Linux-Advocacy Digest #65, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections (sfcybear)
Re: [Q] linux on mac? ("Rich C")
Re: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Rich C")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:59:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:e74v5.186$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > But isn't that what capitalism is all about - maximising market share at
>> the
>> > expense of competitors, and maximising profit? By definition, all
>> > businesses must be monopolists...
>>
>> No... Capitalism is about letting supply and demand set prices on a free
>> market and direct resources to where need (demand) is greatest.
>>
>> This assumes that supply and demand are the factors deciding the price and
>> that the price quality comparisons determine purchases. Monopolizing is
>> always anti-capitalist in nature because its purpose is to prevent the
>> market mechanisms from working correctly in order to make people buy your
>> products.
>
>...to make more money, which is the aim of all companies.[...]
You seem to have literally said that any means of making money is
acceptable. You might be that stupid, but most of us aren't. There's a
whole class of ways of making more money, in fact, that have been
illegal for hundreds of years (if you include the predecessors to the
modern-day Sherman Act).
>Just because MS
>happened to be particularly effective at it, where their competitors failed
>(miserably in many cases), does not make them evil etc.
Just because Microsoft is monopolizing makes them a monopolist. It
doesn't necessarily make them evil, but it does necessarily make their
software crap. Any product which doesn't have to compete rapidly
becomes not good enough to compete. That's why socialism sucks, and we
mandate free markets.
>> Good question, though. Many people assume that if a country calls itself a
>> capitalist country its market practices are capitalism. This is not the
>> case.
I think what you mean to say, Ville, is that not every country that is
capitalist uses a free market system.
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 14:09:01 +1000
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bDhv5.71733$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8pk47d$c6u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I sincerely doubt that. The menues in windows would have been a dead
> > giveaway for anyone who had used a Mac before.
>
> While I've not seen the app that Ermine's talking about, it's possible to
> move the menus to the top by doing some hackery.
I've seen the menus moved to the top and duplicated, but I've not seen
anything that can also get them _out_ of the windows themselves - so you end
up with a menubar at the top and a menubar in the window.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:13:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
>"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:nU7v5.318$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>
>> By your definition drug dealers are good people simply trying to make a
>> living in a capitalist system. They too use unethical and illegal methods
>to
>> market products that are known to cause problems for people.
>>
>Some probably are. Why not include tobacco salesman in that, or perhaps
>booze barons? Both products are known to cause (serious) harm or death.
>How many people out there think what happened to MS was fair, yet still
>smoke (illegal tactics, products that are proven to cause actual physical
>harm)? Both involve choice on the part of the consumer, yet they still
>choose to do it.
Well, since I love making declarations of ethical issues, I'll take a
crack at your question, Stuart. Its nice to see you waking up to
reason, and recognizing that Microsoft products suck.
Obviously, the question of tobacco and Microsoft is somewhat contrary;
tobacco companies don't monopolize, and Microsoft products, for all
their faults, don't taste any better after a good meal, or when you're
really nervous.
The reason tobacco companies have been judged unethical is because they
knowingly peddled an addictive and harmful product, dishonestly denying
its addictive properties even while enhancing it however they could.
You are correct, it appears, that there are obvious analogies to
Microsoft's own behavior. Since tobacco companies have just gotten into
a LOT of trouble over their behavior, it does seem oddly 'symmetrical'
that Microsoft would. What might be worth observing is that Microsoft's
prosecution has taken, essentially, more than a decade. While its true
that tobacco has been known to be both harmful and addictive for much
longer than that, once they began losing ground in court, bolstered
massively by the good Mr. Weigand's (sp?) information, the 'resolution',
if we can be considered to have one, only took half that time.
Microsoft's 'product', being 'monopoly', regardless of its target, has
been illegal for over a hundred years, explicitly, and was outlawed by
various previous statutes since the old 'sovereign monopolies' were
legal (because the King said they were legal) hundreds of years ago.
So it comes down to why we stop Microsoft for peddling monopoly, when we
don't stop tobacco from being sold, your original question. You gave
the answer away yourself. Tobacco may be a stupid choice, but there are
alternatives (cocaine, for instance, will calm your nerves, and I'm told
it goes well with after-dinner brandy, as well; there's also those
horrid smelly 'clove cigarettes' that younger people are fond of smoking
in some spots). Microsoft isn't crap because MS programmers can't write
good software; its crap because there's no choice but to use it, no
matter how crappy it might get. Its just a delivery vehicle for
lock-in, with the stated goal of getting you to pay Bill Gates per use
for any intellectual property they can manage to lock behind a pretense
of functionality.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:20:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti
[...]
>> True, but what's your point? The theory is what the law is based on, isn't
>> it?
>
>Which is a bad idea in itself. The law should be based on reality, not an
>abstraction.
Good point. I'm glad you agree, then, with Judge Jackson:
"Read literally, the D.C. Circuit's opinion appears to immunize any
product design (or, at least, software product design) from antitrust
scrutiny, irrespective of its effect upon competition, if the software
developer can postulate any "plausible claim" of advantage to its
arrangement of code. 147 F.3d at 950.
This undemanding test appears to this Court to be inconsistent with the
pertinent Supreme Court precedents in at least three respects. First, it
views the market from the defendant's perspective, or, more precisely,
as the defendant would like to have the market viewed. Second, it
ignores reality: The claim of advantage need only be plausible; it need
not be proved. Third, it dispenses with any balancing of the
hypothetical advantages against any anticompetitive effects.[...]"
"In the instant case, the commercial reality is that consumers today
perceive operating systems and browsers as separate "products," for
which there is separate demand."
I could dig up a host of quotes from as far back as 1895, I'm sure, that
would also agree with your point.
Perhaps you weren't aware that it is the *monopolists* who wish to defer
to abstraction. "How can we be a monopoly, when..." "How can we force
people to buy our products, when..." "How can trying to increase market
share be illegal?"
Luckily, anti-trust law is based on both theory and reality; if you
can't compete, get out of the market.
[...]
>New Zealander. I don't think we should let the companies do what they want
>either - that would be an extraordinarily bad idea. There are companies far
>more evil than Microsoft out there though, and I think wasting time on MS is
>pointless. Why not go after the polluters, or the people who do serious
>harm to the world we live in?
Let's deal with practical matters of free markets, before we move to the
theoretical dangers of environmental damage, OK? If you've got a rare
bird you want to save, feel free. But why defend a monopolist on purely
abstract grounds?
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:21:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: New Zealander. I don't think we should let the companies do what they want
>: either - that would be an extraordinarily bad idea. There are companies far
>: more evil than Microsoft out there though, and I think wasting time on MS is
>: pointless. Why not go after the polluters, or the people who do serious
>: harm to the world we live in?
>
>Microsoft does pollute the computer industry. It does cause serious
>harm to your network if you use their polluted W63K DNS/ADS. They have
>managed to pollute your mind (and all the other professionals who pray
>for Microsoft's reign to continue so that they can be paid to find
>work-arounds to substandard products). So why not begin with them?
Ooh-rah, dude.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:26:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>On 11 Sep 2000 17:06:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Microsoft does pollute the computer industry. It does cause serious
>>harm to your network if you use their polluted W63K DNS/ADS. They have
>>managed to pollute your mind (and all the other professionals who pray
>
>It's absurd to compare aggressive marketting and vendor
>lock to wholesale destruction of the environment. Your post
>is diversionary nonsense.
Well, actually, it was Stuart Fox who compared illegal monopolization
with environmental exploitation. So I suppose he would be responsible
for the 'diversionary nonsense', good of you to notice. AFAIK,
environmental regulations are a whole other section of law, and I don't
believe that there's any intent to prioritize, outside of blatant
efforts to divert the issue away from Microsoft's predatory damage to
the entire computer industry for over fifteen years by their illegal
actions.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:34:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>Can't argue with that part for sure... maybe it will trigger people into the
>move to Linux... but not until Linux moves out of the hobbyist (minimal)
>category and into the consumer, that is a commodity.
Precisely the point of the anti-trust case. Linux isn't going to be
'moving out of the hobbyist category', until the predatory lock-in on
pre-loads is remedied. I'm glad you support competition, but you can't
just wave your hand and make the monopoly go away with superior
products. If you could, the monopoly would have never been there to
begin with. The whole "rally 'round the standard" 'network effect'
chant is just a smoke-screen. We figured out how to make computers
interoperate and applications intercompatible years before Microsoft
started to suppress innovation by wielding monopoly power, and forcing
developers wanting market access to use Win32 exclusively.
A couple of months on OEM pre-loads, and Linux will have all the polish
you could dream of, and more. Have you any idea of the amount of
capital which is available for software that isn't crapware, once the
free market is restored?
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:39:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>On 11 Sep 2000 18:01:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In alt.destroy.microsoft Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> It's absurd to compare aggressive marketting and vendor
>>> lock to wholesale destruction of the environment. Your post
>>> is diversionary nonsense.
>>
>>What do you think happens to all the RAMs, Hard-disk, casing, diskette's,
>>CPUs that get thrown out when the next offering from the Dark Lords
>>require an upgrade?
>
>Do you think that everyone would just stop upgrading their hardware if
>MS went away ? How many Linux users use a machine over 5 years old as
>their primary desktop ?
>
>The truth is that people want the latest and greatest software, and they
>want hardware that can use it. ( If that wasn't true, we'd all be happy
>Commodore 64 users )
>
>>You think wholesale waste of the earth's resource feeding the Redmond
>>behemouth is good for the earth's environment?
>
>I don't think that MS has anything to do with people wanting to upgrade
>their hardware. There are people who don't use any MS software on their
>machines who still upgrade their hardware.
That's because the MS bloatware (being the monopoly, and all) demands
more and more hardware, thus making great increases in hardware power
very cheap. Linux users take advantage of that, of course; they're not
stupid.
The massive curve of the price/performance ratio of hardware may indeed
level out a good bit, once Linux is the de facto standard OS. Hardware
is, after all, limited by Moore's Law; software efficiencies are limited
only by imagination, with some small nod to engineering capabilities and
bandwidth.
--
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: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Test: Dial-up Connections
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:34:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?
>
> 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.
Please show me 1 ISP that cache packets on the internet. I doubt you
will find any. The only place that would cache would be the web server.
The FTP server maybe. But the tests were run at the same time and what I
see is that more than test was done: "We dialed in for the final test on
Sunday Morning 09:00 SAST (GMT+2)."
>
> 2) Performance of a dial up modem depends greatly on TCP/IP settings,
> modem port settings, modem drivers (possibly), line quality, etc, etc,
> etc.
yeah, yeah, yeah. They used the default settings. You know the ones that
MS likes because it makes things easier for the users that don't know
anything about "TCP/IP setings, modem port settings, modem drivers..."
>
> 3) Your tests invalidate themselves. Trying to prove the superiority
> of one OS's TCP/IP stack with a modem is a joke.]
Since the vast majority of home users access via dialup and want the
fastest speed possible I see it as very informative that MS OS can NOT
do dialup as well as Linux.
>
> 4) Browsers commonly report incorrect speeds and file sizes while
> downloading.
Just how do you know they used a the browser to time the downloads? BTW,
the download tests were done with FTP clients NOT a browser. Infact the
post clearly states: "It seems Web Browsing is afterall about the same
speed, giving the same circumstances, but FTP was a huge difference."
Showing that you did NOT take the time to read the details.
>
> 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>
That was just a comment. He made no claims about it.
>
> 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?
Thats rich! What a missuse of numbers! The second hour alone Linux
downloaded the same about as Windows did in two hours even with your
silly argument! Let's look at the numbers of the second hour:
Linux 14Mb per hour
win 7.5Mb per hour
Linux is still almost twice as fast!
>
> 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.
yeah, I would have liked to see them use MS's default ftp client against
default linux...
>
> This might be the dumbest "test" I've ever seen.
Then you have not seen all that many! I have seen a lot worse!
>
> -----= 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! =-----
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] linux on mac?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:43:55 -0400
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pjk1i$puj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8pj21f$c0d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8pgu4t$1jt2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Anon Y. Mous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > if i install linux on a mac, how difficult is the conversion?
> >> >>
> >> >> It depends on what you mean by "conversion". LinuxPPC has become
> >> >> (after quite a long time) incredibly easy to install. Same for
> >> >> Yellowdog. Theyre both redhat based.
> >> >>
> >> >> You of course wont be able to run any of your mac software, but
> >> >> it could be argued that that is a Good Thing (TM).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Perhaps the hardest thing would be converting that cyclops mouse to
> >> > something with 2 or 3 buttons. You need to middle click to paste in
many
> >> > Linux apps. You can simulate a third button with 2 buttons, but how
do
> > you
> >> > simulate a third button with only one?
> >>
> >> Use your brain...how would you do it?
>
> > *I* wouldn't do it, as I try to stay as far away from MACs as possible.
>
> Thats too bad. You're missing some of the best hardware anyone has made
> in that pricerange in the last 10 years.
I'll take that chance (that's not been my experience anyway.)
>
> >>
> >> The way its usually done is with a keyboard replacement; i.e. middle
click
> >> would be 'ctrl click' and right click would be 'alt click'. You can of
> >> course get three button mice for macs, in case you didnt know.
> >>
> >>
>
> > Hmm........modifying keycode tables and gpm parameters???
>
> Thats not even close to how its done.
So enlighten me.
>
> > That sounds like
> > something a new convert from MacOS to Linux would be happy to tackle.
>
> It really isnt that big a deal, and has been functional since the early
> days of netbsd on macs. Which predates MKLinux by about 3 years.
>
> > Besides, with all the Linux window managers these days emulating windows
> > functions, alt and ctrl are usually assigned other functions (such as
> > selecting groups of objects.)
>
> Which are always entirely configurable. Your point?
My point is that with control and alt keys already loaded down with
alternate mouse functions, you want ot add other functions that are
allocated to real buttons on a 3-button mouse. And with only one button, you
cut down by a factor of 3 the functions you can assign to a given set of
keys (e.g., ALT-[button1], ALT-[button 2], and ALT-[button 3] is limited to
ALT-[only-button.]
But then again, since you CAN have a REAL mouse with a MAC, it's sort of
like talking about cassette tape storage, isn't it?
>
> > Of course I had no idea that there were 3 button mice for macs.....the
> > newest mac I've seen had the old cyclops mouse and no USB
>
> Why is this not surprising?
Because I service customers that use PCs, not MACs. I wouldn't expect you to
be surprised.
>
> > (as mentioned by
> > another poster.) Glad to see Mac users are improving their manual
dexterity!
> > ;o)
>
> Three button mice have been available for macs since at LEAST 1992.
OK. I've played with EXACTLY 2 macs since that time and they BOTH had
cyclops mice. So my experience has been: "100 percent of MACs come with
cyclops mice." So if I were to convert my client's G4 to Linux, how would I
attach a 3-button mouse?
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
>
>
>
>
> abbie
>
> --
> "It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
> with computers"
>
> ---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
> protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:50:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ville Niemi in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> If you don't know what your network is, and where it goes, you don't
>deserve
>> to be doing the job. If you're employed to know about it, you should. If
>> you don't, you should be fired for non performance.
>
>Look, many companies (I'm sorry my English fails here, try to understand)
>have moved their IT systems to be managed by outside companies that
>specialice on IT management. The marketing will tell them 'No problem, we'll
>do it... And yes that too... And no, its no problem at all if you want a
>totally new solution compatible with existing installation by next week.'
>The people actually doing the work get dumped all the old problems of a
>badly designed and documented system PLUS tight deadlines on totally
>unrealistic projects. And no I'm NOT inventing this, this is the reality.
Damn straight.
>Marketing makes the rules, the rest just try to cope. Just because you have
>a simple job, doesn't mean everyone else has.
>
>
>> If you're marginally intelligent, and have a web browser (or news client),
>> the resources are there to be found. If you can't find the resources, you
>> probably are in the wrong career.
>
>That wasn't the point. Point was that it is NOT AUTOMATICALLY trivial to
>everyone as you assumed. Yes, anyone on this NG propably could do it, but if
>the whole world population is here, most are pretty quiet...
In fact, in a large size modern enterprise, by the time you are done the
survey, let alone the production, for such documentation, the network
has changed quite a bit already. The only real documentation is
obsolete documentation.
[...]
>The keyword is not 'some' its 'unnecessary'. Any product that requires
>changes, however trivial, on existing installations is bad design. Sometimes
>you need to do design compromises, and settle for less than best design.
>Specifically if you make a change that affects interoperability you should
>have a very good reason for it. As in 'had to do it this way'. Question
>really is 'Had M$ no other way of doing this?'
Unfortunately, empty justifications are easy to come by. Yet, still,
Microsoft's 'developments' seem to make it clear that failure to
interoperate is a purposeful goal, not merely a series of failures of
technical judgement.
>The point many in this NG are trying to make is that M$ deliberately CHOSE
>to create this problem in order to monopolize the market. From the users
>viewpoint this would seem as 'unnecessary' as it can be, and consequently
>the product is BAD design, and to reiterate, 'crap'.
>
>Of course, if you have a different definition of bad design...
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:53:14 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pjtrc$h4i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Every window has a title bar with buttons to minimize, close, etc,
right?
> > How about adding a button to pull up the task list? Then you wouldn't
need
> a
> > task bar or access to the bare desktop to find your icons. You could
also
> > include items to navigate between your virtual desktops as well. Your
> other
> > desktops and your running programs would always be a button click away,
> even
> > if you are running an app "full screen."
>
> A better way would be like OS/2 used to do it - hit both mouse buttons
> together and you get the task list. It'd be a lot quicker.
>
What about middle button emulation? That would be confusing IMO
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.">
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
