Linux-Advocacy Digest #793, Volume #29 Sat, 21 Oct 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Obscurity != security (Was: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated (Charlie
Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? ("Bruce Schuck")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:07:33 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
> "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8spa52$snk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <55CH5.13009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a
> > simple
> > > fact, check it.
> >
> > Maybe on your planet, Chad. But here on earth, Linux has always
> > detected my RAM just right. And my partitions have also been detected
> > right, not like Windows 95, which once detected my Linux partition as
> > being an "audio CD"...
>
> It has never detected my RAM just right. 66mb is all it shows. Why?
> I take that back - I don't care why.
Linux kernel activities will use half the memory for program storage
and the balance for file cache's. Swapping begins somewhere
at this interval.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: 22 Oct 2000 00:19:59 GMT
Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I really do want to run Linux but I can't find any viable reason to
: switch from Windows ME to Linux?
: My Dell comes with Windows ME installed as well as internet access and
: all of the programs, including Quicken, encyclopedias and children's
: scholastic program's all pre installed.
: Why should I switch to Linux?
You can have both. Use the Windows as you need, and use Linux as you want, in
a dual-boot system. I use a dual-boot system, and over time came to a point
that I use Linux damn near to exclusion. About the only use I have for Windows
is to view .pic files. Apart from that (only becuse X is broken on my machine)
I use Linux all the time.
To be honest, Linux works out best for people who are like the techies or who
are dinkum techies. For the techie type (either pro or hobbyist) Linux is
great. But the apps that a Joe Average would want, Linux is going to be a
disappointment.
UNIX in general was originally meant for large computer systems at the time
they invented it at Bell Labs, as a mainframe OS. For someone who always
wanted a "toy mainframe" Linux is the greatest thing around. But the average
user doesn't need an OS like for a mainframe. Nor would the average user know
what to do with an OS like for a mainframe either. What kind of computers is
UNIX used on, you ask? Go to comp.unix.cray to see! (:
The average user simply wants to get things done with the minimum of hassles,
like yourself using ready-made apps. A tradeoff occurs in that the apps cost
money of course but you don't have to code shit for yourself.
What sucks is that Windows is not stable and the *.DLL nonsense with competing
*.DLL files overwriting older ones, fucking up other apps. If that problem
didn't exist and Windows was stable, it would be a good OS for the average
user. These two problems after cost-of-apps was what got me to about abandon
Windows in favour of UNIX. Since I can code in C even a little, the switch is
made easier on me.
There is no real reason that an app like an encyclopaedia can't be made
platform-neutral either. A CD could be a "web site" and *.HTML used with *.pic
files and all. In fact, that would be the best method of making such an app.
It would use the pre-existing web browser on a Windows system while Linux fans
can fend for themselves with Netscape and X. Even better, it could be made
where the user on install chooses the OS as it installs. The bulk of the
software will be the *.HTML and the *.pic files.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:19:43 -0700
"Tired O'Shills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Replies like this are why you were dropped from my shill-watch list. You
> self-destruct under pressure.
Depends on the pressure. More accurately, I get annoyed by idiots like you.
And I'm not a 'shill'. The definition of shill is:
shill (shl) Slang
n.
One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe
bystanders into participating in a swindle.
Which I don't. I do not "pose" as a satisfied customer. Generally speaking,
I am a satisfied customer. There's room for improvement, but on the whole I
am happily satisfied.
> The smarter shills know how to control
> themselves, know how to maintain the illusion of rational impartiality,
and
> know when to switch tactics.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Doesn't apply -- I'm not a shill.
> You, however, are just a punk, unable to control
> your emotions and prone to outbursts.
Uhuh. Right. And you're just an anonymous coward who doesn't have the guts
to make this insults without hiding behind a false identity.
> As long as your balls are bigger than
> your brain you are not dangerous
It's people like you -- whose balls are really big when you're hiding behind
a shield of anonymity -- who are 'dangerous' -- if that word applies at all.
> And, I find you occasionally entertaining.
> Your explanation of 2 dimensional Fourier transforms was especially
precious.
> It had me giggling for days.
Really? and why's that?
> Anyway, I provided two solid examples from well established journalists to
> prove that the quote in question was, in fact, used within Microsoft. You
> answered with your typical vacuous bluster and bullshit. If you had any
> integrity you would be sporting a new signature.
Did it actually lead to anything though? That's the important thing. I can
say that I'm going to put sugar in your gastank, but until I do so, it
doesn't mean anything.
> But I've had enough of this nonsense. Unless you comment on the topic, I
won't
> bother responding anymore. And, in that case, let my response to you go
without
> saying:
>
> "Fuck you, FUD-boy, you pretentious, lying, hypocritical little sack of
shit".
And fuck you too, anonymous coward, you hypocritical little sack of shit.
PS. Mr. Brownell... just what do you do for a living?
Simon
begin 666 ibreve.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(1A ^!H<P(
-%WPSJHKEHK%'@@(`.P``
`
end
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.security.misc
Subject: Re: Obscurity != security (Was: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:27:04 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:TMnI5.114294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > The latest graphs, for August 00, shows Linux is now in the lead in Web site
> > defacements:
> >
> > http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#OSTOT2
> >
> > The moving averages show Linux's defacements accelerating while NT is
> > dropping.
> >
> > http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html#SPECIAL
> >
> > Linux is now the in the lead!!!!! ... in defacements.
>
> Hey, alright! Linux finally exceeds at something!
>
> -Chad
God! Looks Like Linux absolutely ate the market place also.
Considering the size of the Microsoft share when compared
to the LINUX share, to be tied is of little concern to me.
They must of just had a bad month, hugh.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 19:53:09 -0500
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:qcdI5.896$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > By the way, the little "evil grin" emoticon is Allchin's, not mine.
If
> > > you're wondering exactly how they planned to accomplish their little
> > scheme,
> > > here is Silverberg, four hours after receiving Allchin's "evil grin"
> > > directive:
> >
> > That's not an "evil grin" that's a smile and a wink,
>
> True. It just looks evil in this context.
Why did you remove my statement about the emoticon being used to infer humor
or jest? You seem to ignore the point of my statement, which is that the
emoticon clearly indicates it was a joke, not an order.
> You're right. I'm not up on Windows internals. When I saw the
> Findfirst/Findnext reference, I remembered the INT 21h function of the
same
> (or similar) name and misread the rest of it.
>
> So it was Windows itself (or rather, one of its virtual device drivers)
that
> they were talking about changing to make it incompatible with DR DOS.
This
> is even more directly damning than changing MS DOS. You say it was to
make
> it "operate faster when MS-DOS is the OS being used." But their email
> exchange proves that they were trying to decide whether to use it for that
> purpose, or to actually make Windows incompatible altogether with DR DOS.
> Here is that snippet again, in case you skimmed over it:
No. Again, you're misinterpreting things. The VxD did not make windows
incompatible with DR-DOS, it simply did not patch any OS other than MS-DOS
to use the 32 bit (faster) version of the function. This allowed systems
running MS-DOS to work faster than non-MS-DOS based systems. This is the
equivelant of adding a turbo-charger to supported systems, rather than
making unsupported system not work. Those are two totally different things.
> "However, it wont prevent us
> from running on foreign OSs (unless we explicitly decide to refuse to
> run) -- they just wont run as fast.
> Is this the approach you want to take? Or would you prefer a simple check
> and refuse to run? Thats a lot easier but clearly quite defeatable. I'll
> come and talk to you about it."
>
> Note the phrase "...it won't prevent us running on foreign OS (unless we
> explicitly decide to refuse to run) -- they just wont run as fast."
>
> Here it is again: "...unless we explicitly decide to refuse to run..."
>
> Sorry to keep harping on this point -- it's just to prevent you from
> glossing over it.
And your point is what? It clearly seems to indicate that no such decision
was made when the email was written. And it actually infers that much more
thought was put into a decision to not faul to run.
> > It has not been proven in a court of law that what you originally
> suggested
> > was illegal, much less what the real circumstances are (which are not
what
> > you claim).
>
> We are not holding court, here. This is Usenet. Still, what they were
> talking about is practically a textbook example of one form of illegal,
> anti-competitive practice. A company is not allowed to deliberately make
> one product incompatible with someone else's product in order to benefit
> another of said company's products.
Really? Can you cite the law which states this is illegal?
In any event, the emails you cite do not infer that they are making the
products incompatible, only that they are making their product work better
(something, BTW, Novell could have done themselves, by providing their own
VxD which does something similar).
> Microsoft was aware of this, of course, even if you aren't. A bunch of
> those leaked emails and memos show that they *knew* they weren't supposed
to
> deliberately make Windows incompatible with DR DOS. They also show that
> this is precisely what they were working on doing.
No, that seems to be what you like to read into them. I've already shown
how you have misinterpreted the intention in several places. I think your
reading is biased.
> No amount of spin by you or Microsoft can change these obvious facts.
It's only obvious to you because you interpret things you don't understand
to be illegal.
> And this was just one of many anti-competitive acts Microsoft committed.
> Another was the blacklisting of DRI from Windows beta testers.
Blacklisting of DRI? MS is under no requirement to allow anyone into their
beta programs. How is that anti-competitive or illegal?
------------------------------
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: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:38:48 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Again, I repeat IT'S ONE SINGLE REFERENCE. I found NO other references
> >offering 'proof'. Surely with as oft quoted a phrase as "DOS ain't done
till
> >Lotus won't run", SOMEBODY would have other proof?
>
> Why? This seems to be a logical fallacy, at best. Because it is
> oft-quoted means there is strong evidence? Isn't that a bit backwards,
> like you're assuming the reason it is oft-quoted is because there is
> strong evidence? In fact, the quote provided is entirely convincing
> evidence. Silverberg was asked if he said it, and he confirmed that he
> had. What more evidence do you expect to find?
No, Silverberg wasn't asked.
> You don't have to talk to anyone, Simon. But you should state your case
> or shut your trap. Your trolling is... growing tiresome. :-)
Your inability to read is growing tiresome.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:48:58 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Bruce Schuck in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sr6i8$f1s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > A monopoly is when you have all of them.
> >>
> >> Wrong. For all of you who have flunked Econ-101, you're a monopoly
when
> >> you have such an overwhelming share of the market that you can
> >> effectively excercise control over the marketshare you don't have.
> >
> >If you knew anything about the history of computing you would realize
that
> >Microsoft gained it's market by the stupidity of other companies, not by
> >anything close to a monopoly.
>
> If you knew anything about the history of Microsoft you would know that
> the evidence shows that Microsoft gained its market share by
> anti-competitive strategies to destroy competition.
Which anti-competitive strategies of Microsofts destroyed Novell?
I know I know. They produced Windows NT that let people fileshare AND
host applications on the same box with ease. Oooohh. How evil!
How about Netscape? Other than giving away IE for free ... exactly what
Netscape did with their own browser. Has anyone ever had a version of
Netscape stop working because they didn't pay for it?
Etc etc.
------------------------------
From: "Bruce Schuck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 17:55:04 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Bruce Schuck in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >From this Timeline, please tell us what 4 years DOS did not improve or
> >Microsoft was not working on Windows or OS/2?:
> >
> >http://www.worldowindows.com/wintime.html
>
> "While DOS continues to be our most important and most profitable
> product over the last four years we have done very
> little with it technically."
>
> Bill Gates, November 29, 1989
>
> Talk to Bill, Bruce. I'm not entirely sure what he meant. And I don't
> think whether they were working on Windows or OS/2 has anything to do
> with the issue, which is whether they were improving DOS.
If you were smart enough to read the timeline I posted, you would notice
that from 1985 to 1989 Microsft released: Windows 1.0 / Windows 2.0 /
Windows 2.1 / OS/2 1.1 and shipped Windows 3.0 in 1990.
An intelligent person would conclude that Microsoft was trying to move past
DOS into the Windows world.
A moron ... like you ... would whine that they didn't spend much time on
DOS.
I know Linux geeks pine for command line interfaces, but as long time user
of Win NT and Win2k I'm glad Microsft spent their resources on something
other than DOS in those years.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 00:55:08 GMT
Bruce Schuck wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Bruce Schuck in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8sr6i8$f1s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > A monopoly is when you have all of them.
> > >>
> > >> Wrong. For all of you who have flunked Econ-101, you're a monopoly
> when
> > >> you have such an overwhelming share of the market that you can
> > >> effectively excercise control over the marketshare you don't have.
> > >
> > >If you knew anything about the history of computing you would realize
> that
> > >Microsoft gained it's market by the stupidity of other companies, not by
> > >anything close to a monopoly.
> >
> > If you knew anything about the history of Microsoft you would know that
> > the evidence shows that Microsoft gained its market share by
> > anti-competitive strategies to destroy competition.
>
> Which anti-competitive strategies of Microsofts destroyed Novell?
>
> I know I know. They produced Windows NT that let people fileshare AND
> host applications on the same box with ease. Oooohh. How evil!
>
> How about Netscape? Other than giving away IE for free ... exactly what
> Netscape did with their own browser. Has anyone ever had a version of
> Netscape stop working because they didn't pay for it?
>
> Etc etc.
NO. That was the canning of drives issue.
And they broke that agreement also.
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J. Brehm)
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 03:05:19 +0100
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Microsoft has competitors for every product they make.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Where are the IBM Windows and Sun Windows and even Red Hat Windows
> >> operating
> >> systems? You know, Microsoft's competitors in the Windows market.
> >
> >Thats one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Thats kind of like
> >accusing Ford of having an Explorer monopoly because GM or Toyota doesn't
> >make Ford Explorers.
>
> Figures you wouldn't get it. You'll notice that Ford making Explorers
> doesn't prevent all other car manufacturers from marketing SUVs.
You will notice that Microsoft's making their operating system also
doesn't prevent anybody else from marketing their operating systems
either. BUY one of them! Then complain.
> >Duuhhh. What a moron you are.
> >Windows is an Operating System sold by Microsoft.
> >Linux is an OS sold by 45 or more different companies and they compete with
> >Windows to be the OS on a PC.
>
> Yes, but they don't compete with Windows to be the OS for Microsoft
> Office. Why is that?
Microsoft simply doesn't make Microsoft Office for any OS but Windows
(and MacOS). Other OS vendors _could_ try to compete against Microsoft
producing a better Windows than Windows to run MS Office on, but we have
seen what this gives them.
> >IBM makes other OS's like OS/2 and AIX.
> >And the Apple OS is OS 9 and maybe someday OS X.
> >And Sun has an OS that competes with Windows called Solaris.
> >And Novell has Netware.
>
> Remove the Unix clones, and you're left with OS/2, and Netware.
What's wrong with UNIX clones, and why are you leaving out MacOS?
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:26:21 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >He didn't say that, he said that once loaded, Windows 95 was it's own OS,
> >which it is. Whether or not that OS relies on some functionality of a
> >client program is irrelevant to that. Make no mistake, When Win95 is
> >running, DOS (even the DOS that Win95 depends on) runs as a client of
> >Windows.
>
> Make no mistake; when running, Win95 runs on top of the DOS operating
> system. Confusing this with the "DOS box" shell program which Windows
> supports is a mistake made by rank amateurs exclusively.
Max, you are again out of your league. Quoting from Unauthorized Windows
95, by Andrew Schulman (you know, Caldera's chief technical witness in their
trial):
Page 43:
"Employing the real-mode DOS code does not diminish Windows 95's status as a
genuine operating system."
"How can Windows 95 possibly constitute a genuine operating system when, as
we've seen, it relies on the real-mode DOS code? Here's how: because
Windows 95 runs this DOS code in V86 mode! Recall that V86 mode is a form
of protected mode. When Windows calls down to DOS in V86 mode, Windows is
in control and DOS is a subservient assistant."
Page 44:
"Because of V86 mode, then, Windows -- Including Windows 95 -- doesn't run
"on top of" DOS; it essentially uses DOS as a driver."
So again, Max. You don't know what you are talking about. Unless of
course, you're going to claim that Andrew Schulman is a paid MS schill, in
which case you, you would be lying, not just ignorant.
> [...]
> >> I've never heard of a "DOS bootloader" before. Has Microsoft
resurrected
> >> their phony claims about DOS not being present in Windows 95 or
something?
> >
> >Linux has (but does not require) a DOS bootloader, called LoadLin.
Netware
> >uses DOS as a bootloader as well. It's a common practice.
>
> Yes, but it is not, quite absolutely, the same as Win/DOS, which loads
> Windows *on top of* the DOS OS, and therefor is not the same at all as
> Loadlin or Netware.
Actually, it works very similarly. It's just that win.com now saves a copy
of the current DOS environment to run inside a VDM (virtual DOS machine).
> >> The real purpose of the error message was Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
> >with
> >> regard to DR DOS. There was never any error. The message didn't pop
up
> >> because something bad had happened and the system was just notifying
the
> >> user about it. The message popped up when Microsoft secret, encrypted,
> >> self-modifying, debugger disabling, ofuscated code detected DR DOS.
> >
> >Untrue. The message actually came up on any non-completely conforming
DOS.
[bunch of emails talking about DR-DOS deleted]
> Ultimately, your position is ludicrous to begin with: DR-DOS was the
> only clone of MS-DOS that had any real presence in the market.
That doesn't change the fact that the message does not effect only DR-DOS,
nor does it change the fact that code specifically detected DR-DOS and only
DR-DOS, which is what the statement i was responding to was saying. This is
a very important difference.
> >It's just that DR-DOS was the one that was known by most people at the
time.
>
> Yea. Specifically, it was the competitor that Microsoft was interested
> in destroying because it threatened their monopoly.
Whether a competitor is harmed by a legal action is beside the point. To
date, there has been no ruling that the AARD code was illegal, nor did the
code specifically target DR-DOS as Caldera's chief technical witness has
written. So, whether the code is illegal or not has not been proven.
> >There were a few others at the time as well, such as what eventually
became
> >FreeDOS and russian made DOS that I can't remember the name of.
> >
> >See:
> >http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm
>
> There is no indication in that article that either of these were
> complete enough clones to actually be compatible, and run Windows.
Actually, OS/2 did in fact run Windows. But since Windows 3.1 didn't have
the warning message, it was irrelvant.
> >"Similarly, the AARD code fails under the Windows NT beta, where the DPB
> >pointer in SysVars is null. Finally, the code fails in an OS/2 DOS box,
> >where the DOS version number is 10.0 or greater (for example, OS/2 2.1
> >masquerades as DOS 20.10).
>
> Preceded by:
>
> "Any moderately self-respecting DOS workalike should pass unscathed
> through this gauntlet of tests. Interestingly, however, when this code
> is incorporated in a device driver such as HIMEM.SYS, it fails under DR
> DOS 5 and 6. These versions of DR DOS do not contain a genuine CDS, and
> the simulated CDS is apparently not set up until after device-driver
> initialization time. Thus, the Windows 3.1 beta HIMEM.SYS produces a
> non-fatal error message under DR DOS 5 and 6."
And Windows NT, and OS/2. (and BTW, yes, you can run Windows under NT)
> >Additionally, there WAS legitimate bugs in DR-DOS that Novell
acknowledged
> >which caused problems with windows. (from the same article)
> >
> >"So whenever I've heard accusations that Microsoft practices so-called
> >"cruel coding" to keep Windows from running on DR DOS, I look at the
facts:
> >Windows 3.1 Enhanced mode does run on DR DOS. Standard mode does not run,
> >but that's because of a DR DOS bug acknowledged by Novell (see
Undocumented
> >DOS, Second Edition)."
> >
> >Also note this statement:
> >
> >"(It wouldn't be the first time company N's bug has been misinterpreted
as
> >company M's "deliberate incompatibility.")"
>
> The author followed up on this thought later by saying:
>
> " The AARD code has no relation to the actual purpose of the five
> otherwise-unrelated programs into which it has been dropped. It appears
> to be a wholly arbitrary test, a gratuitous gatekeeper seemingly with no
> purpose other than to smoke out non-Microsoft versions of DOS, tagging
> them with an appropriately vague "error" message."
If vague error messages are signs of FUD, then Linux and OS/2 must be kings.
But in any event, the statement says specifically "non-Microsoft versions of
DOS", not DR-DOS.
> >> If you see nothing wrong with that, you shouldn't even be in this
> >> discussion.
> >
> >Microsoft checked only for legitimate MS-DOS or PC-DOS, it did not check
> >specifically for DR-DOS. I think that's far more interesting.
>
> What's far more interesting is that, after reading the page you cited
> (and I quoted), you don't believe this was a check for DR-DOS; Microsoft
> most definitely introduced this code with the specific and predatory
> purpose of killing DR-DOS's market with FUD.
Whether that was their intent or not is irrelevant. Most companies intend
to destroy their competition through fair trade practices. Is the intent of
destroying their competition enough to have them sued in federal court? No.
What is important is what was done. A check was not made specifically for
DR-DOS, a check was made for non-MS DOS, which is not targeting any specific
competitor.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 20:28:44 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Win95 relies on msdos.sys being a certain size, because DOS relies on
> msdos.sys being a certain size, and Win95 is a bundle of DOS 7 and Win
> 4.0. "If you wish to boot into DOS, it will still be backwards
> compatible", indeed. You *have* to boot into DOS to load Win95,
> remember?
Untrue, Neither Win95, nor the DOS that ships with Win95 rely on msdos.sys
being a certain size. In fact, this is easily proven by simply editing the
msdos.sys and removing the padding. There are, however, certain third party
programs that rely on msdos.sys being a certain size, which is why the
padding is there. To make those programs compatible with Win95.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
