Linux-Advocacy Digest #684, Volume #29 Mon, 16 Oct 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Perry Pip)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Linux Sucks (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Sucks (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Sucks (Terry Porter)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Dave Terry)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ermine Todd")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 05:26:21 GMT
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 17:26:29 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> From the main page: http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/
>> >>
>> >> "For only the cost of media ($75 US) plus shipping, you can use the
>> >software
>> >> on an unlimited number of computers with a capacity of 8 or fewer
>CPUs."
>> >>
>> >> From FAQ at http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/binaries/faq.html
>> >>
>> >> "You can use the Solaris 8 runtime environment at home or at work, for
>> >> business or personal computing."
>> >
>> >I see you conveniently forgot that we're talking about Solaris 7 and
>below.
>>
>> That's a crock of lame ass bullshit. Here is what you posted:
>>
>> http://x65.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=677223329
>
>Here was my clarification (which you responded to, btw)
>
>http://x55.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=677303057.1
Irrelevent. It's nothing but an attempt on your part to shift the
emphasis to an older version to hide that you were wrong. The pricing
of older versions is irrelevent.
>> Furthermore, Sun isn't even selling
>> Solaris 7 any more.
>
>Funny, it's listed on their web site for sale, including prices and SKU's.
>That's the price I listed in my clarification.
Although it's irrelevent provide a URL please. You never provided
one. And not a stale one. I think your full of it.
>>What an older version used to cost is
>> irrelevent. Solaris 8 is the current version and a fully capable
>> version for up to eight processors is $75 with no limit on the # of
>> machines you install it on.
>
>It's what it STILL costs.
Irrelevent.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 06:09:26 GMT
Weevil wrote:
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indMicrosoft.asp
> >
> > Also see the related analysis links at the bottom of that page.
> >
> > That being read, it seems that the boss is winning points for giving
> people
> > their choice of operating systems at work. As it should be. They made
> that
> > choice at home.
>
> People use whatever comes on their computer. They don't "choose" one
> operating system over another, especially when they're not even aware of a
> choice.
So they don't read the front page or watch the news? They all know they can buy
a Mac or get Linux for their PCs. There just not interested because Windows
satisfies them. Reference the Gallup poll.
> Microsoft has for years required PC manufacturer to pay for DOS and
> Windows on every PC they sell, whether they include Win/DOS on the computer
> or not.
Wrong. Not all. Only those who seek to get the best prices by agreeing to more
efficient licensing strategies. It's easier and this more cost effective to tie
licensing to sales volume than individual computer sales. Thus the savings in
cost to the vendor due to the savings in cost to Microsoft's auditors.
> It's that so-called "per-processor license" you've heard tell of.
> How did they require OEMs to do this? By refusing to allow them to sell
> Win/DOS at all unless they signed the contract.
Prove it. I can sell Windows anytime I want for very close to what Dell pays.
http://www.pricewatch.com/1/182/2194-1.htm
> Now, OEMs are in a highly
> competitive market. They can't afford to charge their customers twice for
> an OS (once for Microsoft's per processor license and once for, say, OS/2),
What the heck does OS/2 have to do with it?
> because their competitor across town will just undercut their prices by
> selling MS-only machines.
If you want MS loaded machines you buy one from the guy thats sells one. Since
Linux is free there should be people lining up to build machines with it on
board as the local alternative vendor. They are not. They think they can
profiteer. Make cash from their "expertise". That's predatory. Because they
can make a buck fixing the beta quality Linux systems everytime the lose it.
And don't tell me that the current Linux GUIs don't crash more than then current
Windows GUIs do. People who don't like the crashes can go to 2000, which does
100 times less than 98. And 10 times less than NT4spx. And you dont need to
become a geek to run it. End of story.
> So...the result is exactly what you'd expect:
> home users have been locked in to Win/DOS for years. They didn't "make that
> choice at home," as you claim.
They do too. They know about Linux and Mac and choose against it because they
are queer. (Don't even go there -- my diction is proper.)
> The truth is that the average user at home thinks of Windows as part of the
> machine.
Wrong. They read the papers.
> Everybody he knows uses Windows It was on there when he unpacked
> it and plugged it in. He thinks it's part of it. It wasn't a "choice" he
> made -- it was just there, like the carburetor on his car.
Sorry. He knows he can mod the car. And if he's a motorhead he can do so.
Still not anything more than a sad niche.
> > Just face it folks.
> > Windows is where it's at today because it's better at what people want to
> do
> > with their computers.
>
> Well, no, it's not. It's where it's at today because Microsoft forces it on
> people.
SURE! By success, superior marketing and the one simple fact that it does what
people want. Go home.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 Oct 2000 06:15:26 GMT
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 18:24:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Like Bluto said in the movie Animal House when handing out Delta
>names:
>
>Terry, I've given this a lot of thought (burp).
Hahahahah, always a pleasure to dispute your posts Wintroll :)
>These 2 statements sum up where you are coming from and why you are so
>far out of touch with what could help Linux take the desktop from MS.
>
>>If Windows users tried Lynx, theyd be blown away by the speed as compared to
>>Exploders sluglish bloated performance.
>
>and
>
>>>How about groupware?
>>Dont you mean "Bloatware" ?
>
>
>No comment is even necessary.
No comment is even possible you mean ?
>
>claire
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 2 hours 46 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 Oct 2000 06:22:35 GMT
On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:59:41 -0400, James E. Freedle II
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yeah, I installed Linux and was impressed with the speed of the command
>prompt.
Hahahaha, gee thats good to know, of course DOS 4 would be blindingly
fast at the cli on a modern machine too ?
However whats your point ?
> Of course then there was the problem that I could not do anything on
>my computer.
Easily fixed by education, millions do it every day, only slightly painfull ;-)
> The installer left me wondering what in the hell I installed,
What installer ?
>and more importantly not even the manual told me what I could do with Linux.
What manual ?
>I am not geek here and I have more important things to do than mess with
>trying to figure out how to use an ancient OS.
If you had a rock I'd figure that learning how to use a "old fasioned longbow"
would be a good idea!
> Linux has it's uses, I am
>sure that people can study the soures, but what they will get out of them, I
>will never know.
You're probably right there :)
> As far as the stability of Linux is concerned, it is easy
>to have a stable system, just install an operating system with no useful
>applications (Linux), and useful applications I mean applications that
>normal everyday users will use) and have it sit there, then it will be
>stable.
Hehehe, take some Valium man, your so stressed out that youve confused Windows
with Linux.
Windows "stable" ????????????
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 2 hours 46 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 16 Oct 2000 06:24:27 GMT
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 03:07:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Spoken like a true ex-Linux user.
>
>I'm saving this post. A real classic.
Why ???
You probably wrote it "Steve/Heathe/Amy/Keys88/Claire_lynn" ?
>
>
>claire
>
>
>On Sun, 15 Oct 2000 21:59:41 -0400, "James E. Freedle II"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, I installed Linux and was impressed with the speed of the command
>>prompt.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 2 hours 46 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Dave Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 06:31:53 GMT
Mike Byrns wrote:
> So they don't read the front page or watch the news? They all know they can buy
> a Mac or get Linux for their PCs. There just not interested because Windows
> satisfies them. Reference the Gallup poll.
When Joe Blow walks into Best Buy to buy his first computer and sees 20 Windows
machines set up to choose from, what do you think he's gonna go home with? Average
home computer users don't read the front page or watch the news to learn anything
about computers or the computer industry - they could absolutely care less. All
they want is something that lets them email and surf like their friends and
relatives do. The few that have even *heard* of Linux at all have no idea what it
actually is.
> > The truth is that the average user at home thinks of Windows as part of the
> > machine.
>
> Wrong. They read the papers.
No, you are wrong. I am constantly dealing with friends and relatives who complain
about their "crappy Compaq" or "crappy HP" when, in fact, there is nothing wrong at
all with their hardware - it's the OS that is a disaster and crashing all the time.
They TOTALLY equate Windows with the hardware - it's all "the computer" to them!
Dave
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 06:39:14 GMT
FM wrote:
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >There speaks someone who thinks it's perfectly acceptable
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >for a term (OO) to be spin-doctored into oblivion. Oh, also
> >someone who confuses the architecture of a paradigm with
> >its low-level design. But hey, if a term (architecture and
> >OO) has meaning only in a camp (Smalltalk users) foreign
> >to your own then it's perfectly sensible to deny it has
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >any meaning, and/or distort & abuse that meaning.
^^^^^^^^^^^
> Of course if it has meaning, why are you completely unable
It has meaning, and I have articulated it, you just persist
in denying it.
Object Orientation means:
1) everything's an object (where "object" is the normal sense
of the term and not some bizarre abstract sense like you
have been promoting)
2) all actions are performed by sending messages to objects
Simple example: Assignment is not a message in Smalltalk so ST breaks
OO that way. Control structures are not messages in C++ and
Java and that's one of the many, many reasons why C++ and Java
can't be called OO.
> articulate that meaning? Perhaps you don't know what that
> is? You're like one of those people who argue that the
> essence of democracy lies in the goodness of government and
> contend, when faced with "bad" examples of democracy, that
> those are not democracies at all, since they are not good.
> A computational paradigm is a notion for viewing and
> sometimes describing a computational process. A language
But NOT for the language designers; for language *USERS*.
> doesn't force a particular paradigm upon its users and can
This is bullshit. Of *course* a language forces users to
think in a particular way. Or do you have a weird definition
of "forcing" where putting a gun to someone's head isn't
forcing them to do something because they still have an
"alternative"?
If you go out of your way enough then you can write non-OO
code in Smalltalk. And you can certainly write extremely
ugly OO code in Smalltalk. But nobody does this because it's
too much trouble and, except for the Squeak VM which is
translated into C, there is no fucking point.
> only support a paradigm by providing necessary mechanisms
> and a consistent model. C++ is multi-paradigmatic, so it of
> course doesn't provide a single consistent model for OO.
> But then again, OO as a paradigm, isn't complete, (in its
> present state, it merely facilitates slight reorganization
Wrong bozo. AOP as a paradigm isn't complete. And this is
an inherent part of the AOP paradigm. OOP is complete, you
just persist in stripping it of meaning.
> of the underlying paradigm, be it imperative, functional,
> etc) so a language supporting OO will have to support
> multiple paradigms, in some sense (whether they merge to
> appear as one single new paradigm to the user is a
> metaphysical question).
Stop misusing technical terms asshole. It is *not* a
metaphysical question.
> >I just LOVE your implicit arguments by redefinition:
> >C++ is good because it is OO and OO means whatever the
> >fuck C++ has.
>
> This is pretty ridiculous. A huge portion of my articles
> in comp.* newsgroups are dedicated to C++ bashing. Just
Which only made me more perplexed by your idiotic behaviour.
You do end up defending C++. I have no idea why since you
seem to hate it, but what people do and what they think they
do aren't the same thing.
> look it up, if you don't believe me. I don't think C++ is
> good, nor do I think it's clear that OO is good. None of
A vacuous statement. You've stripped the term OO of any
meaning and *now* you're going to pass judgement on it ??
> this is meaningful since the term "good" has no clear
LOL. You're a fucking moron. You're one of those people
who tries to understand something, fails, and then instead
of asking an adept, you come to the conclusion that it's
meaningless/useless. Like your definition of OO: you can't
come up with a suitable formal definition so you create
one that's so general, universal even, it becomes vacuous.
Your attitude seems to be "this is too much for my poor
weedle brain so it can't be useful and can't even exist".
> meaning. Your repeated attempts to put words in my mouth
> are mildly amusing, but they only lower your own
> credibility (as though that was possible). Heck, I'd take
> most of the languages you advocate over C++ any time.
> What's really funny is that you continue bashing C++
> while acknowledging that you don't even know the language.
Reading and writing are completely different things.
If you'd ever taken a look at Smalltalk, Self or any
other high-level language, you would know this fact
intimately.
> If you don't even know what your opposition's argument is
> (or something even remotely close to that), trying to
> argue against it is a futile exercise. I don't think you
Thankfully, the opposition has no arguments beyond their
own ignorance of alternatives, compatibility with existing
software, compatibility with other developers and ignorance
of OO design. And I don't care to argue against these.
> ever in this entire thread addressed a single argument that
> I made, whereas you addressed dozens of points that you
> somehow deluded yourself to believe that I made, that I
> never did.
I also didn't read the vast majority of your posts.
You're an emotionally disturbed fool and it's not my
job to look after you.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:35:24 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Max - just grow up. It's not just Microsoft that abides by the rules I
laid
> >out -- it's all software development that isn't 'free' in the Stallman
sense
> >of the word.
> >
> >Though I'm sure you can offset development costs. Let's see... if it
costs
> >Corel $15,000 to implement a converter for Word Perfect that takes
> >AppleWorks files and converts them into WP native format, and only 3
people
> >will buy it, they won't do it.
> >
> >Or they'll charge all 3 of the people who want it $5,000 a piece.
> >
> >Grow up, Max. This IS how the world works.
>
> Funny, I could have sworn its only how your imagination works. I'm
> presuming that you made up these numbers, and the example.
Going from my experience, that's a rough estimate of how much it would cost
to write a converter, assuming that all the documentation is present, that
one or two people can be put on it for a month, that the new work has to be
documented, and that it has to go through QA. All in all, at least 6-8 weeks
of work to get it done, and make sure that it works *correctly* before
unleashing it on the outside world.
> Your grasp
> of the simplistic principle of supply and demand is to be commended, but
> such grade-school ideology does not prevent Microsoft from being
> anti-competitive and guilty of federal crimes.
Your inability to grasp the simplistic principle of supply and demand amazes
me, and by the way, I was explaining why *generally*, compatibility with
other systems is not a hard requirement for any software development
project.
You claimed that all software HAD to be compliant with its competitors.
That's just plain wrong. So why are you bringing Microsoft into it? Afraid
to admit that you're wrong?
Compatibility costs money. If MS won't certify something as compatible, or
make something compatible with something else because they know that it'd
cost them money to do so, and make (whatever it is) the project as a whole
infeasible economically, then they probably won't do it. And they'll be well
within their rights to do so.
Now, if you want to talk about specifically targetting a breaking
compatibility with other applications/operating systems/software, then be my
guest -- that is something which would most likely be illegal, or at least a
shade of gray from the wrong side of the law. But deciding NOT to explicitly
go out and make something compatible with something else is THEIR decision,
and it's perfectly legal, moral and ethical for them to do so.
Businesses are around to do one thing and one thing only -- make money. The
moment they stop doing that, the accountants come in and kill it off, like
vultures around a carcass. As long as they don't break the law, that's fine.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 23:44:40 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Bogus ... when pressed to actually demonstrate anything that could validate
this claim, no one single shred of evidence was able to be presented. The
facts remain that the price difference was almost always less than 20% - and
the mfg. is the one who had the option of choosing the route. If they
didn't feel that there was the market for the systems with Windows and that
it wouldn't keep their support costs down by going with a single OS, you
better believe that none would have done it. The facts are that there have
always been mfgs. that would sell you a system w/o Windows, and could give
you a better price. The problem was that MOST consumers wanted Windows and
wanted it at the discount that they could get by buying with a system.
--ET--
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >
> > And if the price difference was so great, how come less than 40% of the
OEM
> > customers ever went for the deal?
> >
> > As usual Tim, you exibit no credibility in your absurd claims.
>
> The open court testimony was that if the OEM did not agree to ppl they
> had to pay full street price for the OS. MS has been good at keeping
> secret the actual prices charged each OEM, but according to one report
> the ratio was on the order of 50 to 1. So technicaly you could claim
> that the OEMs weren't required to sign the ppl. They were just given the
> option of signing or going broke. IBM testified at the trial that MS
> gave them a similar choice : drop OS/2 or pay full street price for MS
> operating systems.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
