Linux-Advocacy Digest #18, Volume #29 Sat, 9 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: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!! (Jacques Guy)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
(R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) ("Erik
Funkenbusch")
Business management software on Linux (Mohd-Hanafiah Abdullah)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 9 Sep 2000 04:59:04 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Anthony D. Tribelli in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>Morphing "failures associated with NT" into "failures caused by NT" is not
>>very good "re-quoting". It is plain English, but whether it is accurate is
>>a big unknown. Which has been, and remains, my question. Your offerings
>>contain the assumptions, the conjecture. I'm still waiting to see real
>>info on these incidents.
>
> Only because you aren't going to get them, and you know it ...
Bad guess on your part. The above is quoted from one of the earliest
articles about the incident. Much had been learned and written since then.
Inquiries regarding these other incidents would seem like a pretty obvious
thing to make when following up the original story. In any case, it is
very likely that other people have seen articles I have not. There could
well be good info that WinNT did croak and cause problems on board the
ship, I just haven't seen such info. When someone seems very convinced
that WinNT was responsible, it is reasonable to ask where they learned
this.
> ... This kind
> of position is an argument from ignorance, nothing more. And in this
> case, its real ignorance, not the pro-forma kind used widely as a
> logical fallacy.
Again, a weak troll, please try harder.
> The 'morphing' you've indicated might seem like bad 're-quoting', but
> its really fundamental (I mean basic, as in you should know this
> already) troubleshooting. Particularly in a closed system such as NT,
> to care about whether it was the system which caused the repeated and
> frequent failures, or merely whether it was associated routinely with
> those failures, is a self-defeating proposition.
Wrong. Design errors in a system can be OS neutral and result in failures
regardless of where they are implemented.
> When working with technology, if a certain product, feature, platform,
> or configuration repeatedly or routinely, particularly if the 'repeated'
> failures are 'non-repeatable', you don't waste time figuring out who to
> blame. You replace the component which is associated with those
> failures with one that isn't a complete piece of crap.
The component has not been identified. If the errors are at the
application level then replacing the OS will not eliminate the failures.
> Anything else would be moronic. Pro-forma idiocy is not an effective
> approach when the goal is to get systems that work, rather than to avoid
> blaming the monopoly because their products are complete crap.
Moderately better troll, if we rate the first one as a C- then this would
be a C+. Hint: Your 'conclusions' would be a little more entertaining if
the 'logic' they were built upon wasn't so obviously flawed.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: 9 Sep 2000 05:07:05 GMT
TechnoJoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... Two
> years earlier, a divide by zero error on a Microsoft Windows NT machine left
> the USS Yorktown dead in the water for over two hours
> (http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1998/july13/cov2.htm) ...
The chief engineer on the ship at the time, and the developer of the
application software, seem to say that the problem was not with WinNT:
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198techbus2.html
Others insist that NT was not the culprit. According to Lieutenant
Commander Roderick Fraser, who was the chief engineer on board the
ship at the time of the incident, the fault was with certain
applications that were developed by CAE Electronics in Leesburg, Va.
As Harvey McKelvey, former director of navy programs for CAE, admits,
"If you want to put a stick in anybody's eye, it should be in ours."
But McKelvey adds that the crash would not have happened if the navy
had been using a production version of the CAE software, which he
asserts has safeguards to prevent the type of failure that occurred.
Tony
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 22:01:37 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >
> > Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > [...]
> > >I know I am not lying. You know I have not lied. So please abstain from
> > >emitting opinion on my honesty.
> >
> > Nobody said you were lying, Roberto. Just being dishonest.
>
> Unlike you, who fit both terms.
>
> > [...]
> > >> As the saying goes, an appearance of a conflict of interest IS a
conflict of
> > >> interest.
> > >
> > >I believe such a position to be ridiculous. Besides, what specifically
> > >is the appearance of conflict of interest you see?
> >
> > It doesn't matter, to be honest, because he's right. An appearance of a
> > conflict of interest IS a conflict of interest. The conflict is between
> > those who want to promote KDE as an open platform, and those who wanted
> > to promote QT as a licensed product.
>
> To say someone has a conflict of interest between those two interests
> you must show that person wanting to defend both interests.
>
> It is perfectly reasonable to support KDE as a open platform for
> open software development while not supporting it as a open
> platform for closed software development. In fact, that's pretty
> close to my own position.
>
> I personally don't care about making programming for KDE
> cheap for closed software. I see Qt's fee as a barrier
> protecting and encouraging free software. Also, I see
> it as a not too tall barrier.
Consider this example:
A man is an experience meatcutter and noe runs a meatpacking house. This
man is also an instructor in a local community college. At the college
besides being an instructor he is also the chairman of the supplies
procurement committee for the culinary arts department. That committee
select the appropriate sources to supply the various needs of the culinary
arts department. By the early efforts of this man, his packing house is the
sole supplier of meats to the culinary arts department. Over the years the
courses taught have been shaped to fit the cuts of meat that his company
supplies, including some speciality meats that only his company provides.
Does this man have a conflict of interest?
------------------------------
From: <[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 22:17:14 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think you are leaving out the fact that the 286 supported protected
memory
> that allowed several copies of large model programs to execute at once.
That
> was in the days of the IBM PC AT and Windows/286. Then came the 386 in
IBM in
> higher end PS/2's and clones. It supported demand paged VM. Those were
the days
> of Windows/386 and later Windows 3.0. Windows 3.0 was a 16-bit operating
system
> and could access quite a bit more memory than previous version. The same
was
> true of Windows/286 and Windows/386. Windows 3.0 still retained "real"
mode
> with access to the first meg on 8086 but also had "standard" mode to
access the
> extra memory available to 286s and "386 Enhanced" mode that allowed for
virtual
> memory.
>
> So, in Windows 3.0, the first *real* windows in my book, your MDI argument
> doesn't hold up. I started programming Windows at 3.0 so I can't vouch
that MDI
> even existed in Windows/286 or Windows/386. It would seem possible since
they
> supported overlapped windows and such. I cannot see how it existed in
earlier
> Windows that only supported tiled windows and thats about the same time
the
> reason you gave ceased to be valid. I'm not saying you are wrong because
you
> probably aren't. Microsoft supported 8086 all the way up to Windows 3.0
so MDI
> might have been the only way to go to get multiple document support in
that
> configuration.
>
> Either way. Thanks for the info!
You are welcome.
The 80286 was already in existance by the time that the first version of
Windows was developed. But the the internal memory management of all
version of Windows in those days were based on what the 8086 was like. Even
to the 80386 capable versions / modes of Windows multiple invocations of
compact and large memory model programs was still prohibited by Windows
itself. So by version 3.0 you still could not run two copies of say
PageMaker at once even if you had the RAM to support it. Result was that
MDI was still quite needed inorder to handle multiple copies of documents
handled by compact or large programs. Things change changes with Windows 95
and NT but until then the memory management was basically like on a 8086
with LIM memory with a few bells and whistles.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 15:46:51 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pcf5c$qar$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:39b99de5$0$26532$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Not at all. Your reasoning above does not lead to a conclusion of why
MDI
> > exists.
>
> Would you have prefered a MDI standard the used multiple independent
windows
> without a parent window?
Yes. This is one thing MacOS does *far* better to Windows.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 05:39:21 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux might NOT! be called a Communist conspiracy!!
Loren Petrich wrote:
> Actually, I was trying to have some fun at the expense of Aaron
> Kulkis and his Communist conspiracy theories, by proposing one that is at
> least as well-supported as anything Mr. Kulkis has been able to think up.
What this^H^H^H^Hyour country needs is a good five-cent
cigar^H^H^H^H^H
^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsense of humour.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 05:48:45 GMT
In article <8pbra3$gej$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > If that ever happened, there would be such a cry,
> > > but there would be no
> > > trace of the cry on usenet or the internet.
> > > How could it?
> > > Neither one
> > > would function anymore and it would take a long
> > > time to rebuild it all on Windows 95 computers.
> >
> > Funny you should say that.
> > Obviously the server hardware was UNIX-based.
> I'm not about to dispute that, but most of the traffic
> that exists on the internet is generated from people on
> Win9x computers. In a way, the internet as it exists
> > now was very much built on Windows 95.
Actually, this is a quit silly. The first graphical Web
Browser - Viola, was written exclusively for UNIX. And
the first shareware Internet implementation for PCs (SoftWindows
from SoftTronics), was implemented on Windows 3.1 and OS/2.
(Softronics wrote the terminal emulator for OS/2).
By the time Microsoft came out with Windows 95, there were already
over 40 million Windows 3.1 users using trumpet winsock and Mosaic
or Netscape.
Microsoft HATED the web. It was a huge threat, and Gates was afraid
that unless Microsoft could somehow begin adding proprietary extensions
to every web browser, that Microsoft would lose their control of the
desktop platform, possibly as early as 1996.
Keep in mind that by late 1994, Linux already had OpenLook, Mosaic,
Viola, Arena, web server capability, and Plug-and-Play that worked on
existing ISA, VLB, EISA, and MCA hardware. Furthermore, it ran on very
inexpensive hardware (80386, 4-8 meg RAM, 80 meg hard drive). NT 3.51
needed a Pentium 90 (minimum), 32 meg RAM, and 1 gig hard drives).
A working Linux machine could be obtained for under $200 for a used
machine or $700 for a new machine. The NT 3.51 machine cost nearly
$5000 new, if you could get one that didn't overheat.
Windows 3.1 was already unreliable, and Netscape or Mosaic was one of
the few applications that didn't seem to crash regularly. Eventually,
many enterprises scuttled "Thick Client" GUI programs entirely and
switched almost entirely to Web front-ends. This put UNIX in control
of the business logic.
Windows 95 was a death march for most of the Microsoft people, many of
whom had just survived the death march of Windows NT 3.5(1). Gates
felt that if he didn't get every ISV, every OEM, and every IHV tied
into exclusive contracts for Windows 95, and didn't get a working web
extensible browser into the bundleware, that the company wouldn't
meet revenue targets (again), that the stock would tumble, and that
Microsoft would be faced with two or three competitors at the same
time (Linux, OS/2, and Mac), possibly more (Solaris, BSDi, freeBSD,
UnixWare,SCO,...).
Gates was bluffing with a blown streight, but the OEMs didn't know
it. Most of the OEMs didn't trust IBM, and didn't know or understand
Linux and Intel UNIX. They didn't want to create another Microsoft,
but didn't want to be cut out of Windows 95 either. Microsoft's
"All or nothing" terms most dramatically demonstrated with IBM, but
equally dispised by Compaq, Gateway, Dell, Micron, and the rest of
the "top 20" was a masterful play.
Microsoft had convinced Novell to keep UnixWare out of the
workstation market long enough to force their desktop people to
leave and form Caldera. By the time Novell realized that their
contract with Microsoft wasn't worth the paper it was written on,
Noorda and the Caldera team were already gone.
Microsoft tried everything to get IBM to withdraw their product,
including blackmail, extortion, and fraud. Eventually, they got
as much as they could, and signed the contract 15 minutes before
the curtains opened on the unveiling ceremony (Where IBM's name was
prominantly featured as a Windows 95 supplier).
> Windows in any form could quite easily be replaced for
> client hosts by any of a number of operating system,
> including unix.
Microsoft is doing everything they can to prevent that, even
defying federal court rulings, risking indightment on criminal
charges in Europe, and risking exclusion from several Asian markets
if they don't "Clean up their act".
It's ironic. At one time, Bill Gates was laughed at because he told
a magazine reporter that he wanted to rule the world (when asked
"what's next" Gates said "World Domination"), and 15 years later,
world leaders aren't laughing. People are actually taking his
threat seriously. He wasn't kidding, and now people know it.
> However!
>
> Do you honestly believe that Windows could
> replace all the internet servers
> and routers and firewalls and backbones as easily?
If you listen to Microsoft's PR people, this is exactly what
they intend to do. Cisco isn't a threat (yet), so they'd
leave the routers alone, but Microsoft has already tried to
take over the fire-wall market, terminal server market (PPP pops),
and first tier internet servers.
Their goal is to place themselves in the strategic locations and add
proprietary extensions (MS-CHAP, WINS, ActiveX, VBScript, and DCOM)
that will make it impossible for non-microsoft workstations to access
Microsoft controlled sites.
Unfortunately, there are still enough highly placed senior technical
managers, many of whom are openly destroying Linux and UNIX servers
(reformatting partitions, repartitioning hard drives, removing ethernet
cables, and hacking systems that they are supposedly managing) in the
vain hope that some of "Billy's Billions" will rub off on them. What
they don't understand is that Billy only rubs one way, so that your
company's money rubs off on him.
Normally, if a senior manager started funnelling 1/2 the companies
earnings to a two-bit supplier, that manager's future would be short.
Some managers still believe "Nobody gets fired for choosing Microsoft".
In reality, there are now some CEOs that have been scuttled for giving
away too much to the Redmond WonderBoy.
The fact is that Microsoft's worst fears are being realized as we
speak. Linux is growing and thriving and being joined by other UNIX
flavors. Compaq's IPAQ can run Linux, AOL now offers most of it's
features to Linux users, and many OEMs are now offering "TuxTops" and
"TuxStations" (Linux enabled laptops and workstations).
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:20:48 -0500
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39b9cbac$0$26546> > Would you have prefered a MDI standard the used
multiple independent
> windows
> > without a parent window?
>
> Yes. This is one thing MacOS does *far* better to Windows.
Actually, I can't stand that approach unless each window is a complete
version of the application. Office 2000 does this. It uses a single
instance of the application, but creates multiple complete windows
(including menus and toolbars) for each document.
Meanwhile, Delphi or Borland C++ Builder uses an environment where you have
multiple windows and a single control window with menus and toolbars. It's
way to easy to get lost this way, trying to figure out which window to
switch to.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:12:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Jack Troughton in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Kind of like how you banged the drum about how one *HAD* to, absolutely..
>> >> reformat the harddrive to do a clean install of Windows?
>> >>
>> >> Anyone, who ever had done it, knew instantly that you were absolutely
>> >> wrong.
>> >
>> >No, electroshock boy.
>> >
>> >The issue was whether you could do a clean installation and still use
>> >your existing apps without reinstalling them.
>> >
>> >Macs can handle it. Windows can't.
>> >
>> >End of discussion.
>>
>> He's got you there, 'Shockboy'.
>
>Wow, actual system advocacy... I'm shocked.
>
>OS/2 can do that as well. [...]
Of course it can, we knew that. OS/2 can do just about anything. ;-)
--
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.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:15:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>Max Devlin judge, jury and executioner, right? After all, you are
>the public, as you said before.
I'm not going to be doing much executioning from this side of Usenet.
And I believe I said "I is the public, the public am us." But I get
your point.
The reader is the ultimate judge; I am but the humble prosecutor.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 01:44:48 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pcivr$nj1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> By the time Microsoft came out with Windows 95, there were already
> over 40 million Windows 3.1 users using trumpet winsock and Mosaic
> or Netscape.
Rex. You should really... I mean *REALLY* look this stuff up before posting
it. The internet did not exceed 10 million estimated users until about
1996. There is no way that 40 mllion Windows 3.1 users could have been
using the internet in 1995.
> Keep in mind that by late 1994, Linux already had OpenLook, Mosaic,
> Viola, Arena, web server capability, and Plug-and-Play that worked on
> existing ISA, VLB, EISA, and MCA hardware.
Uhh.. Linux did not implement Plug-n-Play until the 2.0 kernel IIRC. Even
today, Linux still does not implement Plug-n-play in the way it's intended
to be (plug in a USB or PCMCIA card and have it prompt you for drivers,
rather than forcing a manual driver install and load).
> Furthermore, it ran on very
> inexpensive hardware (80386, 4-8 meg RAM, 80 meg hard drive). NT 3.51
> needed a Pentium 90 (minimum), 32 meg RAM, and 1 gig hard drives).
Interesting that NT 3.51 came out *BEFORE* the pentium was even created.
How could it require a Pentium 90? Fact is, NT 3.51 ran on a 386. NT4 was
the first version of NT that required a 486 minimum (it relied on certain
486+ instructions)
> A working Linux machine could be obtained for under $200 for a used
> machine or $700 for a new machine. The NT 3.51 machine cost nearly
> $5000 new, if you could get one that didn't overheat.
New machine prices did not drop below $1000 until about 1997/1998. You
simply could not buy a new machine for that cheap because OEM vendors had
$1500 price points for "low" end machines.
> Windows 95 was a death march for most of the Microsoft people, many of
> whom had just survived the death march of Windows NT 3.5(1). Gates
> felt that if he didn't get every ISV, every OEM, and every IHV tied
> into exclusive contracts for Windows 95, and didn't get a working web
> extensible browser into the bundleware, that the company wouldn't
> meet revenue targets (again), that the stock would tumble, and that
> Microsoft would be faced with two or three competitors at the same
> time (Linux, OS/2, and Mac), possibly more (Solaris, BSDi, freeBSD,
> UnixWare,SCO,...).
Microsoft did not start becoming concerned about Linux until very recently.
Fact is, Linux was simply not ready until the 2.0 kernel came out, and
distributions started becoming something you could install without a PhD.
> Gates was bluffing with a blown streight, but the OEMs didn't know
> it. Most of the OEMs didn't trust IBM, and didn't know or understand
> Linux and Intel UNIX. They didn't want to create another Microsoft,
> but didn't want to be cut out of Windows 95 either. Microsoft's
> "All or nothing" terms most dramatically demonstrated with IBM, but
> equally dispised by Compaq, Gateway, Dell, Micron, and the rest of
> the "top 20" was a masterful play.
OS/2 was never truly going to ever make it with OEM's. OEM's would never
pay one dime to IBM because IBM was their stiffest competitor. That would
be like Ford buying a GM engine for all it's products. It would never
happen, regardless of what IBM wants to portray about OS/2's chances.
> Microsoft had convinced Novell to keep UnixWare out of the
> workstation market long enough to force their desktop people to
> leave and form Caldera. By the time Novell realized that their
> contract with Microsoft wasn't worth the paper it was written on,
> Noorda and the Caldera team were already gone.
At the time that Novell acquired USL, Novell and MS were barely on speaking
terms. Novell refused to support NT with a working client, so MS eventually
was forced to reverse engineer the client and build a much less functional
one into NT. This infuriated Novell even more, causing Novell to release
sub-standard clients for NT which they blamed on MS in order to alienate
pontential NT customers from buying NT (since most companies had large
quantities of Novell servers).
I simply do not believe that MS had any sway over Novell at all, much less
able to convince them not to market a product that they just paid tons of
money for.
> Microsoft tried everything to get IBM to withdraw their product,
> including blackmail, extortion, and fraud. Eventually, they got
> as much as they could, and signed the contract 15 minutes before
> the curtains opened on the unveiling ceremony (Where IBM's name was
> prominantly featured as a Windows 95 supplier).
MS had legitimate beefs with IBM. IBM had not paid MS for millions of
dollars in back royalties.
> The fact is that Microsoft's worst fears are being realized as we
> speak. Linux is growing and thriving and being joined by other UNIX
> flavors. Compaq's IPAQ can run Linux, AOL now offers most of it's
> features to Linux users, and many OEMs are now offering "TuxTops" and
> "TuxStations" (Linux enabled laptops and workstations).
Yet despite all this, Linux is somehow not "competition" to Microsoft in the
eyes of Judge Jackson.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mohd-Hanafiah Abdullah)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Business management software on Linux
Date: 9 Sep 2000 14:36:32 +0800
What is the best business management software on Linux right now that also
includes inventory management? Thanks ahead.
Napi
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 02:32:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 18:08:35 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>[ snip ]
>
>So kde.com hosts a kde.org search engine and provides that service to
>kde.org ? I don't see what the problem is.
That isn't the problem. The problem that mjcr was trying to document
was that the KDE Project has more intricate entanglements with the
owners of kde.com than Roberto was indicating. He did over-blow the
search engine bit, based on the fact that there is a 'box' on the
kde.org website that creates searches in the 'native' syntax of the
kde.com search engine. Yes, the link is a trivial thing (though less
trivial, obviously, than the actual url link also available) but the
point was to illustrate that a great deal of coordination may be going
on behind the scenes with the KDE development project and none of the
actors seem to be forth-right about owning up to it.
[...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
