Linux-Advocacy Digest #90, Volume #29 Wed, 13 Sep 00 06:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: US v Microsoft book by NYT reporters, reviewed by D.Lindsey ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: US v Microsoft book by NYT reporters, reviewed by D.Lindsey ("Stuart Fox")
Re: I admit it - Linux CAN be cool upon occassion ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) ("Simon
Cooke")
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. ("Chris Sherlock")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Win2K ("Adam Warner")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("David Brown")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: US v Microsoft book by NYT reporters, reviewed by D.Lindsey
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:29:50 -0500
> > From: "Duncan Lindsey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > When Microsoft finally figured out what was happening they went into
> > battle mode. What else would we expect in a free market competitive
> > economy? Now the challenge was to see who would emerge victorious.
> > Microsoft had some advantages. Although it was late to understand and
> > develop browsing software technology, it did have a dominant position
> > in the old (then current) operating system technology. The personal
> > computer technology was changing rapidly. Either Microsoft would adapt
> > to this new Internet technology or it would eventually perish. What
> > were its options? It could build a browser that competed with
> > Netscape and fight head to head. It did this. Microsoft knew that if
> > they lost the browser war they would place the leadership position of
> > their corporation at risk. But in this head to head browser war
> > Microsoft was at a distinct disadvantage. After all, Netscape did not
> > simply want to become the premier browser program, they wanted, with
> > the help of rivals, to replace the operating system supremacy of
> > Microsoft with browser technology that would become the new operating
> > system platform for application software. In short, Netscape wanted to
> > unseat Windows. Obviously, Microsoft didn't want to unseat itself. But
> > in the end that is what Microsoft had to do.
> >
> > Netscape set out to combine Internet browsing software technology with
> > java and API components that would allow it to replace the major
> > operating system components previously provided by the Windows
> > operating system. The center of gravity for the personal computer
> > software world was shifting from the desktop to the World Wide Web.
> > Microsoft realized that to insure the survival of their operating
> > system, they would have to include browser software components into
> > the Windows operating system.
This illustrates a key part of the US vs MS trial that was ignored by the
court.
The court was acting under the premise that MS was using it's OS Monopoly to
gain a Monopoly in a totally new market called "Internet browsing".
However, as this quote clearly indicates, it wasn't a new market at all.
Netscape was trying to compete in the OS market with the browser, which
essentially invalidates the anti-trust argument (using one monopoly to gain
another in a seperate market).
Unfortunately, MS can't really make this argument for at least two reasons:
1) It is still denying that it's a monopoly, arguing this would be seen as
admission that it was one.
2) Even if it admits a monopoly, the admission that the browser could
unseat MS could seriously effect it's stock prices and give the platform
much more credence than MS wants.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:19:09 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>
> >> Outlook is complete an utter crap for each and every potential use. I
> >> know; I have to use it. As an expert in the implementation of
> >> operationally functional, I can tell you with no fear of contradiction
> >> that Outlook is a monstrously useless piece of dogshit. Except, of
> >> course, in comparison to 'nothing at all'.
> >
> >And in comparison to Notes client...
>
> I'm certainly not a huge fan of Notes; neither are most Notes users.
> Having seen the results in both medium and large companies, I'll tell
> you, again with no fear of contradiction, that Outlook is to Notes as a
> pile of dogshit is to a pile of potting soil.
In fact, one of your favourite sites to point people to singles out Notes
Client 4.6 for special mention...
http://www.iarchitect.com/lotus.htm
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: US v Microsoft book by NYT reporters, reviewed by D.Lindsey
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:42:51 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > competition. Microsoft held the then current monopoly for personal
> > computer operating systems (leaving aside Apple, Palm, Linux, and
> > Solarus). Netscape began with the monopoly of installed users of
> > browsers.
What - the competition then? Of course you'll have a monopoly if your
definition excludes the competition...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I admit it - Linux CAN be cool upon occassion
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:44:41 +0100
"Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ...and Nigel Feltham used the keyboard:
>
> However (most obviously, there must be a "however", or there wouldn't
> be a reason for me to post this), I have an overclocked PII/266 (it's
> running at 292) that I do most of my work on. Not too overclocked, I
> admit. But lately, as I changed my video configuration to 1600x1200
> @ 24bpp, just starting VMWare burns my CPU out and the whole thing
> grinds to a painful hysteresis every five to ten minutes or so,
> inspite the extra fan I installed recently. What I miss is some way I
> could specify guest CPU class and/or frequency or at least the load
> VMWare would be able to present to host CPU. Running it through nice
> doesn't seem like a good idea. Or does it?
>
Which I believe is coming in one of the next versions of VMWare - ability to
limit the amount of processor a VM can take (or so I've been informed)
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:20:01 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nVEv5.1237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Actually, EVERYTHING you now see on the internet was FIRST developed on
> > Unix.
>
> It was? I wasn't aware that TCP/IP was first developed on Unix (hint: it
> wasn't). I wasn't aware that routers were first developed on Unix (they
> weren't).
And I'm pretty damn sure that the first widely distributed porn was in print
form...
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc,alt.christnet
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:10:19 +1000
Dude, isn't this guy joking?
Chris
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> alt.flame.niggers removed from followups.
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on 3 Sep 2000 19:19:36 -0500
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Its' Labar day now and every Commy-loving Lie-nux Commy and his
> >dog that cappitollists paid for think's that working peopal bilt
> >this cuontry all by themselfs but let me teal you peepal tht they
> >coulda'nt done it without capptittallists and there monney.
>
> An interesting, if poorly-written from a techical sense, idea.
> (You do need to work on your diction, sir. No doubt others
> have pointed this out many times.)
>
> There is the possibility of consideration of the idea that Linux
> is built on a foundation which Microsoft propagated -- in other
> words, Linux is only there because Microsoft and Intel were there
> first on a piece of hardware that would otherwise have been swamped
> by the likes of Apple (which was at the time, an even more
> proprietary and closed system, albeit more user-friendly),
> Commodore Amiga, Atari, and others -- all of which were closed
> systems, with limited potential for modification by the end-user
> outside of the parameters intended by the manufacturer/developer.
>
> By contrast, the IBM PC was a relatively open system, complete
> with published source code for the BIOS! (This was back in
> about 1985 or so, perhaps.) Anyone could modify the hardware,
> and frequently did (the PC clones). Whether this was intentional
> on IBM's part or not is debatable -- most likely, it was not.
>
> However, to draw the conclusion that one must purchase Microsoft
> on such a system is a bit strange, even were the original idea
> true -- and it's not clear that it is. For starters, there was
> DR-DOS, PC-DOS, 4DOS, and a few others at one point; these were
> MS-DOS competitors. Other specialized systems may also have been
> in existence at some point -- and of course game writers could,
> and frequently did, either made their games directly bootable
> from floppy, bypassing DOS more or less completely, or contracted
> with someone to write a DOS extender (DOOM is such a game) that
> allows for certain issues within DOS, such as the conventional
> memory mess, to be ignored.
>
> In an ideal world, Windows wouldn't care. As it turns out,
> Windows *does* care, and MS-DOS does, too. (See Andrew Schullman's
> work _Unauthorized Windows 95_ for proof of this admittedly
> bizarre-looking concept. Be warned that this work is laden with
> large amounts of debugging data, but it's an interesting read.)
>
> >Labar is just a commoddity like the masheans it opporates.
> >Without Cappitol it just sits thear like a stuppit hoarse or a mual.
> >People that want labarers to halve all the power want us to be like
> >country's whear poeple like to kill each other all the time,
> >like Kosovo thoas peppel are fucked up aren't thay? But hear inthe
> >US, we halve LAWS. And LAWS protect all teh smart peeple with the
> >monney from all the stuppit broots out thear that want to take it all
> >away and blow it off on hookers and beer and destroy society.
>
> Now I'm getting slightly confused. To be rather pedantic about it,
> laws are meaningless without enforcement -- but I am unaware of
> laws that protect "smart people with the money from all of the stupid
> brutes out there". Laws protect everybody; they protect the "stupid
> (but hard-working) brutes" who save their money from the smart
> criminals who might take it, too. (Not that criminals are all
> that intelligent, by and large; the smart ones don't get caught,
> but the even smarter individuals don't have to commit crimes,
> since they would be in demand and get paid top dollar in
> legitimate enterprises.)
>
> At least, they're supposed to. I don't know if they're entirely
> successful. (I will also note, as an aside, that there are
> certain laws that do in fact protect very specific individuals,
> and are carefully written so as not to call them out by name.
> I do not care for these laws, myself -- but they're there.)
>
> As for how Linux fits into all this? I'm not sure. Linux is
> a labor of love, that much is clear -- that might account for
> its higher quality initially; however, now that it's become
> a corporate interest as well (IBM, for starters, supports Linux now),
> it's quite possible to get higher quality yet. That might sound
> strange, but IBM's good at pickiness, and they also know that
> anyone else can propose a patch as well to this very open system,
> so aren't about to slip in anything stupid, such as an intentional
> crash if one of their competitors' cards is put into a machine.
> At least, not if they want to continue existing as a
> hard-driving law-abiding corporation. (And they've learned
> their lesson, too -- IBM had their day in court regarding
> certain monopolistic practices of their own regarding mainframes,
> if I'm not totally mistaken.)
>
> Microsoft, by contrast, could hide mountains of crap in their
> proprietary system. While hackers can find them (hex dumps
> aren't that hard to generate, even if they are now illegal under
> new "anti-reverse-engineering" laws), it's clear that Joe
> User isn't going to look very hard, but might trip over one
> by accident. (Or on purpose; there are people out there who
> hunt for "easter eggs" -- and find them!)
>
> >
> >If it wasant' for capitlists, you'd all still be living on farm's,
> >working 20 ours a day and then you'd half to fite off the primait
> >Indions the other for hours and you think that 12 is bad?
>
> "Primate Indians"?
>
> The Native Americans will probably hotly dispute that -- and I
> certainly hope that they do so! (I am not Native American, myself.)
>
> Sheesh.
>
> >And the
> >governmant wouldnt of got rid of the indions withotu cappitol
> >either they wood of just let them run all over the plaice and
> >we'd halve a MESS today but the capittolists said NO
> >THEAS STUPPIT INDIONS ARE CAUSTING US MONNY GET RID OF THEM RITE NOW!
>
> Um, you're getting *really* confusing here. Capitalists aren't
> supposed to lean on their government; their primary concern
> is selling in a relatively free and open marketplace.
> To suggest that capitalists leaned on the US government to
> "get rid of the Indians" is wildly simplifying what was
> (and still is) a highly complex and dynamic situation
> (and, in the past, a bloody one).
>
> One would hope that in the Naughties [*] that we've progressed
> beyond simplistic "cowboys and Indians" nonsense. (Note that
> "cowboys" have more or less disappeared from the lexicon too;
> "ranch managers" or "ranch employees" might be a substitute.
> Also, the homestead is now more or less the corporate farm,
> and Native Americans don't sit around in reservations any more, they
> work and play with the rest of us. Signs of the times, I guess.)
>
> >
> >Commy union's are gettign what they want now becoze thear is a
> >labar shortadge (we halvent replaced it all with tecknollogy yet),
> >and all they reelly do is make everyboddy pour even the workors.
>
> It is not clear that unions haven't outlived their usefulness.
> However, they were originally formed to seek redress for the
> abuses of capitalists, or perhaps to counterbalance the monopolistic
> employers with some monopsony of their own -- resulting in higher
> wages for their members, much like a monopoly can raise their
> prices for selling their product.
>
> Of course, there are issues with higher wages -- for starters, they
> raise the cost of creating the product, which gets passed on
> in part to the consumer (the rest gets eaten by the corporation).
>
> >They make company's worhtless and noboddy want's to by there stalk
> >so thay half to sell it real cheap. We half to get rid of union's
> >and there stupit dimmands for higher wages and job securety.
>
> "Stupid demands"? Why are they stupid?
>
> >Lixnu is getting stronger to, because company's don't realize how
> >mutch munny their losing when they don't run Windows.
>
> Perhaps it's because the CEO's are realizing how much money
> they are losing when they DO run Windows -- after all, a
> server that blue-screens doesn't serve too well! (It's not
> too clear to me that a BSOD can be rebooted from after a
> set time, either, although watchdog cards could presumably
> be installed if necessary.)
>
> >They halve so mutch monny they don't know what to due with
> >it, so they make all there workors diddle around with Linux
> >all day, and they make Microsoft's stalk go down the toob,
> >wich makes everyboddy lose monny, because who doesant own
> >Microsoft stalk except Linux zellots and those stupit
> >peopel at McDonnalds that always get the order rong.
>
> You want fries with that mangled sentence? :-)
>
> As for corporations having so much money to throw around learning
> a new OS -- let me suggest that there are a fair number of
> dotcoms (I am currently employed at one) who want to ensure that
> their hardware and their employees (and their money!) are doing
> their very best. One would hope that Linux is sufficiently
> polished (it's getting there) so as to allow employees to get
> their actual work done, be it development in C++, Java, or
> whatever, without worrying about whether their operating system
> is going to Bite the Big One.
>
> It also helps that the OS scales nicely from a tiny 386
> to a gigantic IBM S/390, with a lot of systems in between.
> Can Microsoft do that?
>
> And there's a lot of Unix code out there, that can be readily
> ported to Linux, and vice versa. (Linux code could be ported
> to NT, as well -- but it takes quite a bit more work; NT code
> can be ported to Linux, but that takes even more work, and a
> lot of supporting libraries as well.)
>
> >Meanwhile, the CommyLinux CommyVirus is gettign put
> >in place, and pretty soon we'll all half to surrendor
> >to the Commy's because if we don't our computors will
> >crash and itl'l be like Y2K with no ellectrissitty and
> >all that Capitol has done for uss wil be destroyed.
>
> You're seriously suggesting that Microsoft is a better solution
> for crashes than Linux?
>
> While I do have some worry about the 2038 problem (time_t values
> aren't supposed to be negative), that's a ways off, and by then
> we'll hopefully all be 64-bit, anyway.
>
> Linux is quite ready for 64-bit -- it's running on Alphas now
> without any trouble. Microsoft Windows NT, by contrast, has to
> run in a special 32-bit mode, if I'm not mistaken.
>
> And from what I've seen of the base Windows API, I'm not all
> that hopeful. (Side point: Windows still can't properly display
> timestamps from future-time files -- a minor issue if one's
> network has clock skew.)
>
> [*] I've yet to see a better term for years ending in double-zero --
> certain Hanna-Barbera cartoons such as Dick Dastardly in
> "Wacky Racers" notwithstanding. :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misspelling here
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:24:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm
>
> STUDY IT LIKE ITS THE BIBLE AND YOU'VE JUST BEEN GIVEN THE LAST RITES.
I've been watching that site for the past three years (give or take).
As for your comments regarding my coding ability...
"NYAH NYAH N-NYAH NYAAAAH"
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:27:35 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Functional and efficient means:
> >
> >1. Lets you do what you need to, quickly
>
> "Lets"? I think not. Only interoperable protocols and compatibility
> standards *enable* you to do so. Microsoft doesn't; they just 'let' you
> lock yourself further into their crapware.
What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
> >2. Guides you when you need guidance
>
> Oh, yea, let's hear it for dancing paperclips. Oh, and MSDN *annual
> payments* to make. Hoo-fucking-ray for 'guidance' on how to lock
> yourself further into crapware.
What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
> >3. Presents information in a useful format
>
> Useful for whom? Let me guess.... the monopolist trying to lock you
> further into crapware, maybe?
What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
> >4. Allows you to enter information in an easy and quick manner.
>
> Glad to hear that Microsoft invented software and data entry.
What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
> >Different people have different sets of these requirements, with
different
> >priorities. My guess is that your priorities are (1), (4), (3), (2), and
> >that Joe Q. Consumers are more likely (2) (1) (3) (4).
>
> What's your point? No matter how you add it up, both me and Joe Q have
> similar priorities: A) get rid of the predatory monopoly inhibiting
> development and charging us disgusting amounts for the privilege, and B)
> whatever the hell we think might work, regardless of how it affects
> Microsoft's revenue stream.
What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're obsesse
d, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
> It doesn't matter how you slice it; Joe Q. and I agree. A monopoly puts
> (5) whatever locks you in further to crapware, ahead of all the others,
> and they suppress competition so much that even *dreaming* of '1 through
> 4', above, is too much to ask.
What does my post have to do with Microsoft? Answer: NOTHING. You're
obsessed, Max. I was talking about UI design as a field.
> As for the general concept of the ignorance of good interface design,
> you've at least gotten close to the mark. Check out
> http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm, they have some useful examples to
> guide you.
I was probably reading that site before you ever even heard about it.
> Since this conversation started, I've done a little research on Quicken
> 2000/1. Its every bit as horrid as I thought; I'm going to recommend
> Isys do a whole page on it.
Please feel free to do so. It's your perogative.
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:28:44 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So tell me, Jerry Shekhel, who pays you to post this drivel?
I'd ask the same about you, but no-one would be stupid enough to pay you to
post.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 21:42:19 +1200
Too many factual errors to even respond to.
Enough said (it looks like a poor troll).
Adam
PS: Aaargh. Can't stop myself:
1. Of course Win2k can multitask.
2. Many application crashes do not bring down explorer.
3. Even if explorer halts, it can be restarted (the computer will NOT
spontaneously reboot).
4. Win2k is a stable operating system (but of course it is not "the" most
stable OS).
Phew. Enough said.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:48:40 +0200
>>
>>Millennium edition is the newest GUI Microsoft hasput on DOS and try
>>to sell it as an OS. I believe it was released earlier this year with
>>zero fanfare.
>
>THey released something with zero fanfare ? That's got to be a first.
>
>Well I don't see why anyone would "require" "ME", unless there's some
>useful software that runs on that but doesn't run on Win 95.
>
>I've yet to find some useful Windows software that doesn't run on Win95
>( but I guess I'm hardly an expert on Windows software )
>
Windmill is basically yet another service pack on Win98 SE. In fact, the
entire family from Win95 upwards (Win95 OS2, Win98, Win98 SE, and now ME)
are basically service packs for Win95, each meant (and publicly announced)
to be the final step in the family before Dos+Win and NT are joined. With
each new release in the Dos+Win family, it gets steadily more embarrising
for MS to admit that they still cannot get the promised unified windows
working (whether or not this is a good idea is another matter, but MS have
promised it for so long that everyone expects it to happen). Thus MS did
not want to shout too loudly about windmill.
The other reason for the low fanfare was that MS wants people to buy w2k.
Since they charge substantially more for it, they want people to see w2k as
the next windows, not windmill. Promoting windmill would take some of the
wind out of w2k's sails.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
