Linux-Advocacy Digest #971, Volume #28 Thu, 7 Sep 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Keith T. Williams")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (Sandman)
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:19:00 +0200
lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
>> It is entirely relevant given the "without damaging Windows" portion
>> of Microsoft's claim.
>He showed that the only problem with removing IE was that MS had put the
>revelant files in various libraries. Removing IE by removing the
>libiraries would "damage" other programs. But removing the components
>for IE that were not elsewere used, did not damage Windows. This was a
>little deeper than just an "uninstall". Difficult for you or me or even
>the expert, but easy for someone with access to the "makefile" and
>source for windows.
Exactly, and *WHY* did they put OS functions in a browser's DLL files?
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:29:12 +0200
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
6Fvt5.53306$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9Jrt5.911$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I hadn't heard any news, but I wasn't really watching what happened
> > > after the anti-trust trial got started. Do you have any info or
links?
> >
> > I just remember the outcome that forced them to rename their Java VM to
M$
> > VM, because SUN had pulled them to court, T.Max might have some links
tho
>
> There was no such outcome of a ruling. The Microsoft JVM was always named
as
> such.
I've read about the lawsuit on ZDNET, the articles should still be there
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:34:10 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8p6ish$e53$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Ecrt5.902$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > IOW, if *I* were to make a player based on DeCSS they can't do shit
about
> > it? Or can they?
>
> It would depend on the laws of your nation and the treaties your nation
has
> enter into with the U.S. to honor each others patents. Assuming you are
> able to legally able to do so in your country, you may enter into some
> difficulty in reguards to "exporting" the product to other nations that
> would not favor you actions.
OK...
> The problem with the patent issuance process in this country is that such
> silly things can be patented if you find a good wording for the
application
> that makes it sound unique. It make no difference if your are the
> originator of the invention or not, it matters if you are the first to
> complete to application process.
Typicall, bloody typcall
> Do you know that someone has patented the cursor that had already been in
> use for around 20 years or more before issuance?
ROFL
> Do you know that the LZW patent was issued to a company that did not
develop
> it, after that
> compression algorithm was already in wide spread use? That company then
> sought royalities for its use which is why LZW compression was abandoned
by
> so many developers.
That's what's in GIF right?
> Do you know that most if not all the human gnome has been patented?
Christ... What are they gonna do, collect royalties from people because they
have "ilegal" copies of those DNA sequences?
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 13:50:04 +0200
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
nEvt5.53302$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<cut>
> > Can you tell a few of apps that won't work? Just name 5 apps that *are
> not*
> > by M$
>
> Quicken, TurboTax, anything using HTML Help (which are numerous),
Neoplanet,
> anything using a web browser window.
>
> I don't have a comprehensive list, I'm sorry.
I just wanted a few, so that's ok
> > > Also, the judge actually wanted them to remove the icon -- he just
> didn't
> > > understand when he asked them to remove everything. Which is why MS
> > appeared
> > > arrogant in court.
> >
> > then *why* didn't they remove the icon?
>
> Because although they offered to do that, the judge decided that he wanted
> EVERYTHING removed. Every DLL, piece of code, the works. So they had to
take
> him at his word.
But didn't they already know not to integrate the browser in Win98 before
it's release? Didn't they get a conviction before for bundleing Win95 with a
copy of IE?
> > > > give me one piece of "evidence" that M$ produced that was valid
> > >
> > > Everything entered into the record as evidence (you can see a whole
slew
> > of
> > > these things at http://www.microsoft.com/presspass) except the video
> > > footage, as it was edited to produce in a smaller amount of time.
> >
> > I want an URL that points to a company or anything that's not directly
> > related to this case, M$ can put whatever they want on their website
>
> No, they can't. Not when it comes to court evidence. You need to look at
the
> MS site, and at the DOJ site, and compare evidence. Each has only half of
> the story, and in isolation, you'll get bias. Falsifying court evidence
and
> proceedings when reproducing them is against the law, so they can't just
> "put anything they want" on their website.
Ok, so you should have posted both sites :)
But still, M$ could have found other solutions to this problem if they
really wanted to
> > > > You're an M$ lover, and an idiot to boot
> > >
> > > No; I just try to give everyone the courtesy of a fair shake of the
> stick.
> >
> > Meaning?
>
> Exactly what I said.
I was refurring to the saying "No; I just try to give everyone the courtesy
of a fair shake of the stick", i'm not familiar with that, so i want to know
what exactly you emant with it
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Keith T. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 08:21:03 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> [...]
> >> >
> >> >Well it works here, so I guess I must be dreaming.
> >>
> >> No, just naive and optimistic.
> >
> >So if I don't know that it doesn't work - it does? (actually, I proved
> >this at work today. Just as my colleague was telling me something
> >wouldn't work - it did)
>
> No, just because you 'know' it 'works', doesn't mean it does. Anecdotal
> evidence notwithstanding.
>
> [...]
> >I don't even think that. Working with Microsoft software pays my
> >bills - it's a job, I get to meet & work with (exceptionally?)
> >intelligent people on a daily basis. If MS software was perfect, I'd
> >be out of a job.
>
> It is the nagging suspicion that you are too stupid (and/or dishonest
> and lazy) to work with real technology and this is your motivation for
> spewing naive and ridiculous attempts to hand-wave the known
> difficulties of using Microsoft's software as uniquely crappy and
> problematic amongst all software, none of which is perfect which causes
> us to attack you so briskly.
Is that why you are attacking him? I thought that it was because he is doing
what you are claiming can't be done.
>
> >If you had heard the number of times I've cursed poorly documented MS
> >software just this week you wouldn't say that I think it's great
> >stuff, works fine, lasts a long time. I think it's OK stuff that
> >usually works.
>
> That's how we know you're a moron, moron.
>
Max, it's a good thing you have suggested that we keep these threads civil.
I would hate to think what they would be like if they were not.
> >Being a monopoly hasn't got a lot to do with it for me I'm afraid.
>
> Unfortunately, it does. I won't bother trying to explain why to you;
> you wouldn't be able to understand it, or even keep up with the
> discussion. If you think I'm wrong, the 'monopoly' debate is going on
> in several other threads; feel free to join in if you think you've got
> something helpful to add. Try not to show your naivete, though; lurk on
> the thread awhile and check back-thread, as we've already covered a lot
> of ground and I'm getting rather tired of repeating myself, regardless
> of the amount of practice it gives me in presenting my arguments.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
>
> -----= 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] (D. Spider)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:28:36 GMT
It appears that on Thu, 07 Sep 2000 06:48:58 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Running in console mode or with a stable X setup (I use slack 7,>> upgraded to
>XFree 4.01, with WindowMaker for a window manager) I see
>
>> >> no instability at all.
>> >
>> >Lucky you. Get a WM/"Desktop environment" that does a bit more than draw
>> >pretty widgets and do basic window manipulations and see how you go. Then
>>
>> Why on earth would I want to do that? If I liked useless bloated fluff
>
>You run XFree86 and WindowMaker. They take more RAM than logged on Windows 2000
>with Explorer.
Maybe. But I can exit them. Try that on your NT box.
>> I wouldn't have installed Linux to begin with.
>> >> >> >Indeed, it's been a while. I see no reason to bother with Netscape or
>> >> >> >Mozilla when IE is so good.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> IE GOOD? *ROFL* IE is the only thing capable of making Netscape look
>> >> >> good ;^)
>> >> >
>> >> >IE is better than Netscape in almost any way you can measure. It's
>> >faster,
>> >> >stabler and more standards compliant. It uses less memory and is more
>> >> >configurable. Most importantly, it doesn't come with AOL Instant
>> >Messenger.
>> >>
>> >> It's just *barely* faster, it's not more standards compliant in my
>> >> view (which could easily spark a side-thread on what it means to be
>> >> standards compliant if you wish), it uses less memory mostly because
>> >
>> >I'd call standards compliant, compliant with W3C standards. Last I checked,
>> >IE was far, far ahead of Netscape in that arena.
>>
>> IE is just a little ahead if you view standards compliance as checking
>> off boxes on a list of "features." There is more to it, however.
>> Adding non-standard tags and encouraging people to use them to break
>> compatibility with other browsers is NOT standards compliance so far
>> as I am concerned, regardless of what check marks you have ticked.
>
>> And yes, Netscape used to do the same thing. Two wrongs do not make a
>> right.
>
>So IE is faster, and more compliant and has better proprietary tag requirements
>than Netscape? Sounds like a win to me!
"Better" proprietary tag requirements? Where do you get that?
Proprietary tags are not good. Period.
>> >> If you want to see what I consider a good browser, check out
>> >> http://www.opera.com - they are porting to linux and that's just one
>> >> more nail in the old MS coffin so far as my continuing to use them
>> >> (willingly) goes...
>> >
>> >I've used Opera before. It's been a while, I might have another look.
>> >
>> >*shrug*, I see no need to swithc from IE. It's fast, stable and has a lot
>> >of features I like a lot.
>>
>> I use the web for research fairly often, and I really like having the
>> MDI interface.
>
>The world told MS that MDI was passe and "bad". You talk it up? Explain. Note
>that you are also posting into a Mac group :-)
No, MS told the world that. MDI is a much better way of doing things
in *certain applications.* Why do people have so much trouble
understanding that different problems have different optimal
solutions?
I am replying to a crossposted thread, and my first post got jumped on
by a bunch of MS apologists because I pointed out that the Mac
interface is superior in ways. Nonetheless, if this is offtopic to the
Mac group I will happily trim it out of future replies... anyone from
the Mac group object?
>> Just open 8 different pages with either of the big
>> browsers and try to switch back and forth between them efficiently and
>> you'll see why that's an advantage.
>
>Sigh. So MS said when they popularised MDI...
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
>> After getting used to Opera every
>> other browser out there seems positively paleolithic on this one point
>> alone.
>
>After getting used to Netscape and IE Opera seems "paleolithic" too. Read the
>reviews :-)
How so? Do you have a point, or are you just amusing yourself with the
rubber and glue game again?
And just why should I value some reviewers opinion more than my own? I
use all three browsers on a regular basis, I know which one works the
way I want it to, and which ones don't. Most of the reviews I've seen
were very enthusiastic about Opera, btw.
>> It's also very standards-compliant, and it is designed to be run from
>> the keyboard, and it is intensely configurable, with intelligent
>> cookie handling, the ability to simply turn off the processing of
>> certain commonly abused tags and "features," to override the
>> properties of poorly designed web pages and make them readable, to
>> switch image-handling modes at will... oh and also it's REALLY nice on
>> a modem, it will open multiple connections at once and saturate your
>> pipe for maximum efficiency.
>
>That was quite a sentance. And it's not even available on Linux yet.
The alpha version is. A lot of stuff is disabled, but it's enough to
see they're taking it seriously.
>I hope
>it's as good as it is on Windows.
So do I.
>As for your "fluff" remark, you'll need some
>"fluff" to run it i.e. Qt 2.1.1 -- and it's still not known to work with anything
>later than XFree86 3.3.5. XFree86 4 is explicity not tested. The MDI interface
>you love will be replaced by SDI in 4.1. This info is from the
>http://www.opera.com/linux/index.html site.
Heh. QT already installed, it's used for a lot of other things, some
of them useful, and Opera IS tested on XFree 4 - I tested it myself.
They're planning to have an option for SDI. Opera is big on options.
That's why I like it. They are not getting rid of MDI, just giving the
user the choice of MDI or SDI. There's a Mac port on the way too, btw.
>> >> >I'm more than willing to admit Linux (and FreeBSD, and others) do a fine
>> >job
>> >> >of resurrecting old machines to sue as things like firewalls, and to keep
>> >> >some old machines running as file/print servers. However, this does
>> >*not*
>> >> >automatically mean they will be able to use higher end machines more
>> >> >efficiently.
>> >>
>> >> And firewalls are not mission critical?
>> >
>> >Depends. I would imagine someone like Redhat isn't running their corporate
>> >firewall on an old 386 shoved in the corner.
>>
>> I doubt that too, but RedHat is a very high traffic site. For many
>> networks, a 386 is perfectly capable of handling the traffic. Why
>> throw away the 386 and buy a PIII NT box just to do the same job, but
>> not as well? How rational is that?
>
>A P133 64MB can do the same and be managed in the enterprise without any
>additional cost. I doubt that RedHat, as high traffic as it is, uses a software
>firewall solution. Given their bond with Cisco I suspect redundant
>LocalDirectors.
I suspect a cisco solution too. Doesn't have a thing to do with the
question of what is the cost-effective solution for a lower traffic
network.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 14:36:59 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D.
Spider) wrote:
> >You run XFree86 and WindowMaker. They take more RAM than logged on
> >Windows 2000
> >with Explorer.
>
> Maybe. But I can exit them. Try that on your NT box
please, don't crosspost this to comp.sys.MAC.advocacy.
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 08:41:03 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > JS/PL wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > >> Its a nightmare, to be sure. I'm afraid its worse than
anyone's
> > even
> > > > > >> begun to realize. (Well, anyone that still supports Microsoft
in
> > any
> > > > > >> large degree.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >You support them to a large degree. You use their operating
system by
> > > > > >choice.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hahahahahaha. Hahahaha. Hahahaa.
> > > > >
> > > > > "By choice?" Hahahahaha.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are insane. I use it, yes. But not by choice, no. I use it
> > > > > because they've succeeded in making it too inconvenient for me to
> > > > > feasibly and economically avoid. They've monopolized. Of course
I
> > use
> > > > > it. Of course its not by choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > My company pays for it; I certainly wouldn't. The *only* reason I
use
> > > > > Windows, or any Microsoft software, at this point (years ago I
would
> > > > > have voluntarily used Word and Excel, but they've gone seriously
> > > > > down-hill, and weren't really all that good to begin with) is
because
> > of
> > > > > the monopoly.
> > > >
> > > > How come the monopoly forces you to use it but not the other
millions of
> > > > users who get by without it? Is there a guy from MS standing next to
you
> > > > with a gun to your head? Or are you lying again.
> > > >
> > > > No one is FORCING you to use any operating system. Shit or get off
the
> > pot,
> > >
> > > 4 years ago, you basically had NO choice, as most vendors were
> > > specifically
> > > held hostage by Microsoft
> >
> > Now mention something with truth or relevance.
>
> All viable commercial competitors were destroyed by the illegal
> use of Obstruction of Trade techniques.
If there were any - they were destroyed by superior marketing and their own
stupidity.It's a dog eat dog world, come to terms with it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
