Linux-Advocacy Digest #804, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 07:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Astroturfing ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system. (Chris Sherlock)
Re: New easy to use firewall software (Chris Sherlock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 04:47:18 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:cBqI5.2774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qcdI5.896$[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.
I didn't ignore it. I just couldn't quite believe that anyone, even you,
would honestly interpret this as a joke. Silverberg, the recipient of the
email, certainly didn't think it was a joke -- he acted on it four hours
later.
> > 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.
No, I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silverberg asked Barrett, "can you
tell me specifically what we are doing to bind ourselves closer to ms dos?"
He didn't ask anything about what they were doing to improve windows, or
dos, or to make anything run faster. He asked how they were going to "bind
ourselves closer to ms dos.":
Barrett's reply made it clear what they were talking about:
"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."
Barrett is asking Silverberg if they should use the vxd to accomplish their
goal, or if they should perform a simple check and refuse to run.
This can't be any clearer. They were talking about methods of making
windows incompatible with anything other than ms dos. Barrett seems to
favor using the vxd approach: "The big advantage here is that it provides a
legitimate performance improvement." But performance is not their primary
concern here, as his next sentence proves: "Or would you prefer a simple
check and refuse to run?"
The only downside to the vxd approach was that it didn't stop windows from
running on someone else's dos. Once more, for context, here is the entire
exchange:
=========================================
Silverberg:
can you tell me specifically what we're going to do to bind ourselves closer
to ms dos? since you haven't been replying to my messages, I don't know how
to interpret your silence. Let me emphasize the importance; ibm is going to
announce the drdos deal at comdex (almost 100% certain).
OK?
***
Barrett:
Sorry for the silence -- dont interpret it as ignoring you.
The approach that ralph and I have discussed is to use a vxd to 'extend' dos
by patching it. In this case, we would create a subfunction in the
findfirst/findnext family-findabunch to allow filemanager to make a single
call to get directory information. We would not patch unknown OSs and, most
likely, would only patch MS DOS 5.x. The big advantage here is that it
provides a legitimate performance improvement. 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.
***
Silverberg:
let's talk.
=========================================
> > > 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?
The Sherman Act. This part of it kicks in when the company has monopoly
power in one market (DOS, in this case), and produces another product
(Windows, in this case) that is designed to be used with the first product,
but makes either the first product (MS DOS) incompatible with a competitor's
version of the second product, or makes the second product (Windows)
incompatible with a competitor's version of the first product (DR DOS, in
this case). Actually, it can be said that Microsoft had monopoly power in
both markets (DOS and Windows).
The precedent for this is a case involving Kodak. Something to do with them
having monopoly power in the camera market, and then producing a camera
which required a certain type of film that was incompatible with anyone
else's film. Can't remember the details. Look it up.
> > 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.
Well, no you haven't. Read the above over and over until you understand it.
> > 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.
Not true. I don't understand how Microsoft apologists can sleep at night,
but I don't think their sleeping is 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?
>
Hey, I thought you were up on all this stuff. The key here is that DR DOS
did not compete with Windows. If Microsoft had not had any beta testing
program at all, there would be no issue here. But they did, and they
excluded DRI from it, even though DRI did not compete with the product they
would have been beta testing. They're not supposed to do that, either.
Again, this is based on the Sherman Act. Look it up for yourself.
The way Microsoft tried to get around it was that they began referring to
Windows as an operating system. This way they could later, if it ever came
up, have some sort of claim that DR DOS was a competitor with Windows in the
market for operating systems.
"We recently decided to start referring to Windows as an operating system in
our communications, not a graphical environment or user interface for dos.
we should be consistent in the new usage. thanks."
-- Brad Silverberg, to his development team, 15 Aug 1991
jwb
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:16:19 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Oh yeah - you need proof - records - otherwise you can't say who's
>paying for peole to work on MS's behalf.
How can you make a statement that MS is doing this if there is no evidence?
>> Besides that, do you really think $200 is all that much money to a
>> mayor or republican party official?
>Yes - in fact if they workd for the feds or state they'd be criminals
>for accepting a gift. That amount is substancial.
Strange, political figures accept money all the time, legally. Why would
this suddenly make them criminals, yet the $100,000's they accept for
campaign funding is not? Furthermore, many government officials do things
to earn money outside their official duties. Some publish books, some do
fundraisers (and accept money for the appearance), etc...
The money does not appear to be for performing an official duty, but rather
to perform an unofficial duty while lending their position as credentials.
>> It would hardly motivate anyone to do something
>> against their will, but rather compensate them for their time. It's
>>common
>> practice to compensate people for time they might have otherwise used
>> to make money elsewhere.
>Funny - you say the person is being compensated for their time
>advocating on MS's behalf (unlike yourself who works for free) but you
>question if MS is paying for the work that benefits them. Who are
>supposed to be fooling?
What's wrong with your reading comprehension, Joseph, that you can't notice
the words "Besides that" in my statements. That means, "Even if it were
true".
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:08:00 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Weevil in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >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.
>
> Actually, they do have a small (dishonest, but valid) point here. The
> behavior you describe is a 'textbook example' of anti-competitive
> development. It has not, however, been clearly defined as illegal.
> This is why its taken so long to catch Microsoft. They do, in fact,
> have a right to change one of their products so that it only works with
> another of their products. So long as they don't combine the two
> products (as they did with DOS/Windows, Windows/Office, Windows/IE,
> Windows/Media Player, etc.) for anti-competitive reasons.
Actually, it *has* been clearly defined as illegal in a case involving
Kodak. It is not the act of combining the two products that is the problem,
since one product might depend completely on the other. (Film is useless
without a camera, Windows was useless without DOS). It's actually a
combination of a number of facts that make it illegal. Crucial here are A)
Microsoft had monopoly power in at least one of the markets, and B) DR DOS
did not compete with Windows.
> >And this was just one of many anti-competitive acts Microsoft committed.
> >Another was the blacklisting of DRI from Windows beta testers.
>
> This is ironic, as it seems that it was the purchase of DR-DOS by Novell
> (after MS had already killed enough of the market that DRI decided to
> sell off the product) which caused Microsoft to 'upgrade' their
> anti-competitive maneuvering.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
A strong case can be made that the whole idea of Win95 came about in order
to destroy DRI once and for all while giving Microsoft's lawyers something
to work with in case of later antitrust litigation. Certainly the fact that
they falsely claimed at the time that DOS was not present in Win95 lends
credence to the idea. What would be the motivation for their false claim?
I thought at the time it was just a lot of marketing hype, attempting to get
people to think that they had moved beyond the kludgy old days of DOS into a
new shining era, blah blah blah.
But *now*, I wonder if there was a more sinister motive...
jwb
------------------------------
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: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:48:54 -0500
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZzyI5.11311$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:cBqI5.2774$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> I didn't ignore it. I just couldn't quite believe that anyone, even you,
> would honestly interpret this as a joke. Silverberg, the recipient of the
> email, certainly didn't think it was a joke -- he acted on it four hours
> later.
Four hours later? Where did you get that time information?
How could he have acted on it four hours later, when Windows never had any
problems running on DR-DOS, other than Novell corobborated bugs?
> > 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.
>
> No, I'm not misinterpreting anything. Silverberg asked Barrett, "can you
> tell me specifically what we are doing to bind ourselves closer to ms
dos?"
> He didn't ask anything about what they were doing to improve windows, or
> dos, or to make anything run faster. He asked how they were going to
"bind
> ourselves closer to ms dos.":
So? What's your point?
> Barrett's reply made it clear what they were talking about:
Yes. Making Windows closely tied to MS-DOS.
> "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."
>
> Barrett is asking Silverberg if they should use the vxd to accomplish
their
> goal, or if they should perform a simple check and refuse to run.
Yes. And?
> This can't be any clearer. They were talking about methods of making
> windows incompatible with anything other than ms dos.
No, Barett was suggesting and talking about a method to make Windows work
better with DOS, and in so doing make Windows "bound" to DOS.
> Barrett seems to
> favor using the vxd approach: "The big advantage here is that it provides
a
> legitimate performance improvement." But performance is not their primary
> concern here, as his next sentence proves: "Or would you prefer a simple
> check and refuse to run?"
There is no evidence to suggest that either Silverberg or Alchin ever
suggested this approach. This was simply an employee asking his employer
for guidance on what he wanted. Since there is no email of Silverberg
stating he wanted the OS to check and refuse to run, this is hardly an
executive order.
> > > 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?
>
> The Sherman Act. This part of it kicks in when the company has monopoly
> power in one market (DOS, in this case), and produces another product
> (Windows, in this case) that is designed to be used with the first
product,
> but makes either the first product (MS DOS) incompatible with a
competitor's
> version of the second product, or makes the second product (Windows)
> incompatible with a competitor's version of the first product (DR DOS, in
> this case). Actually, it can be said that Microsoft had monopoly power in
> both markets (DOS and Windows).
Windows was not even running on a majority of machines back then, hell I'd
doubt it ran on 20% of the machines. We're talking pre-3.1 here, and
Windows did not really take off until after 3.1.
I asked for a cite though. A cite includes the relevant portion of the law
which supports you argument. I can find no such statements in the Sherman
Act that even remotely detail anything close to what you claim it does.
> The precedent for this is a case involving Kodak. Something to do with
them
> having monopoly power in the camera market, and then producing a camera
> which required a certain type of film that was incompatible with anyone
> else's film. Can't remember the details. Look it up.
Not even close. The case you're refering to is Image Technical Services
Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co. In this case, Kodak was found guilty of refusing
to sell parts for it's photocopiers to 3rd party service organizations, thus
driving them out of business, since they could not repair Kodak copiers.
This is the only anti-trust case against Kodak that I can find, and has
nothing to do with the argument at hand.
> > 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.
>
> Well, no you haven't. Read the above over and over until you understand
it.
You seem to attribute the phrase "bind ourselves closer to msdos" to mean
"to make other vendors incompatible". I can't see how anyone would
interpret it as such. "bind closer" means to create an intimate link
between the two products, not to place artificial barriers between other
products and one of the products.
Silverberg does not state that he wants DR-DOS to be incompatible with
Windows. You seem to be using a single statement made by his superior in
jest as proof that what he was doing was to prevent DR-DOS from running. I
don't see any evidence to support that.
> > It's only obvious to you because you interpret things you don't
understand
> > to be illegal.
>
> Not true. I don't understand how Microsoft apologists can sleep at night,
> but I don't think their sleeping is illegal.
You admitted that you don't understand how Windows works, yet you make
statements about the intent of something which you don't understand. You
even go so far as to make statements about how something that is technically
impossible is a violation of anti-trust.
> > > 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?
>
> Hey, I thought you were up on all this stuff. The key here is that DR DOS
> did not compete with Windows. If Microsoft had not had any beta testing
> program at all, there would be no issue here. But they did, and they
> excluded DRI from it, even though DRI did not compete with the product
they
> would have been beta testing. They're not supposed to do that, either.
> Again, this is based on the Sherman Act. Look it up for yourself.
They excluded billions of others from the program as well. Do all of those
people claims for anti-trust violation as well? Again, MS is under no
requirement to allow anyone into their beta programs. There is not illegal
about that.
> The way Microsoft tried to get around it was that they began referring to
> Windows as an operating system. This way they could later, if it ever
came
> up, have some sort of claim that DR DOS was a competitor with Windows in
the
> market for operating systems.
Windows *IS* an operating system. And I've already provided evidence in
another thread, direct from the mouth of Caldera's own technical expert,
that states Windows is a legitimate operating system and gives technical
reasons why.
> "We recently decided to start referring to Windows as an operating system
in
> our communications, not a graphical environment or user interface for dos.
> we should be consistent in the new usage. thanks."
> -- Brad Silverberg, to his development team, 15 Aug 1991
Whether they began to refer to it as one thing or another is irrelevant to
what it is.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:00:22 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win 2k Rocks!!!! Linux? It's days are numbered on my system.
Hey, thanks! This is actually useful.
Look, my previous posts may have looked a bit aggresive. I didn't intend
for them to come out that way! Obviously this forum is for fostering
debate over the many qualities of Linux, so you're opinion is as valid
as the next persons. I may not like everything that you say, but then
again you probably don't like everything I say as well.
It's good that you are prepared to impart information if you have it.
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Here is a list:
>
> http://www.buzzard.org.uk/jonathan/scanners.html
>
> claire
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 02:34:31 +1000, Chris Sherlock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> > No living without a scanner because it is a parallel port model.
> >>
> >> Huh? You can use parallel port scanners in Linux!
> >>
> >
> >Can't really back this point up, my most sincere apologies if I got it
> >wrong.
> >
> >Chris
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:03:41 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New easy to use firewall software
Thanks Jedi, I'll have a look at it. I like the command line, less
overhead and I can do things faster with it most times.
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:29:46 +1000, Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Hey all (especially Claire Lynn),
> >
> >I have found this great piece of software that is very easy to configure
> >your Linux computer behind a firewall using Gnome 1.2 It even sees
> >portscans, etc.
> >
> >It's called firestarter, and it looks brilliant. So brilliant in fact
> >that as soon as I get Debian up and running, I am going to run it!
> >
> >Here is the URL: http://firestarter.sourceforge.net
>
> pmfirewall is pretty good too. It just forgoes being shiny and happy.
>
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> The meek shall inherit the earth; but by that time there won't be
> anything left worth inheriting.
>
> Stult's Report:
> Our problems are mostly behind us. What we have to do now is
> fight the solutions.
>
> A man was reading The Canterbury Tales one Saturday morning, when his
> wife asked "What have you got there?" Replied he, "Just my cup and Chaucer."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
