Linux-Advocacy Digest #991, Volume #28 Fri, 8 Sep 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (Paul E. Larson)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Computer and memory
Re: Computer and memory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 8 Sep 2000 06:08:52 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony D. Tribelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No, PCs don't work great for these applications, even ruggedized ones.
>>Custom designs can be made much more reliable, repairable, etc.
>
> No you don't need a 'custom design'. You need a COTS solution that
> meet's applicable mil-specs. Have you ever worked with complex
> control systems, or with mil-specs?? Obviously not.
You are quite confused, you mentioned VME backplanes with special purpose
CPU boards and such. That is a 'custom design' compared to a PC.
> The military used to do custom solutions all the time, which is how
> mil-specs came about. But because the military buys so much (the Navy
> has thousands of ships) of certain things, numerous defense
> contractors make mil-spec equipment off the shelf. What you are saying
> is that the Navy should discard established mil-specs and reinvent the
> wheel, which is unreasonable.
Bad guess. I have not suggested discarding mil-specs and reinventing
things.
>>I disagree, I'm leaning towards the more survivably and repairable at the
>>expense of more economical.
>
> VME rack systems are easily repairable. You just swap in another
> board. And you can get VME rack systems that meet a applicable
> mil-specs for combat readyness. So what 'custom solution' are you
> talking about??
One along the lines we are both talking about. You have drifted away from
the PCs I do not favor and are getting close to what the hell I've been
talking about all along.
>>Your numerous exaggerations of WinNT are irrelevant to my point.
>
> He's not exagerating. In real world practice, Solaris is easily dozens
> of times more reliable than NT.
Possibly, but that is not what he said.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:26:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >You can't just remove IE without replacing these components with
>something
>> >else.
>>
>> Nobody ever said anything about software. We're talking about products.
>> One would assume if the goal is to separate the two products, which were
>> formerly separate, one would write new components, in two different
>> version, if desired. One with, and one.... without.
>
>That was not what the court ordered. The court ordered only the removal of
>IE, not the replacement of IE with new software.
The court didn't say anything about software; it was concerned with
products. Microsoft had to remove (according to the overturned order)
IE from Win98 in order to sell Win98. It was entirely up to Microsoft
whether they wanted to sell IE, or even Win98+IE, as a separate product.
But the rules against 'bundling' are that if you don't give the customer
a choice to buy them separately, and they want that choice, you're
restraining trade by preventing competition on either alone.
Microsoft wanted to make a version of Windows with IE included. Which
was fine, even though Windows and IE were previously separate products.
But when you do that, you have to give the customer the option of
getting the combination, or simply continuing to get either separate.
If you won't give them the choice, the only motive could be that you
want to prevent them from buying them separate, you see? They were
previously separate, so the court gets to ask, "Why were they combined."
The typical per se rule, which Jackson originally used and the Appellate
court rightfully (?) overturned, was whether there is some benefit to
the consumer, as in an efficiency in the market, to the combination, or
if its merely done to prevent competition. With physical *products* the
putting the two together costs more than delivering them separately.
But with software products the opposite is just as much the case; there
is no cost to Microsoft to instantaneously combine two separate products
into one, and in fact they get tremendous savings, because they don't
"manufacture" software, they just copy it. Jackson agreed with the DoJ,
that the terms "bundling" and "integrating" in the consent decree were
intended to point to this distinction of developing a product or
combining two previous products. With software packaging, Microsoft's
crime with IE wasn't in combining the code to begin with. It was in
combining the *products*, the advertising, the "whether you have it".
They might even have been able to shield themselves entirely from
anti-trust law simply by building into Win98 a single code/switch, which
would 'enable' the fantastic wonders of IE and desktop integration, and
simply sold the code, wrapped in a trade secret license, in a box marked
"IE" and selling for $49 retail.
But the whole point was they didn't do that, because it wouldn't have
"worked" the way they wanted, which was to not give people the option of
using their *product*. People aren't stupid; they know damn well they
don't understand or care about the *software construction*.
[...]
>Spoken like someone that has never written a line of code in his life.
I wouldn't go that far, though I've only managed about twelve lines of C
code in my life. The workflow system I built for my office back in the
early 90s was all in Word Basic, ported from WordPerfect's macro
language. I don't consider any of that to have any bearing on producing
professional software packages. But it gives me enough experience, I
think, to be able to tell how outrageously crappy the competition is
right now.
>You
>can't just "take out" fundamental architectural changes to software.
^^^^^^^
Notice the relevant concept. They put it in there. They can take it
out. Just don't make those particular changes. Would it require
redesigning other parts, in order to change them without making this
change, at additional expense? OK, that's fine. What's the problem?
Maybe they should have considered this before they changed it to begin
with.
>This
>is similar to a judge ordering that the basement be removed from 100 story
>skyscraper.
>
>It's easy to just say "The architects and construction company put in in
>there, they can easily take it out".
You are vaguely aware, I think, with the concept "software", right? Did
you ever stop to consider why they call it "soft"? You've heard of
"hardware"? Yea, that's the stuff like buildings, right. Well,
consider what might be common, and what might be different, between
those two words. "Hardware". "Software". 'Soft', see? Why do they
say that? I don't think its because its furry, or marked by tenderness.
Keep trying.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:28:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
> Half-Life multi-player isn't RPG, which is where the real fun is.
I'm definitely not a big fan of multi-player games. Its an interesting
diversion for a little while, but its never kept my interest.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:40:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Well, you wouldn't like it if you ordered a big-mac (computer) and had to
>> pay for fries (or operating system) if you wanted them or not just because
>> the potato supplier (microsoft) did a deal to get mcdonalds to pay a
>> per-burger licence to supply fries to the customer.
>> Mcdonalds would then have to charge a lot extra if the customer wanted
>> crinkle cut fries (OS2 / Linux / FreeBSD) because the customer would still
>> be paying for the standard fries he didn't want or get due to the stupid
>> licencing agreement.
>> Most customers would go for the cheap option and have the standard fries as
>> they would have to pay for them anyway and the potato supplier would then
>> claim to make the most popular fries available when most of the sales of
>> their product were forced onto the customer who didn't want them. Sound
>> familiar?
Said Ermine Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>If you have a problem with that model (which results in lower prices for
>everyone else who does buy the standard offering) then you have the freedom
>to go to another supplier and buy from them
I think you forgot why they call it a 'monopoly'. If it costs more to
go to the other supplier because of something *this* supplier did,
they're screwed.
>- if NOT getting an OS on a box
>is important to you, then you should be willing to do the effort necessary
>to find the supplier that will meet your needs.
No, the supplier's the one who's trying to find us, remember? That's
what they mean by "free market". Whether you have choice isn't up to
you; its up whether there are handy alternatives. Because any real
alternative is bound to be 'handy'; producers want our money, if they
can get it. If there's a monopolist crudding up the works, that doesn't
happen. Whether or not its *caused* by the monopoly, it happens
*because* of the monopoly. Get it?
Notice, however, (or therefore, I'm not sure) that when fast food joints
*did* introduce Value Meals, not a *ONE* of them even tried to prevent
you from buying a la carte. Well, except for the BIG EASY SIGN bit and
the "Would you like a combo?" crap. The point is, we're talking a
difference of ten or twenty cents on the bundle, not "take it or leave
it".
Anytime a vendor says "take it or leave it", it means there's no
competition, and that's obviously a bad thing for obvious reasons.
>Oh, BTW, you will need to
>be willing to pay the higher mfg costs associated with your need to have a
>functioning and tested (burnt in) system that after they DO use a copy of
>the OS to get it tested and configured, they then have to do the CUSTOM step
>of REMOVING the OS that they had installed.
Yea, we all know how those manufacturing costs chew into Microsoft's
bone-thin profits.
--
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] (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 06:39:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> You find it acceptable that the cable modem connection is getting the similar
>> results as the 56k modem.
>
>No, you idiot.
>
chortle.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:33:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andrew Carpenter in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Mike Byrns wrote:
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> > >Would you buy it?
>> > >
>> > >Probably not.
>> >
>> > No, I didn't buy it at $50, either. I'll wait till my brother gets
>> > bored with it, and use his.
>>
>> Pirate. Read the confirmed legal license agreemnet. It's non-transferable.
Software licenses are never non-transferable. You cannot be prevented
from selling what you own.
>That's a bit harsh.
No, its just untrue. Even if it says so in the EULA, you can always
sell your program to someone else by transferring the license, all docs,
etc. A couple might insist that the new owner register, I think, but
that's bogus, as well. I think what Mike is playing off of is the
non-transferability of the OS license when you purchase a computer,
because its a computer/OS bundle according to the EULA. Perhaps he
didn't realize we were talking about Half Life, not Windows.
I don't believe the non-transferability of the pre-load EULA is
enforceable, either, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge.
--
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: Andrew Carpenter <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 16:17:00 +1030
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Andrew Carpenter in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> Pirate. Read the confirmed legal license agreemnet. It's non-transferable.
>
> Software licenses are never non-transferable. You cannot be prevented
> from selling what you own.
>
> >That's a bit harsh.
>
> No, its just untrue. Even if it says so in the EULA, you can always
> sell your program to someone else by transferring the license, all docs,
> etc. A couple might insist that the new owner register, I think, but
> that's bogus, as well. I think what Mike is playing off of is the
> non-transferability of the OS license when you purchase a computer,
> because its a computer/OS bundle according to the EULA. Perhaps he
> didn't realize we were talking about Half Life, not Windows.
>
> I don't believe the non-transferability of the pre-load EULA is
> enforceable, either, but I'm not a lawyer or a judge.
That's why I mentioned "fair use"; it's being discussed a lot in the
DeCSS case (where the DVD scheme and the DCMA are looking like negating
said "fair use" options).
More specifically, people have been talking about "first sale", which (I
think) means the originator of the product has no control of any further
sale of the product beyond the first. A book publisher can't prevent me
from selling their book second-hand, for example.
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 02:05:27 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p9s9u$8jt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So, the MDI (Multiple Document Interface) was introduced to address this
> complaint. Now you could still only run one copy of a compact or large
> program but it could handle multiple documents which would be finctionaly
> like running multiple copies of the program. When the current Windows now
> longer needed MDI for this purpose, Microsoft down played it telling us
the
> we did not want it anymore.
>
> There, that was the real purpose of MDI.
>
> Know your history, know what was, and know what came before, is all that
is
> needed to answer my question of: "Do you know what the real purpose of MDI
> was?"
I might tell you to know your history as well. MDI was actually introduced
in OS/2 first, then was added to Windows later. Your explanation does not
explain why OS/2 needed MDI.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 02:06:41 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Wrong. In Linux, you can write a signal handler for any signal (other
> than 9--SIGKILL), ***INCLUDING*** mathematic exceptions (which is what
> is produced by a div_by_0 error.
And with NT you can provide a Structured Exception Handler to handle any
fault except NMI.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 06:51:04 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Now you are changing defintions again. You didn't mention
> > > application embedding before. Although even that is of
> > > dubious value.
> >
> > Dubious value? You're kidding. Tell that to AOL who uses the embedded
IE
> > in their application. Tell that to Intuit that uses the embedded IE as
the
> > basis for their entire interface. Tell that to Neoplanet, that have
made an
> > entire commercial product based on IE's rendering engine ebedded into
their
> > product (and before you say it, yes that includes rendering into a
surface
> > in the app). Dubious value indeed. There is literally billions of
dollars
> > being made by companies using IE embedded in their applications.
>
> Ask Netscape and WordPerfect what happens when you rely on M$ DLLs....
Heck, you're making the claim. What happens?
Answer: Nothing.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 02:08:23 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dubious value? You're kidding. Tell that to AOL who uses the embedded
IE
> > in their application. Tell that to Intuit that uses the embedded IE as
the
> > basis for their entire interface. Tell that to Neoplanet, that have
made an
> > entire commercial product based on IE's rendering engine ebedded into
their
> > product (and before you say it, yes that includes rendering into a
surface
> > in the app). Dubious value indeed. There is literally billions of
dollars
> > being made by companies using IE embedded in their applications.
>
> Ask Netscape and WordPerfect what happens when you rely on M$ DLLs....
And which DLL's did netscape and word perferect rely on that broke?
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 06:53:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ermine Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >He didn't. ALL that he did was remove a small piece of it so that
> >iexplore.exe wasn't there - but even with this gone, it was trivial to
still
> >get to the Internet and perform all the same actions. The NETWORKING,
> >TCP/IP, SOCKETS elements are essential elements to the OS and without
these,
> >the OS won't run.
>
> But all these were a part of the *OS*, not IE, before the integration.
> So why wouldn't Microsoft have been able to remove IE without removing
> them? Its the *functionality* which needs to be removed, and this
> entails removing the code for IE and much of the rest (but NOT any of
> the actual 'network stack' which you described.)
Bit of an arbitrary decision... why leave RichEdit in there, and not an HTML
display system? Why leave the networking code in there and not an HTTP
client?
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 06:54:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >OK... if that's the case, please detail how you take Netscape 4.7 and use
> >its rendering surface in your own application window.
> >
> >ANSWER: You can't.
>
> Well, we never said that Windows wasn't a monopoly.
So let's see.. because Netscape engineers were too incompetent to do this
work themselves, Microsoft doing it makes them evil?
Go away.
Simon
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:53:00 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oMt5.977$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where did that Atom bomb fall?
Before you can address the use of the atomic bomb, you need to address the
actions of the Japaneese that the use of the atomic bomb ended. Consider
the events of December 7, 1941. Consider what the casulties on both sidea
would have been if the invasion of the Japaneese home islands would have
been required instead of the using of the bomb.
Consider that if America had no produced the bomb first, how world history
would have been different. What would have happened if America did not work
on the bomb and either Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany had a working atomic
bomb first? Consider the result of the atomic bomb as the payload of the
working V2 rockets in the 1940's. Consider the use of the Nazi atomic bomb
delivered by the amerika bomber.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:52:50 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I like how he says, "I'm not saying we're superior" and
> then proceeds for a few paragraphs to show why he think we
> are.
>
> And BTW Chad, I'm not a whiny Brit. I'm a whiny American,
> sick of seeing other Americans act like assholes just
> because they are part of the 'Great United States'.
An example of friendly fire from Chad? It didn't seem too friendly to me.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
