Linux-Advocacy Digest #805, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Andrew J. Brehm)
Re: Real Linux Advocacy (George Richard Russell)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("Weevil")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Weevil")
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Haoyu Meng)
$500 PC with 30 Linux Applications Pre-Installed ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("JS/PL")
Re: Convince me to run Linux? (Grega Bremec)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Andy Newman)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 13:26:27 +0100
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Andrew J. Brehm in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >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.
>
> I have the right (and duty) to complain, regardless of what I've bought
> or from who. You will notice that Microsoft is a criminal monopoly.
Is it? Not according to European laws yet, and, if any, if would be
those that would be valid for me, wouldn't they.
What's the difference between a monopoly and a criminal monopoly? For
haven's sake DO NOT BUY Microsoft's products! That's the solution.
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
Would, if you did not support Microsoft.
> [...]
> >> 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?
>
> Nothings wrong with them, but they've already been cloned, you see? And
> cloning MacOS is entirely irrelevant, since Mac is a separate hardware
> platform. Get it?
What's wrong with a seperate hardware platform? Most UNIX clones run on
seperate hardware platforms as well.
Apparently "seperate hardware platform" is a good defence against
Microsoft, given that Microsoft didn't make it on the PowerPC platform.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
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 13:26:26 +0100
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > [...]
> > >To reply to T. Max's "compete with Windows to be the OS for MS Office..."
> > >comment, IOW, he's asking, "but GM doesn't compete with Ford in
> > >making motors for Ford cars".
> >
> > No, I'm asking why nobody competes with Microsoft in making Windows, and
> > nothing else. If you can't tell the difference between a car and an OS,
> > that's not my problem.
>
> For the same reason no-one competes with Apple in making MacOS, no-one
> competes with IBM in making OS/2, no-one competes with Novel in making
> Netware, no-one competes with <insert product vendor here> in making <insert
> vendor's product here>.
This is not quite correct...
IBM _did_ compete with Microsoft in making Windows, but IBM failed
because nobody wanted their product (OS/2, a "better Windows than
Windows").
Lots of companies competed with Novel in making network operating
systems that would behave like Netware.
And all the UNIX makers obviously compete against each other.
Wine competes against Microsoft Windows on Linux.
The reason why nobody (except Wine) is competing with Microsoft in
making Windows is that people buy Microsoft no-matter-what.
Don't blame me, I was using OS/2 until 98.
--
Fan of Woody Allen
PowerPC User
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Real Linux Advocacy
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 11:25:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Terry Porter wrote:
>2/ Opensource, again no version of DOS was open or free for that matter.
FreeDOS, www.freedos.org, IIRC, GPL'ed DOS clone, ~= MSDOS 3.3
DRDOS, once OpenDOS, was source available for a time.
>** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
George Russell
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:30:57 -0500
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:P56I5.176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hey JS, tell me how I can get Windows to recognize all partitions on my
> hard
> > drive. I know I can get Linux to recognize the memory it missed with a
> > single line of text.
>
> Windows 2000 doesn't require that extra step. It's capable of operating
the
> basic system all by itself.
By "basic system" I assume you mean all the devices you have in your system,
including all RAM, all hard drive capacity, etc.
> >
> > Please tell me how to get Windows to recognize the 5 gigabytes it keeps
> > missing on this 8 gig drive.
> >
> > Thanks in advance.
>
>
> That's a tall order when no information is supplied besides "Windows" and
8
> gig drive.
>
I have a dual boot system, Win98 on 3 gigs and Linux on 5 gigs. Linux sees
and can use the entire drive. I don't know how to get Win98 to recognize
anything beyond the 3 gigs it lives in. I'm pretty sure it can't, and
although I don't have Win2K, I don't have a lot of hope that it will be able
to, either.
jwb
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[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 07:18:55 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7vrI5.2781$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yV5I5.164$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > How come Windows can't detect all the partitions on a hard drive?
>
> Which partitions can't it detect? It may not recognize partitions for
> unsupported filesystems, but it certainly detects them. Going into fdisk
> they show up as non-dos partitions.
It doesn't detect the Linux partitions on my hard drive. fdisk, of course,
is not Windows. I'm not looking for a utility (fdisk or any other) to
detect what's on my drive. I *know* what's on it.
The truth is that all this came about in response to all the Winvocates
pretending outrage that Linux doesn't detect all their RAM. When told about
the one line fix for this, the response was something along the lines of:
"But I shouldn't HAVE to edit some config file to get full use of my
system." Something like that. I'm paraphrasing, obviously.
The point here is that they were pretending to be incensed that Linux didn't
use their whole system without having to edit a config file. I was pointing
out that Windows doesn't use my whole system, and there IS no fix for it.
It just flat out is incapable of using the other 5 gigs on my hard drive.
The same is true with any other Windows/Linux dual boot system.
If the Winvocates were honest about this "outrage", they would be even more
incensed about Windows' shortcomings than those of Linux, since there is a
simple fix for Linux but there is no cure for Windows.
Obviously, I wasn't *really* asking for help since (as far as I know,
anyway), there is no help for this problem. I was merely exposing the
hypocrisy of every Winvocate who was "complaining" about Linux not being
able to use all their RAM without their changing a startup file.
> > Mike, is it true that Win2K has to reboot when you install a driver?
All
> > other versions of Windows force you to reboot seemingly when you make
the
> > slightest configuration change. Is Win2K still like that?
>
> Windows has always supported hot-loadable drivers for most things.
Certain
> kinds of drivers have to be installed at boot time (such as video drivers,
> since the video subsystem has to be restarted). But many drivers can be
> installed without a reboot. SCSI drivers for instance.
My experience with Windows has always been that almost any time I do
something to change configuration, I'm asked to reboot. Even installing
applications often requires reboot.
That has always annoyed the hell out of me, so this time my question was
genuine. I don't have Win2K and I am honestly wondering if it is the same
way.
> Just because it asks you to reboot, doesn't mean you always have to. Many
> poor installation programs always force a reboot "just to be safe".
>
> > > Or right to Win32/64 or MFC or Java or whatever else in Windows.
> >
> > MFC, that OO wannabe that never quite cut it? I thought Microsoft
finally
> > caved in to embarassment and stopped supporting/upgrading it.
>
> MFC will be upgraded in Visual C++ 7. MFC is still the most popular class
> framework in the world. If being the most popular is an embarassment,
then
> hey.. bring on the blush.
I'll leave MFC alone. I found it to be pretty weak in many areas a couple
of years ago, but I haven't seen any versions more recent than that.
Besides, I have no desire to get into an opinion war about OOP.
> > As for Java, do you mean the bastardized version that Microsoft foisted
on
> > the public with the utterly meaningless (and unoriginal) name of J++?
>
> Microsoft, like any other Java licensee was not allowed to use the name
Java
> for their products. That's why Borland has J Builder, Symtec had Visual
> Cafe, etc...
>
> Don't be so foolish.
By "bastardized", I was referring to the changes Microsoft made to make
their version of Java incompatible with others.
When I said the name "J++" was meaningless and unoriginal, I was merely
being insulting.
> > As for Win32/64...you mean Windows is finally 32 bit, without all that
> > kludgy 16-bit stuff they never could seem to get beyond? Hey,
> > congratulations. Welcome to the 80s, you guys!
>
> Win32 is an API. The implementation of it is irrelevant. Windows NT has
> never had the 16 bit portions that Win9x had, nor does Windows 2000.
I have hope that you're correct about Win2K. Microsoft's marketing claims
about Win9x through the years still leave me with a tiny bit of doubt,
though.
Still, I've seen nothing to make me doubt it, so I'm sure Windows 2000 is
completely 32 bit.
> > The Windows GUI doesn't have a tenth of the ability X was designed with
> from
> > the beginning. You must not know very much about X, other than what
your
> > Microsoft manuals tell you.
>
> 1/10th? How do you quantify that? Network transparency does not account
> for 90%. Name a few other things.
I was obviously being insulting again. I posted this after complying for
the umpteenth time with someone's request to "Post proof, liar!!!", and then
having to argue with that person about the meaning of very, very clear
statements. It was reminding me of, "It depends on what the meaning of the
word 'is', is."
> > > Post proof of X being more stable than Windows 2000 please.
> >
> > Post proof that Microsoft has ever had an operating system as stable as
> > Linux. You obviously can't since they never have. And since they have
> > always lied about it and *claimed* stability superior to that of Linux,
> why
> > should we believe their current claims? We've heard it all before.
>
> X has nothing to do with Linux. I've had X lock up on me many times, and
I
> don't use it all that often. Netscape can bring it down faster than
> anything else.
I agree. X is not Linux. It's an application that runs on Linux (and other
operating systems as well). And I too have had many X lockups . But I have
always been able to shut down and restart X without affecting Linux, or
anything else that was running on Linux, in the least. I think there have
been 2, maybe 3 exceptions in the last 4 years, and all of those times I was
running some highly experimental alpha/beta version of something as root.
Stupid, I know, but sometimes I do it anyway.
The original poster said to "Post proof of X being more stable than Windows
2000 please". Given the tone of nearly every article in this entire
newsgroup, and the text of what this poster was responding to, the intent
was to subtly associate any instability on the part of X with Linux itself.
This was less than honest, so I responded by changing the comparison to
Win2K and Linux.
jwb
------------------------------
From: Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:24:00 GMT
You can get TeX emacs, gcc, perl, and python on Windows too.
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> "James E. Freedle II" wrote:
>
> > I have not spent that much, and a lot of what comes with linux is
> > duplication. Eventually I will learn Linux, but it will take time, but I
> > have to get my lab reports done, and my drawings finished. Now I may have
> > software that will do with what I have on Windows 2000, but I do not know
> > what I have installed under linux. I do not know half of the 1,500+
> > applications that came with my linux distribution. BTW what comes with Linux
> > that Windows does not have on the CD?
>
> TeX, emacs, gcc, xbill, perl, python,
>
> Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: $500 PC with 30 Linux Applications Pre-Installed
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:15:43 GMT
What if we sell $500 PCs with an entire Linux software library pre-
installed? Let OEM install Linux and its applications so that users
can do their office work instead of wasting time on tech support or
rebooting the computer (something you do often in Windows).
There's no new hardware or software to design. Just take a $500 Intel-
compatible PC, pre-install Linux, StarOffice, Netscape Communicator and
a few other high quality Linux applications and start selling today!
High quality, open-source software is free. Check out this superb
software library of Linux applications from SuSE corporation. You get
Linux (crash proof operating system used by millions worldwide),
StarOffice (word processor, spreadsheet, database, presentation,
graphic program, office suite superior to MS Office used by millions),
Netscape Communicator, MP3 player, RealNetwork RealPlayer, Napster,
TrueType fonts, Solitaire game, Apache web server (most websites run on
this), C/C++ compiler, Java compiler, SQL database application, Palm
Pilot support, and 1900+ other open-source applications you can install
on your computer for FREE.
A full list of applications is at:
http://www.suse.de/en/produkte/susesoft/linux/Pakete_prof/gesamt.html
The home page for the software library is at:
http://www.suse.com/us/products/susesoft/70news/70_pro_news.html
The price is $69.95 for 1900+ high quality applications. SuSE makes a
profit at that price.
Free software drives down the prices of hardware. The Linux operating
system and its applications can run on several microprocessors by
Intel, AMD, Cyrix, Motorola (Apple), IBM, Hitachi and many other chip
makers. Fierce price competition will quickly lower the prices of
microprocessors. Dozens of competitors will each get a small slice of
the pie. Intel may lose as much as 50% of its annual revenue which is
still superior to simply going out of business. Intel is a survivor.
The anti-trust trial revealed Microsoft thoughts on Linux. The
internal e-mail indicates that Microsoft and Intel will split over
Linux, with Microsoft considering buying AMD to compete with Intel if
that chip maker ever supports Linux.
Before eventually embracing Linux, Intel will pressure Microsoft to
compete with the Linux solution by making FREE its entire software
library. Microsoft would consider it suicide to let customers use for
FREE its software library of Windows, Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint,
programming languages, SQL server, and the rest of its software
library. A vengeful Microsoft will respond by buying AMD to declare a
price war with Intel. Microsoft and Intel will kill one another as
shareholders watch both stocks plummet.
At computer industry speed, computer makers everywhere will pre-install
the SuSE software library of 1900+ Linux applications and sell powerful
$500 computers by Christmas of 2001. Every player will say that they
must cannibalize their sales or someone else will do it. Computer
makers throughout the planet can do this including your neighborhood
computer store.
What if software were free? It would destroy Microsoft. This article
explains that open source, high quality software is already available
for free. What if hardware were free? It would destroy Intel and the
computer manufacturers.
Keep in mind that the FREE Microsoft web browser toppled the Netscape
dominance of that market. Linux and the SuSE software library will
destroy the Microsoft monopoly.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 08:33:25 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:65AI5.11364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:P56I5.176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hey JS, tell me how I can get Windows to recognize all partitions on
my
> > hard
> > > drive. I know I can get Linux to recognize the memory it missed with
a
> > > single line of text.
> >
> > Windows 2000 doesn't require that extra step. It's capable of operating
> the
> > basic system all by itself.
>
> By "basic system" I assume you mean all the devices you have in your
system,
> including all RAM, all hard drive capacity, etc.
>
> > >
> > > Please tell me how to get Windows to recognize the 5 gigabytes it
keeps
> > > missing on this 8 gig drive.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance.
> >
> >
> > That's a tall order when no information is supplied besides "Windows"
and
> 8
> > gig drive.
> >
>
> I have a dual boot system, Win98 on 3 gigs and Linux on 5 gigs. Linux
sees
> and can use the entire drive. I don't know how to get Win98 to recognize
> anything beyond the 3 gigs it lives in. I'm pretty sure it can't, and
> although I don't have Win2K, I don't have a lot of hope that it will be
able
> to, either.
That's easy, just exit to DOS, and fdisk the Linux partition to a fat 32
filesystem. Or better yet, get Win2K and format the whole drive to NTFS and
never look back.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Subject: Re: Convince me to run Linux?
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:42:17 GMT
...and Paul used the keyboard:
>
<snipped mime stuff>
>
>Don't want to start a flame war but various library versions and the different
>libraries intalled by different
>distro's are Linux's version of Windows .dll problems. Installing software with
>Linux iseems always to be a crap shoot as to whether you have not only the right
>libs but also the right versions. Just a thought, BTW, I run several versions of
>linux on both servers and desktops so I'm not flaming....
I'm sorry to have to disappoint you, but you don't have as much
grounds on this as you'd like to believe.
What I managed to do once was running three (3) different versions of
binaries, a.out, ELF libc5 and ELF libc6 on the same box without it
having crashed a single program. Just tweak your ld.so.conf a bit and
move things around the filesystem. If things don't work for you, your
ld needs an upgrade. glibc2 is useless to you if you have an a.out
dated ld.
There is another possibility though. Some version of a library, let's
say libfoo.so.3.0.2, had been upgraded to version 3.0.3 in such a way
that the compatibility was broken with programs that were linked
against 3.0.2 - this is purely the developer's problem. He should
either rename the library, do a major version increase, or _ADD_, not
replace functions. Compatibility should not be broken between minor
and micro version upgrades, for one simple reason - dynamically linked
programs remember the major version number of library they were linked
against, which means that between libfoo.so.3.0.2, libfoo.so.3.0.3 and
libfoo.so.3.1.5, the program will choose the one that is linked to
libfoo.so.3, and ldconfig makes sure that this is the one with the
largest version number - hence 3.1.5 will be linked to libfoo.so.3.
If you don't boot at all that often (and I don't see why you should,
running servers), you can override that link sometime after the boot,
as library cache is usually updated during boot, or make a script that
runs ldconfig, takes care of the links and use that script instead of
plain ldconfig.
If breaking compatibility is unavoidable, and the developer can in
some way foresee this, they should start with a naming scheme similar
to gtk+ - libfoo-M.m.so.u.y.z, or at least promptly change this in
some broken release.
This is just a small overview of functionality that _DOES_ _NOT_ exist
in the foo.dll world.
Hope this helped in some way,
--
Grega Bremec
grega.bremec-at-gbsoft.org
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:49:53 GMT
Bruce Schuck wrote:
>I wish he had kept file versioning. I like that on VMS.
Oh, you need a real OS then...Emacs. But I was actually refering
to the stuff that really became NT. Don't know if the file system in
the R&D version had versioning. You can always write a new file
system for NT, MS were running courses in Seattle on it. The newer
NTFS with its multiple data forks could be useful.
--
Oi! Oi! Oi!
------------------------------
From: mlw <[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 08:45:42 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >"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.
> >
> > You are correct. Thanks for reminding me. Now, the question is, why
> > would Microsoft care if third party programs were broken in this way,
> > when all the other times a third party program is broken by Microsoft's
> > churn, it is considered the third party's fault?
>
> Microsoft makes the effort, that's the difference. Take the Lotus/NT SP6
> issue.
>
> The issue was clearly Lotus' fault. They went against best practices,
> the had several hacks that hooked too deep into the networking stack
> and when MS had to make a change (TCP syn predictability I believe was
> the issue), it screwed Lotus' poor programming. What'd MS do? Immediately
> pulled the SP, worked out the issue for Lotus (probably rewrote it for
> them) and then re-released SP6 as SP6a with the issue resolved.
This is not as cut and dry as you would like it too be. For a
"competitor" to compete with Microsoft a competitor needs to do stuff
like this on their own because Microsoft does it for their products but
won't share the information.
I believe that the only reason SP6 was pulled and fixed is because of
the DOJ.
I worked at a contracting house developing a piece of Windows/Mac
software for Microsoft. We were able to solve some serious issues based
on minimum requirements and memory usage by talking to some of the
engineers on the GDI team. I didn't think much about it at the time, but
looking back, one has to wonder about how another company could compete
with that.
>
> MS went above and beyond the call of duty when, IMHO, they shouldn't have.
> They could've taken that chance to bash a competitor and expose their
> poor coding for what it was, but instead they worked out a solution.
I just suspect that they did not want to give the DOJ some new ammo.
>
> > The very fact that a DOS file must be handled specially in order to make
> > programs compatible with Win95 entirely undermines your argument that
> > Win95 does not include DOS.
>
> Not really. It's common sense, actually... oh that's right, you're incapable
> of that. Let me explain: Win95 can run dos programs. You can also reboot
> into "DOS compatability mode" which acts just like old DOS did and lets
> DOS apps do their business without interference from Win95. Some of these
> older apps relied upon MSDOS.sys being a specific size.
I don't know of one program that depends on MSDOS.SYS being a specific
size, and in a rack of tattered and well read books on TSRs, DOS device
drivers, etc in my office it is never mentioned as a trick. There is
plenty of stuff on InDOS flags, Int 2F, how to find DOS variables based
on the various versions.
That is bogus for another reason, OEM's at one point were able to put
their names in to the file, which changed the size.
Lastly, every version of MSDOS had different sizes of msdos.sys. On
IBM's version of dos, it wasn't even named MSDOS.SYS.
I would like to know the real reason that is like that, but I suspect it
is a DRDOS anti compete thing. I suspect that MSDOS.SYS in DRDOS 7 was
zero bytes. Can anyone confirm this? If so, it is so Microsoft
applications continue to work with DOS version 7 (which is the reported
DOS version under Windows 95). Before I am flamed, I want to say this is
my suspicion, not necessarily a fact.
>
> > (Of course, such a position is baseless,
> > anyway, considering Microsoft has already provided evidence of their
> > deception in this manner, through the emails from the period that have
> > been made public.)
> >
> > http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
>
> "Fact" statement. It reads like a little kid in the principals office
> attempting to explain why it's Bobby's fault that he had to hit him.
I have been writing software during the whole P.C. era, Microsoft has
destroyed many very good companies, just by using Monopoly power in FUD
and Vaporware campaigns. The first, off the top of my head, was Go
computing. A viable and working pen based OS. The instant Go had
something, MS "Announced" PenWindows and threatened people like Toshiba
that they had best not product the Go tablet. Go went. Lets talk about
outright theft: Stac.
The very fact that the majrity of people are running a 10 year old, 32
bit shell, on top of a 20 year old 16 bit floppy based OS, in the 21st
century on what 20 years ago would have been called a super computer,
with less reliability than a video game, tells me that MS has harmed the
computer industry.
UNIX on the other hand, was designed and developed with the notion of
what computers, like the ones that we are using, could do.
>
> -Chad
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
