Linux-Advocacy Digest #35, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 04:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Nico Coetzee)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (Nico Coetzee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:30:08 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >They also published a rather long winded set of comments which defined
the
> >criteria of acceptable integration, which included showing a valid
benefit.
>
> No they didn't. Apparently what they did 'publish' was a bit too
> long-winded for you to read through completely. What they did was show
> that 'a benefit to the consumer' might well be considered 'the fact they
> didn't have to buy CDs', and they were quite clear in recognizing that
> this is the only possible issue, since MS could, in fact, have provided
> the exact same end result by selling two different CDs. They showed
> this, that no real benefit is necessary in order for their to be a
> theoretical benefit, in order to point out to Judge Jackson, whom they
> knew would oversee the inevitable anti-trust trial, that the per se
> 'technical tying' rule would not be sufficient to show restraint of
> trade in software products, by their reading of the Supreme Court
> precedent.
>
> The 'valid benefit' they ended up with for welding IE into Windows was
> that only Microsoft could do so, and it saves one CD and one
> installation program execution. Boom: 'value to the consumer'. It
> sounds ludicrous, like they didn't have a clue, but in fact it was
> legally precise and correct in reasoning. The 'benefit to the consumer'
> stuff doesn't work with software. The question is 'restraint of trade',
> not 'can we think of some pretense as an excuse?' Get it?
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-330536.html?tag=st.ne.1002.srchres.ni
"In an analysis that may give Microsoft new ammunition in defending itself
in its antitrust battle against the Justice Department, today's decision
went on to define an "integrated product" as "a product that combines
functionalities (which may also be marketed separately and operated
together) in a way that offers advantages unavailable if the functionalities
are bought separately and combined by the purchaser." "
Gee.. sounds like a definition of an integrated product to me, and a
definition of what valid integration is.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:36:11 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >The quicken 2000 and 2001 user interface is entirely written in
HTML.[...]
>
> I don't CARE! It doesn't MEAN anything. This is *after the monopoly*.
> It doesn't MATTER what the ISV's do now, in order to maintain their
> markets (as long, of course, as its precisely what Microsoft wants them
> to do.)
Obviously you don't care. Otherwise you would take the time to understand
the market.
> Go away; you're annoying. NO, Microsoft software does not fail to be
> crap because 'Quicken 2000' has a user interface is "entirely written in
> HTML". All that means is that I'd never consider using Quicken 2000. I
> don't go in for such nightmarishly and pathetically inefficient
> mechanisms. Web browsers make halfway decent web browsers; they make
> really shitty application interfaces.
Spoken as someone that's never used Quicken 2000 or 2001. It's a *VERY*
slick interface that works extremely well. Much better than their previous
interface.
Fact: You cannot judge the quality of a product you've never used. Fact:
You cannot judge the quality of an inteface based something you don't
understand.
Your opinion on this matter is irrelvant because you don't have enough
knowledge to make an informed decision on the subject.
> This is the kind of stuff that makes people like Erik so horribly
> draining. The whole thing is so disfunctional after fifteen years of
> monopoly that people actually can't tell a good idea from a stupid one.
Yet again you fail to provide *ANY* reasoning behind this statement. I
submit you have no reasons for this opinion other than "MS does it, so it
must be bad".
If you care to prove me wrong by providing valid reasons for your opinion
then I'll gladly admit i'm wrong. But I doubt you are capable.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:37:46 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:52:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >Actually, if you legally purchase a piece of software, you legally own it
> >regardless of the EULA (Own here means to own a copy of the liscense and
> >media upon which the software has been placed). Whether or not you have
the
> >right to USE that software is an entirely different matter and is what
the
> >EULA is all about.
>
> Does this mean that you may transfer ownsership ( that is sell ) the
software
> if you don't agree to the EULA ? ( for example, Win98 licenses are
definitely
> non transferable if you accept the EULA. )
Yes, you can sell the software and the liscense to someone else. The EULA,
however, may not be valid after doing so. That doesn't mean you haven't
sold it, or that the new owner has not purchased it. It just means the EULA
does not allow the use of the product after having transferred it to someone
else (if the EULA is so written).
------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:41:02 -0500
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:30:59 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
>
> >1. What is bad about HTML as a help file format.
>
> Not terribly printable.
HTML (when rendered) is perfectly printable if it's written to be. Remember
that HTML need not be printed as it's displayed on the screen. It can be
formatted to fit the output device. This isn't a fault of HTML as much as
it is typical HTML viewers.
> >2. What better idea do you have ?
>
> For documentation, something SGML based is probably preferable, IMO.
> SGML documentation can be used to spit out docs in a number of formats.
HTML is not all that different from SGML conceptually. SGML is just much
more feature rich. The same rules apply to HTML as SGML in regards to
printability.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:46:28 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >Actually, if you legally purchase a piece of software, you legally own it
> >regardless of the EULA (Own here means to own a copy of the liscense and
> >media upon which the software has been placed). Whether or not you have
the
> >right to USE that software is an entirely different matter and is what
the
> >EULA is all about.
>
> You're playing games, not contributing to the discussion. No, I didn't
> expect anyone would be so *moronic* that they thought they'd roll back
> time to before computers were invented, so that they could
> discombobulate the phrase "purchase a piece of software".
>
> Stop being a pedantic ass. "Purchase a piece of software" means to buy
> a box with 'software' in it, without any whining and bullshit about what
> 'software' is to begin with. These days, you get a CD and a trade
> secret license. Deal with it.
In case you didn't understand what I wrote, I said precisely what you said
here. Buying a piece of software means to buy the media it ships on
(including packaging, documentation, etc..) and a copy of the liscense.
Perhaps it's too much for you to comprehend that though.
The point where my description differs from yours though is that the EULA
has nothing to do with the purchasing of the software. The EULA only covers
your right to USE it (which is probably why it's called and "end USER
liscense agreement"
------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 02:48:21 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I can quote more if you'd like? HTML Help being one example, the use of
> >embedded browser rendering surfaces being another.
>
> Oh, you mean software *design*. I thought you meant "software
> development practices" when you said "software development practices".
Ha. When proven wrong, change your argument.
For your information, software design *IS* a software development practice.
Much like arguing without any reason is a T. Max Devlin practice.
------------------------------
From: <[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: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 00:32:24 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cEGu5.593$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:52:10 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > >Actually, if you legally purchase a piece of software, you legally own
it
> > >regardless of the EULA (Own here means to own a copy of the liscense
and
> > >media upon which the software has been placed). Whether or not you
have
> the
> > >right to USE that software is an entirely different matter and is what
> the
> > >EULA is all about.
> >
> > Does this mean that you may transfer ownsership ( that is sell ) the
> software
> > if you don't agree to the EULA ? ( for example, Win98 licenses are
> definitely
> > non transferable if you accept the EULA. )
>
> Yes, you can sell the software and the liscense to someone else. The
EULA,
> however, may not be valid after doing so. That doesn't mean you haven't
> sold it, or that the new owner has not purchased it. It just means the
EULA
> does not allow the use of the product after having transferred it to
someone
> else (if the EULA is so written).
Are large stores like Electronics Boutique and Babbage's and their customers
pirating software when the stores purchase preowned computer games from the
public and resell them back to the public again?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:00:00 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/news/NS7572420206.html
>
> Real preemptability (not the fake they have now),
> somewhat less than laughable SMP (as opposed to the
> laughable MacOS 9-ish SMP they have now)
>
> "For example, as a desktop user I want to be able
> to watch a movie and hear the sound, while also
> running a browser and my mail program. And when
> I use the mail program and the browser, I don't
> want any glitches in the movie or sound. That
> really requires improvements in Linux responsiveness"
>
> I must apologize. I had been giving Linux FAR too much
> credit. I had assumed that they had at least a decent
> PMT implementation, but according to this article, it
> appears it's no better than the MacOS's CMT.
>
> Can't watch a movie and check email at the same time?
> And this is supposed to be the OS that's the death of
> the MS OS? Give me a break!
>
> Linux strives to be more like Windows in every iteration.
>
> Case in point?
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/previews/2285/1/
>
> Let's look at the screenshot up in the upper-right
> corner of this web page.
>
> - At the top of the screen, we have a MS Win95-ish
> task bar, completely with pop-up menus, shortcuts
> on the bar (like IE4 shell integration or Win98),
> a SYSTRAY-like program notification area on the
> right-hand side. It's bad enough they copied everything
> lock, stock, and barrel, but they even had to put it
> in the same positions. Linux developers are copying off
> of the $millions of research Microsoft did to develop the
> Win95 interface to make it efficient and conducive to
> productivity.
>
> - We have Icons on the desktop that look remeniscent of
> Win95. Of course, with the icons on the left-hand side.
>
> - We have another Win95 taskbar knock-off on the bottom of
> the screen complete with clock.
>
> - We have a web-browser file navigator just like the IE4/
> Win98 "View as Web Page" function that so many Linux
> idiots make fun of Microsoft for, yet try so hard to
> immitate (KDE, Gnome, and now Eazel)
>
> - We have the ability to "view as icons" which is a
> direct knock-off of Windows 2000's "View as Thumbnails"
> option
>
> Shall I go on?
>
> It's sad, really. It's sad that they bash on Microsoft for
> the same things they try to emulate (and do a shitty job
> of, BTW).
>
> -Chad
If you don't like it, pick a Manager that is not Windows like...
Try here: http://linux.davecentral.com/sysutilwin.html
Cheers.
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
I just had my entire INTESTINAL TRACT coated with TEFLON!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 08:01:28 GMT
It appears that on Sun, 10 Sep 2000 12:57:36 +1000, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It appears that on Wed, 6 Sep 2000 15:07:02 +1000, in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Not even then. It would support an argument that one system is more
>> >flexible, however.
>>
>> I think it's perfectly fair if you are comparing stability to compare
>> the most stable setup each system allows.
>
>No, to be fair you would have to compare with a parity on *functionality*.
>After all, a DOS machine sitting at C:\> not doing anything is pretty
>stable, no ?
All depends on the TSRs loaded. ;^) But why bring up DOS?
>> >> I use the web for research fairly often, and I really like having the
>> >> MDI interface. 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. After getting used to Opera every
>> >> other browser out there seems positively paleolithic on this one point
>> >> alone.
>> >
>> >Ugh. I *hate* MDI, and I'm glad to be seeing the end of it as
>application
>> >stop using it. I can't think of a single advantage it has. Just the
>idea
>> >of having to have an enormous parent window open just so I could see the
>> >content of multiple browser windows and drag & drop/copy & paste stuff
>out
>> >of them is making me cringe.
>>
>> Well that's your choice. But when you need to load multiple windows
>> and switch between them efficiently, there is no better way to do it,
>> so if you ever need to do that your personal preference will cost you.
>
>I do it all the time <counts> right now I have 13 browser windows open.
>Since they don't have to be captured inside a parent window, I can actually
>have several of them open at a usable size and see bits of windows doing
>stuff in the background. Plus I can drag & drop between them if I want.
>MDI is just A Bad Idea.
So don't use it then. I think your a nut, but that's ok. You have
every right to be a nut ;^)
>> >> >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?
>> >
>> >Well, for just a firewall on that scale you're not going to need a PIII.
>An
>> >old pentium will do the job just fine.
>>
>> A 386 will do the job just fine too.
>
>If you can find one that works, and is likely to keep working.
>
>And really, are there that many places only starting to decomission 386s ?
No, but there are quite a few still in warehouses I am finding. At any
rate, the point was simply that you can do more with less. That holds
true with 486s, pentiums, etc. NT, like Solaris, does start looking
better with multiple processors, but the upgraded Linux kernel can
even keep up ok on multi-processor boxes now.
#####################################################
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.
#####################################################
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 10:11:14 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 11:29:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Any other person that want to add anything are welcome.
>
> Do you realize how stupid this test is?
>
Allow me to comment...
> 1) There is no way to reproduce downloads. Many (most?) ISP's cache
> data to save bandwidth. Testing various sites doesn't help much in
> this case.
>
Even if the sites are cached, the info still need to get downloaded,
even if it's from the local ISP. In fact, when downloading from a remote
cache, you should get more accurate time comparisons because all network
packets now come from the same machine.
> 2) Performance of a dial up modem depends greatly on TCP/IP settings,
> modem port settings, modem drivers (possibly), line quality, etc, etc,
> etc.
>
I think he (fkddan) made it clear that "standard" installations were
made and that not to much tweaking had taken place. I might be wrong
ofcourse...
> 3) Your tests invalidate themselves. Trying to prove the superiority
> of one OS's TCP/IP stack with a modem is a joke.
>
Not really. A modem is still a network device, isn't it?
> 4) Browsers commonly report incorrect speeds and file sizes while
> downloading.
>
It didn't look to me like they used the Browsers to report the speeds.
It seems more like they used a stop watch or something - again I might
be wrong.
> 5) What exactly does the swap file have to do with tests of a modem?
> What makes you think comparing paging files between two entirely
> different OS's is a valid comparison>
>
It was interesting though...
> 6) By these "tests' I can prove that Linux slows down the longer you
> download and Windows speeds up the longer you download. (hour 2 of
> your redhat test shows Linux downloading 4MB less the per the 2nd
> hour, while Windows downloaded nearly 1MB more per hour) See how
> stupid your tests are?
>
Real life situations. The fact is that Linux was still faster.
> 7) Why did you use CuteFTP 2.6? That's what.. 3 years old? 4? As far
> as I know it contained some horrible bug that caused it to download
> slowly.
>
At least we agree on something...
> This might be the dumbest "test" I've ever seen.
>
Not really - I think this will maybe lead to some more "official" tests
to see whats cooking between the various OS's. As you know, dial-up
connections is the most popular in most countries to connect to the
Internet, and therefore this test IS important to help customers decide
on what OS to use to get the most out of their Internet experience.
> -----= 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! =-----
--
=========================================================
This signature was added automatically by Linux:
.
"We're running out of adjectives to describe our situation. We
had crisis, then we went into chaos, and now what do we call this?" said
Nicaraguan economist Francisco Mayorga, who holds a doctorate from Yale.
-- The Washington Post, February, 1988
The New Yorker's comment:
At Harvard they'd call it a noun.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
