Linux-Advocacy Digest #811, Volume #29 Sun, 22 Oct 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mlw)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mlw)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux) (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: $1,000 per copy for Windows.
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 16:53:10 GMT
Jacques Guy wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > Here's a paid study which claims the cost of
> > a Windows OS would be over $1,000 per
> > copy post the breakup of Microsoft.
>
> Wonderful news! At long last they'll be able
> to pay dividends to their shareholders.
Well, the document also talks about the damage to the
economy caused by the breakup of Microsoft.
That's why Linux will be the final solution to the PC problem
we have today with Windows.
You can't break up Linux as it's not a corporation.
Linux is FREE for anybody who want's to download it
off the net, you don't even have to pay a lousy $40 to get it.
You can download Linux from Suse, Redhat, Mandrake, !!! DEBIAN !!!,
Slackware, Turbo Linux, Storm Linux, ......... it's almost endless.
Linux is made by thousands of organizations so if any one company
dies, it can be replaced and the entire system doesn't die.
Linux is absolutely - beyond even a wintrol's doubt, more stable than
ANYTHING Microsoft has ever invented.
Writing software with GPL licenses ENSURES it will never to
private again and your work will NEVER be stolen from YOU!
After having used Linux for several years and having it solely on
my machine as my single OS for 3 years I find I need nothing from
the Windows camp. It's all enclusive on the install also without
the 12 reboots you take to get NT loaded.
I don't have to pancake install like you do with any windows product,
all my editors, word processors, and spreadsheets are there.
There just isn't any benefit to having Windows anymore.
Why pay for it, why have it, what's the need for it?????
I dunno.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 12:58:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andrew J. Brehm in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> 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.
AFAIK, European law does not differ in any appreciable way from U.S. law
on this basic issue. The question, of course, is not whether you are
complaining, but whether I am complaining, so it is what laws are valid
for me which are relevant.
>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.
Well, the difference is that there isn't a difference. Using the word
"criminal" in front of "monopoly" is for emphasis. In reality it is
redundant, since all monopolies are criminal monopolies in the U.S.
(Those things some people insist are "legal monopolies" are, in fact,
not monopolies; usually, they are public utilities, or regulated markets
because of very high natural barriers to entry.)
The solution is to ensure that customers can, in fact, NOT BUY
Microsoft's products, and not be harmed by that fact. Since Microsoft
has taken criminal actions to ensure that there is no commercially
feasible alternative which is widely available to the majority of the
market, this requires first preventing the criminal activity. Simply
blaming consumers for looking after their own self-interest, rather than
the abstract cause of preventing monopolization, is bass-ackwards, so to
speak.
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>Would, if you did not support Microsoft.
Hmmm.
>> [...]
>> >> 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.
Nothing is *wrong* with it. Its simply not at all relevant to the
question of Microsoft's monopoly.
>Apparently "seperate hardware platform" is a good defence against
>Microsoft, given that Microsoft didn't make it on the PowerPC platform.
Thus, the reason why a separate hardware platform is no defense from
Microsoft at all, but merely avoidance of the criminal monopoly. It is
not the consumer's responsibility to ensure that producers are acting
legally; it is the government's.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:00:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Chad Myers wrote:
>> [...]
>> >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.
>> [...]
>>
>> That is one for the quote-books, my friend.
>>
>> Thank you very much for your time. Hope it helps.
>
>mlw wrote that. Why'd you even put my name in there?
Because he was responding to your comment. I generally like to keep
such context in quoted replies.
>Have you been taking your pills, Max?
Are you trying to insult me, Chad?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: 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 16:59:54 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
> >
> > That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
> >
> > Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
> >
> > Microsoft doesn't even have the IA64 working!
>
> They don't? What world are you living on?
>
> Win2K and whistler both have been demonstrated numerous times.
> A cursory search on Google will return the results. There are
> numerous press statements on Microsoft's press site about the
> events complete with links to news agencies covering the
> events.
>
> > Microsoft is NOT keeping up with technology!
>
> At least they can detect RAM in every PC out there. Linux
> can't seem to do this on even a small number of them.
>
> -Chad
Yes Mr. Chad.
We will all just go down to the store and buy the boxed version then.
Right!
Idiot.
Demo's don't count. We want to SEE the BEEF!
You can download the IA64 version of Redhat anytime you
want it. It's on the web.
You can possess it!
See.
Charlie
------------------------------
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 12:52:55 -0400
George Richard Russell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> >UNIX on the other hand, was designed and developed with the notion of
> >what computers, like the ones that we are using, could do.
>
> Please. Unix was not designed with either high resoloution graphics,
> security, networking, or clustering in mind.
No, but UNIX was designed with the notion that everything would
eventually be unlimited and that horizons would stretch.
How many driver letters do you have? How many things broke at 512M? How
many things broke after 640K
>
> Everything has been tacked on, in the forms of X11, BSD Sockets,
> replacement of rsh/rcp/telnet with ssh, and various proprietary
> offerings.
Yes, and without having to break everything else.
>
> The two central Unix concepts, everything is a file, and
> pipes and filters have been violated many times, in order
> to make Unix a better OS / Environment.
OK, explain this one to me.
>
> Its good to see Unix has largely improved from its humble
> beginnings.
Yes, and it works very much like it always has.
>
> George Russell
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
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 13:03:35 -0400
"Paul 'Z' Ewande©" wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
> > The very fact that the majrity of people are running a 10 year old, 32
>
> Win 9x is so old ?
No, but the DOS/Windows core, as it works in 9x and ME had its beginning
in Windows 2.1/386. It is older than 10 years old, but I was being
generous.
>
> > bit shell, on top of a 20 year old 16 bit floppy based OS, in the 21st
>
> Some computer "experts" do think that Win9x is an OS in its own right.
I have made this point endlessly, Windows 9x is as much, and in the same
way, and OS as DesqView and DOS's EMM386 was. If these two programs were
not operating systems, neither is Windows.
BTW What computer "experts?"
>
> > 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
>
> A video game does only one thing on a particularly limited set of hardware.
Unlike windows which does a lot of things (poorly) on a bunch of
hardware. So?
>
> > computer industry.
> >
> > UNIX on the other hand, was designed and developed with the notion of
>
> Of course, UNIX people had a crystal ball and knew in the 70s how the
> computer would evolve in 30 years, gimme a little break.
Actually, they didn't need a crystal ball. Speaking as someone writing
software and designing hardware IN THE 70's all it took was common
sense.
>
> > what computers, like the ones that we are using, could do.
>
> Sure, why didn't they bring that formidable and visionary computing marvel
> into the hands of the layman when it mattered ?
Actually there was a move on to do just that, but AT&T had blood sucking
lawyers and proprietized UNIX, which before this was assumed to be free.
After AT&T layed waste to the free BSD by encumbering it, BSD started
working on an unemcumbered version. About the same time, Richard
Stallman started GNU.
So, here we are today. Thanks for asking. AT&T deserves at least a
little blaim for UNIX catching on so slowly, also a lot of UNIX vendor
infighting did some too. GNU/Linux, however is really making an impact
and pushing a lot of standards that otherwise would have been the
subject of bitter contention between UNIX vendors.
>
> Paul 'Z' Ewande
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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 13:08:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said George Richard Russell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>UNIX on the other hand, was designed and developed with the notion of
>>what computers, like the ones that we are using, could do.
>
>Please. Unix was not designed with either high resoloution graphics,
>security, networking, or clustering in mind.
Correct. And yet all of these things are relatively easily dealt with,
because Unix was not designed with any preconceived notion of what
particular purpose a particular computer might have. Since the entire
reason for using a general purpose programmable computer is that it can
serve an endless variety of needs, some which might require hi-res
graphics, some which may require networking and security, some which may
require clustering, and some which may benefit from any combination of
these or any number of other capabilities, the best OS will not make
assumptions about whether they are necessary or how they work.
>Everything has been tacked on, in the forms of X11, BSD Sockets,
>replacement of rsh/rcp/telnet with ssh, and various proprietary
>offerings.
>
>The two central Unix concepts, everything is a file, and
>pipes and filters have been violated many times, in order
>to make Unix a better OS / Environment.
How are these Unix concepts violated? I'm curious. I know some level
of technical stuff (I at least understand the concepts you've cited),
but I don't know enough to know where they are violated. Could you
explain?
>Its good to see Unix has largely improved from its humble
>beginnings.
It is the ability to "tack on" these things, as necessary, and, indeed
at least potentially, the ability to violate even the "central Unix
concepts", which support the point that Unix was designed and developed
with the idea that computers in the future will have a huge amount of
power and capabilities which the original Unix designers could not even
begin to guess.
I truly wish there were other alternative efforts which took the same
'make no assumptions' tack, and still resulted in a generally useful and
accessible system (I think VMS fails on the second, at least). But one
can't very well expect lightening to strike twice, no matter how much
better the world might be if it did.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Time is Money (WAS: A classic example of unfriendly Linux)
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 13:07:38 -0400
On 21 Oct 2000 18:59:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>With the cost of commercial software as it is, it wouldn't surprise me if a
>Linux album is worth its weight in _plutonium_. To buy the Windows equivalent
>of a Linux album, you'd need a VISA Plutonium credit card. And you had better
>be awful productive to pay down that debt.
Most people who use software use it to make money. This is probably a
forbidden concept in this group but paying X amount for software that
will make you Y amount of money, where Y is greater than X is a value.
The Linux way of doing this seems to be, spend Z amount of time which
causes less time to focus on Y but to save X.
Put that in your spreadsheet and see what you come up with.
I suspect you'll come up either BARELY breaking even or having
pre-developed software be a much better value.
------------------------------
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 13:09:37 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Paul 'Z' Ewande©" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8suter$1hpk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >
> > > The very fact that the majrity of people are running a 10 year old, 32
> >
> > Win 9x is so old ?
>
> Penguinista math is a little fuzzy. 2000 - 1995 = 10 years, I guess.
You know as well as I do that Windows 95 is based on Windows 3.1, which
was based on Windows 3.0, which was based on Windows 2.1, etc.
The way in which Windows 9x runs is almost identical to Windows 2.1/386.
"enhanced" mode.
>
> However, the "majrity" of people are actually running Win98, so the
> exact statement would be: 2000 - 1998 = 10 years.
The occasional typo does happen.
>
> > > bit shell, on top of a 20 year old 16 bit floppy based OS, in the 21st
> >
>
> Depends what you're definition of "OS" is. If you use the common
> definition which is something like a kernel that schedules and manages
> processes, memory, and hardware, some type of disk access and some type of UI
> then Win95 is an OS. It has it's own virtual memory manager (VMM32) and
> it's on process scheduler for the preemptive multitasking, etc.
>
> Win95 isn't a shell on top of DOS. The Win95 main executable code (in win.com)
> needs to be loaded from somewhere. Win95 doesn't have a loader like NT does,
> so it boots to DOS 7 and then loads win.com. This is very similar to how
> Novell NetWare works. It must boot to DOS and then run nwserver (or whatever
> the exe name was) which then puts the processer into 32-bit protected mode
> and sets up all the OS stuff from there.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The concept of "on top of" is misleading because DOS can not run a 32
bit
environment. Windows 2.1/386 through Windows MW and DesqView (and EMM386
for thatmatter) must create a 32 bit flat environment then create a
virtual
16 bit environment around the 16 bit system DOS.
Since interrupts occur in 32 bit ring 0 space, 32 bit code must be
present handle the code and reflect them into some 16 bit VM as an "int"
instruction. The interrupt code believes it is running in 16 bit real
mode, when it is, in fact, running in a DOS box.
DMA has a similar problem, care has to be made to ensure that DOS VM
memory maps to the correct physical memory on the machine. This is a big
trick when the 32 bit system maps memory from high address space into
the area between 640K and 1M in DOS for TSR programs. Since this memory
can not be physically present at the address the simulated real mode
environment expects it to be, the 32 bit environment has to trap DMA
access and either reprogram the DMA system, or emulate DMA.
Many devices which used busmastered DMA on ISA (it was possible!) had to
have an interface to the environment to map physical memory as needed.
So, we have products which are not operating systems, but encapsulate
DOS, emulate hardware, handle interrupts, and present APIs. These are
very OS level sorts of things to be doing. They are very difficult to
debug, and some of the things Schulman did at PharLap, and many others,
including myself, have done elsewhere.
This is what is being use to claim that Windows is an OS, however, if
doing this does not let products like DesqView, PharLap, and EMM386
claim OS status, it should not be reasonable to let MS use it to call
Windows an OS.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> -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
******************************
