Linux-Advocacy Digest #389, Volume #29 Mon, 2 Oct 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux community. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Can Win9x and NT be considered in the same family? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Open Source to impact industry in 4 years. (David M. Butler)
Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51???? (David M. Butler)
Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51???? (David M. Butler)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (David M. Butler)
Re: Linux Deployment Tools (Charlie Ebert)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: GPL & freedom ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Jim Richardson)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Jim
Richardson)
Re: Double standard? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux community.
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 04:06:38 GMT
Bartek Kostrzewa wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just wanted to express my extreme gratitude to the Linux community. It
> seams to me that *.advocacy is the right place to tell the world what I
> think :o)
>
> So, thanks to all of you again for bringing me to Linux 4 years ago and
> making an *almost* admin out of me (euhmm... actually experienced home
> user, but who cares if it compiles, right?)
>
> Now I just need some more games for my box, and a DVD player (I have
> DeCSS, but it's a pain to decrypt every DVD before watching it :( ) and
> yet another C learning book, maybe I'll write that DVD player myself...
> uhhmm... nah, that's only a dream.
>
> Sincerely,
> Bartek Kostrzewa - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <<< http://technoage.web.lu >>>
I'd like to thank the GNU/Linux community for helping me out also.
It was the volunteers who man these newsgroups who brought me
on line with Linux some 7 years ago. And just 2 years ago, I finally
quit dual booting and removed NT from my life. And I don't
regret it.
And I thank everyone involved with the project for teaching ME the
ropes and I just want to say that I'm using just about everything
they have to offer from Samba, FTP server, WEB server HylaFAX,
VCS, DHCP, Bind, DNS, NBM, SANE, MP3 players and it just
is too great a list for me to put in here. I only highlighted what
I can remember off the top of my head.
I figured out that I saved my family close to $6,000 since a year
since I left Microsoft and went Linux. It was extremely expensive
to obtain all that software and I was never much of a thief.
But I know lot's of win trolls who are thief's and steal from their
company to have databases and compilers at home. I feel
Microsoft is turning them all into thief's.
I think what committed me to being a 100% linux advocate was
after a 3 year long beta for a compiler company I was told I
couldn't even have a home version of the system to play with
and use at home. And that was what broke the straw in my
ass when it came to Windows NT and their registry system.
NEVER AGAIN.
Charlie Ebert
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:14:04 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can Win9x and NT be considered in the same family?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <JNCB5.22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Can we really consider 9x and NT part of the same OS family? I say
> no!
> >
> > I say yes, and I have experienced they in fact are.
> >
> > > 9x is 32/16bit hybrid hack for DOS. It has no filesystem
> protection,
> > > no journaling, and no real multi-user capabilities. NT actually has
> > > these.
> >
> > NT journaling is not full one, just call it meta journaling.
>
> It journals a heck of a lot more than FAT32 does even if it's not full
> journalling.
Well DUH! FAT32 isn't even a journalled file-system. Basically what you
are saying is like comparing a log of wood to a fully breathing, living
human being!
> >
> > > The only thing have in common with each other is binary type and
> > > UI and even then they aren't 100% the same. The API's are somewhat
> > > similar however they have several large differences and some
> functions
> > > do not do the same things.
> >
> > NT 4 when it came out shared a lot of code with Windows 95, and
> > Windows ME shares a lot of code with Windows 2000, so that's
> > reason enough for me to say the belong to the same family.
>
> Just because 2 things share code doesn't mean they belong in the same
> family. I doubt that any of the shared code is anywhere near the
> kernel. It's all UI stuff. Why should MS rewrite their own GUI for
> another OS when they can easily port it?
Without seeing the source code I'm not sure how anyone can comment on
this matter.
Chris
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open Source to impact industry in 4 years.
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:23:26 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> And Microsoft is going to die by 2005.
I wouldn't go that far. Their Operating System development could possibly
be pretty dead by then, but I think MS will be developing software for all
systems for quite a long time. Good example, (and feel free to scream at
me if I'm wrong, I got this from a Mac friend o' mine) - Internet Explorer
on the Macintosh is wonderful, greatly due to the fact that it's not
integrated closely with the OS. And that an explorer crash won't kill the
OS either. Supposedly it's far more stable than the Windows version.
Again, this was a friend of mine who gave me this review, it could be
totally wrong.
In any case, MS will continue to develop nice, friendly software, which I
don't mind at all. I think MS software in a stable environment would give
us the best of both worlds.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:29:54 -0400
Les Mikesell wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > - read mail messages with MIME-encoded documents?
> > - create mail messages with MIME-encoded documents, from an arbitrary
> > application?
>
> And in formats that nothing but the Microsoft apps can read. Or did
> a miss the 'send as' button that lets you choose the format for
> these application-generated mail messages?
Well, nothing but Microsoft and the Linux apps I use, anyway. The newer
(aka beta-testing) KDE stuff handles MIME-encoded docs just fine. I get
HTML email all the time, no problem. Pictures in email (or usenet) display
right in the message. As of yet, I haven't run into any MIME's that I
couldn't view, including stuff generated by Microsoft apps.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:33:20 -0400
James E. Freedle II wrote:
> I can tell you, I can get everything done with Windows, and I have yet to
> get Linux to work with my hardware, and of course it takes 3× as long to
> setup the system as it does in Windows.
I dunno 'bout hardware, but my Linux system took about 20 minutes to set
up. That was the time it took for Mandrake to install. After that it was
a matter of 10 seconds to click on the services I didn't want to start when
I booted (web server and such), and a couple minutes to go to a firewall
script generating site that sets up all the security I need on a dialup.
So the total was about 25 minutes and 10 seconds, about the same it takes
me to install Windows 98.
Hardware can be a bitch tho, depending on what you have.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:29:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Moreover, if it were clear Judge Jackson wouldn't have held all
>> >penalties pending the appeal, because he would have been absolutely
>> >certain of the outcome. Fact is, he's not certain. Nor is anyone else,
>> >MS or the DOJ.
>>
>> Nobody can be certain of anything, of course. The stay of the remedy is
>> a procedural thing; it is not based on his confidence in his ruling, but
>> on the limits of his jurisprudence. Believe me, if Jackson weren't
>> quite absolutely certain of the validity of the conviction, he wouldn't
>> have made the decision to convict. You, MS, nor any others who might
>> defend MS's criminal actions, have provided any counter-argument
>> indicating the decision is not fully and completely founded on Supreme
>> Court precedent.
>
>Actually, it is based on Jacksons confidence in the ruling. Even he admits
>that *EVERYTHING* he did in this trial is vulnerable to appeal. Those are
>his words.
Every federal judge will readily admit that everything they did in a
trial is vulnerable to appeal. That's why its an empirical system,
called 'jurisprudence'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 00:35:07 -0400
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I managed to take out the Window Manager of KDE by picking a specific web
> site. It appeared as though the whole machine was dead, but if I could
> kill X then I could recover.
You don't happen to know what Web site, do you? I like to test out various
sites on the beta software, see if things are fixed, file bug reports and
the like.
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Deployment Tools
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 04:31:21 GMT
"J.Smith" wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I am looking for tools that would help to deploy and manage Linux and
> replace M$-Windows. However, I have become rather accustomed to the
> deployment and management tools that the M$ world has to offer. Some
> examples of what I am looking for for Linux are:
>
> * Automated OS installation on a clean system, possibly in combination with
> boot from network.
> * Automated hardware detection and installation during the automated OS
> install.
> * Scheduled and automated application installation, removal, and
> configuration.
> * wake up from lan.
> * Hardware and Software Inventory.
> * Centralized user management
>
> It would be nice if there was some kind of integrated deployment toolkit out
> there, but I doubt there is. I guess that it will boil down to getting
> seperated packages that do *ONE* of these things, and then integrate it all
> myself using shell-scripts and such?
>
> All information, tips, or links to web-sites on Linux Deployment and
> management in medium to large sites is more than welcome.
>
> Thanks.
WEBMIN.
http://www.webmin.com
However this should be included with most modern distributions.
And it does have an automatic upgrade button to get the latest version
installed once you've got the screen up.
Capable of administering hundreds of Linux, FreeBSD, HP UX and other
type of boxes simultaneously or individually or by groups.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:36:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Are you trying to say that you need to do business in an immoral way to
>> >succeed?
>>
>> Yes, I believe he is. And the fact is, in an anti-competitive market,
>> you cannot 'succeed' by being competitive.
>
>Really. How come Intuit has managed to succeed by being competitive?
I'm not at all sure, to be honest. I presume by having a single,
consistent, staid functionality, and by compromising almost everything
else to the monopoly. Their new "all IE-dependent" style interface
sucks compared to what they had in 1992.
>How come Lotus has managed to succeed by being competitive (Notes is still
>the #1 messaging system, after 5 years of Microsoft competition and poor
>design on the part of Lotus)
By supporting their clients, so that the systems which remain functional
are operational enough to support mere maintenance, over the incessant
and repetitive upgrades/re-architectures necessary to support Exchange,
which really does suck, in the end. Too bad its tied to the monopoly
via NT, and is anti-competitive to the extreme.
>How come AOL has managed to succeed despite MS's attempts to wipe them out
>with MSN?
MSN sucked, just like all the other monopoly crap, and Bill, in his
egomaniacal scheming, was stupid enough to think that the only way to
'de-commoditize the Internet' was by restricting access, rather than
simply allowing a brain-dead front-end. I'm not going to tell you that
I'm a fan of AOL, outside of 'the enemy of thine enemy is thy friend'
kind of association. There's reason to believe that only
anti-competitive companies can 'succeed' as Intuit and AOL have, in
light of a monopoly preventing free enterprise in the market.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 21:37:18 -0700
"Jon A. Maxwell (JAM)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8r919k$jf8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Frank McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (comp.lang.java.advocacy)
> |
> | I repeat my prior question: "Why should all software be free as
> | opposed to other intellectual property?" Specifically, why is it
> | OK for authors and musicians to copyright their works but not OK
> | for software developers to do so. If GPL is the right approach,
> | then all music should be free, all books and writing should be
> | free.
>
> Who says music and text should not be free? Copyright is to protect
> the creator from other people taking the profits made from copies of
> the product. But when anybody can copy it for no cost, charging for
> copies is morally bankrupt since there wouldn't be any profits in the
> first place if not for the copyright. IOW, copyright shouldn't be
> about *creating* profits but *protecting* them.
OK... let's see.
I spend 4 years creating something (say a piece of software).
That software costs nothing to copy - it could be made available over the
net.
So what you're saying is that because it costs nothing to copy, I shouldn't
receive any compensation for my 4 years work?
Nice philosophy.
Simon
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:42:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Some of us read the PC Magazine reviews of the time, at the time, and
>> know what they said, what they meant, and what they indicated about
>> Microsoft's ability to control what worked on Windows, based on how much
>> it would further the monopoly.
>>
>> Nobody expected any more from WordPerfect for Windows 6.0 (1.0) than
>> they did Word 1.0 (6.0); in the end, it was all about monopolization,
>> not development of technology.
>
>Sorry, Word 6 was really more like Word 3.
Word 6.0 was like word 2.3, actually, by my count. There was Word 1.0,
which came out with Win3.0, more or less, and then Windows 3.1 begat
Word 2.0. This was almost decimated as a useful wordprocessor by Word
6.0 (so numbered to combat WordPerfect's 6.0 designation for what I'd
judge as 'WordPerfect for Windows' 1.0, a successor to "WordPerfect 5.2
for Windows", which was a shameful mess). Word 6.0 was succeeded by
Word 7.0/97, which was succeeded by Word 98 and 2000 (and probably a
significant up-haul in the middle, though I didn't get past Word 6.0 by
choice.) I stopped going by whole number equivalents when they stopped
going sequentially, though, so by my count Word 97 is Word 2.5, and Word
2000 is Word 3.0.
>There was Word 2.0 for windows,
>and Word 1.0 for Windows. Not to mention that MS had also ported Word 2 for
>Windows from Word 2.0 for OS/2.
Screw that; it must have been some weird aberration. They had Word for
DOS at the time, and probably ported that to OS/2, but the only really
market-supported versions were Word 4.0-5.2 for DOS, and then Word for
Windows.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:00:17 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 21:34:36 GMT,
Pete Goodwin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>I can crash the WinNT4.0 system at one of my clients, by the simple
>>expedient of pointing IE to a webpage with <img src="c:\con\con"> bam,
>>instant bsod... I'd call that unstable. Don't know re: W2k, haven't
>>tried it yet. None of my clients have switched to W2k yet.
>
>I managed to take out the Window Manager of KDE by picking a specific web
>site. It appeared as though the whole machine was dead, but if I could kill
>X then I could recover.
>
What's the website?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:06:47 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1 Oct 2000 23:26:51 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sun, 01 Oct 2000 13:47:03 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>Then why the fuck did you accept such a lousy deal?
>
>It's difficult to properly appraise the deal. I didn't know
>exactly how much it cost to live, and it's difficult to tell
>when you're in another country. ( I was *not* in the US when I
>accepted )
>
>As soon as I realised that it was a lousy deal, I got out and
>got out quickly. I started applying to other schools at the
>end of first semester.
>
>>Good God man, did someone put a gun to your head, or are you just
>>whining
>>because you agreed to an idiotic deal.
>
>I got out of the deal as soon as I realised that it was idiotic. As
>did a lot of the other top students. Of course, they're not obliged
>to make effort to draw good grad students ( and good TAs ) to the state
>of TX. I guess it's OK if they don't
>take education very seriously in texas, but I don't see why GWB is
>pushing himself as a pro-education guy after presiding over such a
>system. It's a charade.
>
You still haven't explained what GWB had to do with the stipend/fee thing.
Did he push a law eliminating the fee waiver or something?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Double standard?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 04:45:27 GMT
mlw wrote:
> Which is more important?
>
> A user interface issue or an OS stability issue?
>
> What do you think?
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
OS stability by far. I'm just glad that Linux offers better in both
departments.
I have asked windows users time and time again what makes windows
greater
than KDE and GNOME and I never get an answer.
As far as I'm concerned, evolution is going to be nice and I will
probably use it,,,,
but,,, I'm happy right now.
And anything they add from now on will just be icing on the cake.
I don't desire anything using Linux and I definitely don't feel left
behind.
Rather I feel like I'm in a fully fueled and loaded A10 cruising down
a windows highway doing traffic control..
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:53:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> How anyone can be so stupid as to "root" for Microsoft, is waayyy...
>> >> beyond me. These people are evil. Don't you know that? They didn't
>> >> get to where they are by playing fair. Do you really think that
>> >> playing fair gets you to where they are in that amount of time? Do
>> >> you really think that Microsoft's products are that much better than
>> >> anyone else's?
>> >
>> >In the Windows arena, yes, they often are better than other Windows
>> >programs.
>>
>> Of course they are; they cheat!
>
>So, you agree that most of MS's products are better than their competition.
No, I agree that they don't have to be superior products in order to be
more 'commercially successful', because Microsoft is a criminal
organization who doesn't sell more products because of business acumen,
but because of criminal conduct.
>> I think its amusing how the whole array of apparent astroturfers have
>> come out to attempt to refute ChrisV's statements. Mike Byrnes,
>> 'JS/PL', Erik Funkenbusch, and Simon Cooke ALL responded individually
>> during daytime hours to one guy pointing out that Microsoft doesn't have
>> superior products, by any means.
>
>"during daytime hours". I think you'll find my posting schedule varies
>around the clock. Could it have had anything to do with the fact that
>ChrisV posted his article "during daytime hours" himself? Nah.. that would
>be too logical.
Certainly; I've been accused of 'posting on company time' myself, and
often not only post at odd hours, but have messages posted hours after
I've queued them for transmission, because I use automated software, as
much as possible. You got his message and responded during what would
be, in most of the U.S., a business day. I was wondering if your quick
response indicated you were posting from outside the U.S. or if you
might be quick to respond in the course of your normal duties. As I,
quite frankly, occasionally am.
>> >Office got to be king because it's competitors sat on their laurels and
>> >didn't improve their products, or didn't do so in a timely manner.
>>
>> Office got to be 'monopoly' because it was force-bundled with Windows
>> ("accept this deal, or the price of Windows goes *way* up, or maybe
>> we'll just 'audit' you....") and all the competitors where hampered by
>> having to build on top of Win32, which was specifically engineered to
>> prevent competition in the Office market.
>
>Specifically engineered? Right. How can you back up this argument?
By the fact that it worked, and had no other additional advantage, and
essentially lowered the price that Microsoft could charge for Windows in
order to exclude competition.
>Win32 had existed as a finished product for more than 2 years before Win95
>came on the market, and was in beta for 2 years prior to that.
Yes, but it wasn't dominating the application developers, yet, until
after Win95 was released. Lots of developers were actually trying to
use 'extensions' with DLLs the way MS said should be done. Little did
they know (we pretend) that they would have to use more and more of the
Win32 API itself, because MS would eventually bundle everything into it,
in order to minimize the control that application, and specifically
middleware, developers might have to threaten the monopoly.
>Win95 itself
>was in wide public beta for almost 2 years. There was plenty of opportunity
>for any company to produce Win95 compatible software.
Oh, was there? This was after the DR-DOS predation, remember.
http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/brkevb&w.htm
I'm sure a lot of people where trying to compete with Windows. Too bad
Win95 was not a competitive product, but an anti-competitive strategy to
perpetuate and extend a monopoly....
>Most chose to take a "wait and see" to see if Win95 took off before
>investing any money into development. Then, when they figured out that
>Win95 was not only taking off, but MS was taking their market share, they
>quickly dumped sub-standard apps on the market to try and stem the tide.
>This caused and even larger migration to the MS products.
As with Win3.1, MS had shifted, enclosed, hidden, and positioned Win32
to the point that with Win95, every vendor except Microsoft had to go
through the same "hunt and peck" method of attempting to stay compatible
with Microsoft's OS. And you pretend to say that in a competitive
market, these superior products wouldn't have been able to compete with
Microsoft "hey, buy this, and Windows gets cheaper" Office package.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 00:53:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > >Office got to be king because it's competitors sat on their laurels and
>> > >didn't improve their products, or didn't do so in a timely manner.
>> >
>> > Office got to be 'monopoly' because it was force-bundled with Windows
>> > ("accept this deal, or the price of Windows goes *way* up, or maybe
>> > we'll just 'audit' you....") and all the competitors where hampered by
>> > having to build on top of Win32, which was specifically engineered to
>> > prevent competition in the Office market.
>>
>> Specifically engineered? Right. How can you back up this argument?
>>
>> Win32 had existed as a finished product for more than 2 years before Win95
>> came on the market, and was in beta for 2 years prior to that. Win95 itself
>> was in wide public beta for almost 2 years. There was plenty of opportunity
>> for any company to produce Win95 compatible software.
>
>I still have an original late beta Win32 SDK from April 1992. It came
>on a single 1.2 MB 5 1/4 floppy diskette. Remember those? I remember
>how in awe of it we were when we started looking at the simple, logical
>design. So much done for you! So little "support and utility code"
>required to create fantastic GUI. No segmentation limits. We started
>doing a Windows 3.0 version of our leading group scheduling package
>immediately just in anticipation of using the Win32 API later on.
Could you email it to me?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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
******************************
