How can anybody say such a stupid thing with a straight face, I ask you?
Hmmm. <scratches head>
Because it's true ?
> I have to assume you've been exposed to better information about how
> markets work than the rather inexplicable suggestion that demand and
> supply are not inextricably related. You have no *evidence*, only an
> *assumption*, that Linux is not in demand.
Assumptions don't even come into it. The evidence that Linux is not in
demand is its notable absence in the consumer market until very recently,
and its lacklustre performance in same since.
> And a rather silly
> assumption at that, given the evidence which does contradict it quite
> pointedly.
It's not an assumption. And if you ahve any evidence to the contrary,
please share.
> What you have evidence of, if you wish to call it that, is
> that Linux is not *sold*.
Which is sufficient to support a position that Linux is not popular in the
consumer market and thus, not a viable option to Windows.
Plus that Linux is not a large presence in the consumer market, and where it
is offered, it is not particularly popular.
> Whether that is because of a lack of supply
> or lack of demand is not just irrelevant, but is purposeful obfuscation,
> suitable only for arguments for ignorance and again presenting what I've
> described as a "dishonest mistake".
Something more commonly referred to as a lie.
I'd also be interested as to why you consider a lack of demand to be
irrelevant to the issues of "popularity" and "viable alternative".
> While you might wish to flip-flop around in order to deny first that MS
> prevents supply, and then that MS prevents demand, even as the
Please detail this "flip-flopping".
> mechanisms of restraint of trade and monopolization are not merely
> identical but simultaneous, the fact remains that your thinking is so
> full of holes as to be almost laughable.
Yet you cannot actually expose any of those alleged holes. Hmmm.
> You are indeed being dishonest
> in presenting it as a cogent argument, I feel sure, if only because your
> facility with language and computers seems to indicate that your
> intellect is more than sufficient for being able to comprehend the
> charges and the evidence presented.
Indeed. However, since I disgree with the law in principle and consider
most of the evidence to be irrelevant, it's hardly surprising I have a
different opinion to you, no ?
------------------------------
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: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 01:09:16 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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;
> >> >> It is precisely the original issue, and what is wrong with their
design
> >> >> is the cause of how they are used.
> >> >
> >> >An assertion you can prove, I'm sure ?
> >>
> >> A statement of fact which has already been proven, in my estimation.
> >
> >Certainly not in this thread. At least not to any definition of "proven"
> >that I am familiar with.
>
> Certainly not as far as you are concerned. But I've already mentioned
> that your ability to refuse to be convinced is not at all the same as an
> indication that the arguments against you are unconvincing.
I have never refused to be convinced.
You, OTOH, have a history of refusing to be convincing.
> >> YMMV, and if you're riding a tricycle, all bets are off.
>
> Then again, if you sit on the floor in the corner with your ears covered
> chanting "it has not been proven, it has not been proven, it has not
> been proven", like Christopher, then I think we can guess the result.
SUrely with the mental prowess of which you boast, Max, providing evidence
or proof to back up your assertions should be child's play ?
> Christopher remains unconvinced, surprise surprise. Insinuating that he
> was "riding a tricycle" as a metaphor for his lack of rigor and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> reasoning was apparently too progressive an image to account for his
> post-modernist pseudo-skepticism.
The irony in this is nearly painful.
> >> >There is no "potential", all the information necessary for versioning
> >exists
> >> >and is easily accessible.
> >>
> >> And is unused. Are you familiar with the meaning of the word
> >> "potential"?
> >
> >Your statement above is clearing describing the "potential for a
versioning
> >system which Windows' [sic] itself neither provides nor supports".
Windows
> >does provide a versioning system and does support it. There is no
> >"potential".
>
> There is no practical implementation which benefits the user (not even
> from Microsoft themselves, in fact, most especially not from MS
> themselves), and so this remains, quite clearly, a "potential"
> versioning system, and that's being charitable, to be honest.
Windows provides and supports all necessary services for versioning. As
such, the system is not "potential", because it exists.
------------------------------
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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 14:59:53 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> But the purpose was to compare and contrast OEM's activities and
> interactions with Microsoft versus the OEM's customers, more than to
> define the distinction between cater and pander. OEMs cater to
> Microsoft (by force of threat) and pander to their customers (providing
> them with illicit goods, namely Windows) for Microsoft (who is the
> street-walking whore selling illusions in place of commitment in this
> rather over-taxed metaphor).
Max, I think you've just shown why dictionary defenitions /are/
relevant to this issue.
You just said that "OEMs...pander to their customers (providing them
with illicit goods, namely Windows)"
Here's the defenition of pander:
One who ministers to the evil designs and passions of another.
"Those wicked panders to avarice and ambition." --Burke.
Max, what are the evil designs of a bunch of kids playing Reader
Rabbit, a hoarde of teenagers playing Quake, or a incohate mass of IT
managers and purchasing directors filling the desks of salesmen and
secretaries?
But you said they "cater to Microsoft (by force of threat)"
Here's the defenition of cater:
To provide food; to buy, procure, or prepare provisions.
"He providently caters for the sparrow." --Shak.
So what provisions do Dell or Compaq provide to Microsoft? Maybe they
sell them some development workstations, but it's obvious that this
has little or nothing to do with perpetuating the Windows
monopoly. How does Dell help Microsoft perpetuate the Windows
monopoly by selling them workstations and servers?
Short of the fact that Microsoft need to equip their programmers and
host their web sites with something, it's hardly equivalent to
shipping every PC sold in America with a Windows license, is it?
This is not a quixotic context, Max. If I say "Farmer Jones panders
to the villagers by selling them poisoned bread and caters to the
Devil in the process" I've got it the wrong way around. The villagers
don't have evil designs, the devil does. Jones is not providing food
to the Devil, he's providing them to the Villagers.
And likewise, Dell and Compaq and all the others are providing
computers to anyone and everyone who comes to them to buy
them. That's the /CATER/ part. But Dell and Compaq and all the others
have been shipping every them with Windows licenses included,
therefore they are PANDERING to Microsoft.
Read the defenitions of the words, Max. You've got them both mixed
up.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Cosner Jr.)
Subject: Linux: To Deploy or Not Deploy...
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2000 07:19:40 -0700
After having followed the postings in the c.o.l.* groups for a bit, it
seems that this is the place for my question. If I'm off-topic, please
direct me to a better forum.
I run a small I.S. dept in a _very_ rural community hospital. Many such
organizations are characterized by two commonalities: (a) We generally use
purchased s/w, and are therefor locked into certain os's by the vendor(s);
and, (b) many of the folks in I.S. depts are not really geeks. (They are
often merely more-or-less normal mortals, with a tolerance for computers
and being yelled-at/hated/disparaged/pleaded-with by everyone else in the
hospital.)
In our particular shop Win_NT is the mandated os; over the last several
years this has become increasingly common in healthcare, as I
suspect--from reading and talking--it has in other vertical markets. [For
a spittle-emitting rant on this, ask me; o/w I'll spare everyone.] The
end-result of this, at least in our shop, is that my ~2.25 FTEs (~5
employees) have enough windows knowlege (and interest) to be competent,
but are not really the type to want to learn much outside that world. In
particular, I've not been able to tempt them into exploring Linux.
Given this as framing material, my question is: "Am I being a bad
'corporate steward' by bringing Linux into I.S.?" I have, in fact,
already done this. I've brought up Linux boxes to serve as file (and
print) servers, and I'm using a couple as backup servers for luser files.
I'm anticipating more, as we're considering running our own email
(currently having our ISP do it as part of our contract with them). I'd
also like to dump our PDC/BDC windows boxes and use Linux, but since we
may have to move soon to W_2000, and this may change some things, I'm
biding my time (we've already spent the (BIG) $$ on the W_NT licenses
anyway, dang it!).
However, I'm having increasing heartburn about it. The Linux boxes are,
expectedly, very stable. (We reboot our windows machines--both by vendor
demand and by harsh experience--once or twice weekly. I never reboot the
Linux boxes.) Nevertheless, if we [the hospital] become increasingly
dependent upon Linux, and I leave [am killed, imprisoned, eaten,
whatever], then the hospital is left in the lurch (since none of my
(minimal) staff can manage these boxes). And, looking into the future, it
does not at all seem a given that my replacement will necessarily have
Linux/Unix experience (whereas, given the perversions of the day, it is
pretty much a given that folks applying for I.S. jobs, at least to
hospitals, have windows experience). We've interviewed a couple of times,
and while the applicants uniformly have windows experience/expertise,
Linux experience has--thus far--been notably absent. I think only one
person I interviewed, and it was quite recently, had any Linux background
(he had worked at a small ISP; we exchanged quasi-complaints about
bringing up Linux on Alpha boxes). Admittedly we've interviewed mostly
for 'operators', so hopefully I've seen a skewed slice of the population.
Sooo...Is there anyone out there from the health-care sector, or other
similar low-resource/low-pay environments, who has some thoughts and/or
experience with this aspect of deploying Linux? (Or deciding, sadly, to
_not_ deploy Linux?) And/or, is there significant evidence that the
likelyhood of Linux experience will increase amongst the folks applying
for jobs in rural and/or narrow vertical-market arenas? (ie--are colleges
teaching/encouraging Linux, etc?) And finally, especially in isolated
areas, how about contracting out management of specific boxen? Does this
work well, especially when having to interact w/ the rest of the I.S.
Dept?
TIA! (And I again apologize if this is OT for c.o.l.a)
...Larry.
==================================================================
| ~ ~ ~ ~ |
| Morning Routine: |-( <- { c[] + c[] + c[] + c[] } => :-)) |
==================================================================
------------------------------
From: Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: 08 Aug 2000 15:07:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Se?n ?
Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> No credibility? Say's who? You?
> >> Best PC Operating System of 2000
> >> http://www.pcworld.com/top400/article/0,1361,16789+1+2,00.html
> >>
> >> Windows2000 wins over the mobile workforce
> >> http://www.informationweek.com/790/notebook.htm
> >>
> >> A wealth of well-integrated tools and technologies make the Microsoft
> >> platform a compelling choice for the enterprise...
> >> http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/stories/main/0,10228,2551183,00.html
> >>
> >> Giga Position
> >> The Windows 2000 platform will be two to 10 times more reliable than
> >> any
> >> prior 1.0 release of either the Windows desktop or server operating
> >> system...
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/news/external/gigasunbelt.asp
> >>
> >> Microsoft's Windows 2000 Professional operating system-- slated to hit
> >> stores Feb. 17 -- is a sharp-looking upgrade boasting several
> >> well-thought-out improvements....
> >> http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/crg882.htm
> >>
> >> Windows 2000 Server: Worth The Wait
> >> By ALAN ZEICHICK
> >> It's here, at long last--Windows 2000 Server. With this major upgrade
> >> to its
> >> flagship operating system line...
> >> http://www.internetwk.com/lead/lead012500.htm
> >>
> >> Popular Mechanics Design & Engineering Awards. Over the years, the
> >> Awards
> >> have become one of the most prestigious forms of recognition for
> >> achievement
> >> in engineering...
> >> http://popularmechanics.com/popmech/elect/9912TUDEAWARDSP.html
> >>
> >> For any size of business, Windows 2000 has the right stuff, both as a
> >> workstation and as a server...
> >> http://www.cnet.com/software/0-1497797-7-1498886.html?tag=st.sw.3662.pr
> >> l.149
> >> 7797-7-1498886
> >>
> >> Windows 2000 Professional will be the best desktop operating system
> >> Microsoft has ever released for the business user. Start planning now
> >> to
> >> roll it out as soon as you can...
> >> http://www.nwfusion.com/newsletters/nt/1129nt1.html
> >>
> >> More accolades available upon request....
> >
> >Only an absolute twit and ignoramus would have the audacity in this day
> >and age to quote computer magazines to prove his point that Microsoft
> >sells superior software.
> >
>
> Popular Mechanics is a computer magazine? USA Today is a computer
> magazine? The Giga Group Report is a computer magazine?
>
> By the way, who do you think he *SHOULD* quote to prove his point?
> You? Microsoft's competitors? The wackos on Slashdot?
>
> In my view, no opinions speak louder than those of people who've
> learned to respect Microsoft's software development only after
> spending years trying to do a better job:
>
Popular Mechanics? USA Today? Giga Group Report? _any_ magazine
learning "to respect Microsoft's software development only after
spending years trying to do a better job?"
What absurdity!
--
Jim Naylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
