Linux-Advocacy Digest #823, Volume #29 Mon, 23 Oct 00 01:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claire Lynn ("ostracus")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("JS/PL")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ermine Todd III")
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("Weevil")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ermine Todd III")
Re: Pros and Cons of MS Windows Dominated World? (Raffael Cavallaro)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 22:05:55 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Charlie Ebert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ostracus wrote:
>
>>
>> Assuming I was the CEO of a company. Why would the above be seen as a
>> minus?
>>
>
> That this would make you a master of OS judgement?
I'm not certain what you're shooting for, but from the standpoint of a
businessperson, the comment I'm responding to would indicate a strong work
ethic. Note that this doesn't indicate that I'm endorsing employee
exploitation. In fact "I" would say go to the picnic, you need to relax.
> Somebody turn on a fan and open a window. It smells.
That would be the new cologne.
>
> Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:11:00 -0400
Reply-To: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:20:56 -0400, "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Did this response go through one of those language translators by
chance?
> > >It's not making a whole lot of sense.
> >
> > Maybe he's been hanging around jedi?
> >
> > claire
>
> It only took you an hour.
>
> I'm surprised.
>
> Charlie
Apparently some thinks thus. In delayed September, Intel, Netscape and two
companies of the risk capital it had spilled an addition without revealing
of the money in the red logical software of the hat, the distributor first
of Linux. They moved to the company, cradle of the investigation of
triangle, N.C., begun like company of the distribution of software logical
but exclusively in the park of the applications of the writing and to use of
Linux. The other company, has the great plants also to write the programs
for the platform of Linux: Corel, by the example, is preparing a version of
Linux de WordPerfect.
So see!! The point is well proven!! Linux is on 90% of the worlds desktops!!
------------------------------
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: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 00:28:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>Actually, I know all this because I worked on all these things. I
>actually created software with the Windows 1.03 SDK. I actually coded on
>CP/M on 8080/Z80.
Well, please excuse me as I file your email address in my address book.
[...]
>"Computer Expert?" I have been accused of such, but have never claimed
>it out right. ;-) The only thing I ever published were a couple articles
>about Windows programming.
The only place I was ever published was a chapter in a book on Macintosh
System 7.
>I have coded drivers for: CP/M, DOS, OS/2 (16 bit), Windows, NT, Linux
>and a few embedded systems. The thing that gets me about the Windows
>pushers is that they assume that Linux users don't know what they know.
>I just get a little satisfaction setting some records right.
Well thank you very much for doing so. I enjoy your posts quite a bit.
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:49:04 +1000
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
[chomp]
> > 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 sounds to me more like you're proving Win95 *doesn't* run on DOS, that
it does....
If Win95 is running on DOS, which you say cannot run a 32 bit environment,
how can it be 32 bit at all ?
> 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.
Do those products also do everything else an OS does, like provide hardware
support, APIs, process scheduling etc ?
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:47:31 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
[snip]
> >> >I'd actually agree with that opinion -- but for different reasons. The
> >> >Amigas and STs that most people saw didn't have enough oomph for
business
> >> >use. No networking. No real expandability. No hard drive (well, you
could
> >> >get some as add-ons, but they were prohibitively expensive).
> >> >
> >> >They were really good for home use though.[...]
> >>
> >> LOLROTFLMAO.
> >
> >Would you care to explain your mirth? Perhaps by pointing out where I'm
> >wrong?
>
> It would be easier to point out where you're right. Nowhere. Very few
> PCs had hard drives in 1985, if any. Networking was hardly something
> that was common. And as for expandability, I think most non-PCs were
> just as expandable as PCs. They just couldn't use interchangeable,
> commodity-level equipment.
>
[snip]
Funny - I clearly remember setting up several offices and businesses with
networked PC's (with harddrives) running Windows in that timeframe. Looks
like you are wrong again (as usual).
--ET--
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 23:59:12 -0500
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:65AI5.11364$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I have a dual boot system, Win98 on 3 gigs and Linux on 5 gigs. Linux
> sees
> > and can use the entire drive. I don't know how to get Win98 to
recognize
> > anything beyond the 3 gigs it lives in. I'm pretty sure it can't, and
> > although I don't have Win2K, I don't have a lot of hope that it will be
> able
> > to, either.
>
> That's easy, just exit to DOS, and fdisk the Linux partition to a fat 32
> filesystem. Or better yet, get Win2K and format the whole drive to NTFS
and
> never look back.
>
You are welcome to let your operating system dictate to you how you are
allowed to use your computer. I think I'll make my own decisions, though.
jwb
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 21:53:51 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
WRONG, WRONG, WRONG ... but then again, you usually are. All of the
functionality that was in DOS has been replaced with equivalent interfaces
that call protected mode functions. The interfaces are maintained for
compatibility reasons, but the actual code behind them is much different.
--ET--
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:D%pH5.85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Wait a minute, here. You worked at Microsoft and you believe that
Windows
> >> 95 was a genuine operating system that only needed DOS to load?
> >
> >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.
>
> [...]
> >> 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.
>
> >> 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.
>
> "You never sent me a response on the question of what things an app
> would do that would make it run with MSDOS and
> not run DR-DOS. Is there any version check or api they fail to have? Is
> ther feature they have that might get in our way? I
> am not looking for something they cant get around. I am looking for
> something their current binary fails on."
>
> Bill Gates, September 22, 1988
>
> "Bill Gates ordered to all application business units to include
> checking routines of operating environments and if it is
> Microsoft DOS, nothing will happen. But if it is non MS-DOS (such as
> DR-DOS), application will display messages saying
> that 'This application has been developed and tested for Microsoft
> MS-DOS. Since you use different environment, this
> application may not work correctly . . .' "
>
> B. J. Bahk, August 9, 1989
>
> "On the PR side, we have begun an 'aggressive leak campaign' for MS-DOS
> 5.0. The goal is to build anticipation for
> MS-DOS 5.0, and diffuse potential excitement/momentum from the DR DOS
> 5.0 announcement."
>
> DR DOS 5.0 Competitive Analysis, May 2, 1990
>
> "We are engaged in a FUD campaign to let the press know about some of
> the bugs. We'll provide info a few bugs at a time
> to stretch it out."
>
> Brad Silverberg, July 22, 1991
>
> "Who at Microsoft gets up every morning thinking about how to compete
> with these guys in the short term -- specifically
> cut their revenue. Perhaps we need more focus on this. . . . After their
> behavior in this FTC investigation I am very keen
> on this."
>
> Bill Gates, July 21, 1993
>
> "This really isn't that hard. If you're going to kill someone there
> isn't much reason to get all worked up about it and angry
> -- you just pull the trigger. Angry discussions before hand are a waste
> of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the
> trigger."
>
> Jim Allchin, September 18, 1993
>
> ----------------------------------------
> georga:
>
> What can we tell a customer about compatibility or non with DR DOS 6? .
> . . Can we give them a workaround, or tell them to buy
> MS-DOS 5?
>
> Hill:
>
> The standard response is: Windows is only tested with MS-DOS operating
> systems. DR-DOS claims to be 100% compatible
> with MS-DOS, so if that is true, then the user shouldn't have any
> problems.
>
> There is really nothing we can do.
> ----------------------------------------
> windows is designed and tested for ms-dos. not dr-dos. it says MS-DOS on
> the box, not MS-DOS or DR-DOS . . . this is what to
> tell the world (in a nice way). using a system other than ms-dos puts
> the user at his own risk. it says this very clearly first thing in
> the readme.
>
> there is another "fix" for them: use ms-dos. that should be mentioned in
> addition to telling them that digital research is
> providing them with a new version.
> ----------------------------------------
> Detection for the absence of MS-DOS will be in the Final Beta Release
> (AKA beta 3) but the message will not. Instead, the
> message will say: Non-fatal error detected: error # (Please contact
> Windows 3.1 beta support)
>
> This will allow us to widely test our detection scheme, but not cause
> undue PR problems.
> ----------------------------------------
> Janine has brought up some good questions on how we handle the error
> messages that the users will get if they aren't using
> MS-DOS.
>
> -- The beta testers will ask questions. How should the techs respond:
> Ignorance, the truth, other?
>
> -- This will no doubt raise a stir on Compuserve. We should either be
> proactive and post something up there now, or have a
> response already constructed so we can flash it up there as soon as the
> issue arises so we can nip it in the bud before we have a
> typical CIS snow-ball mutiny.
>
> Cole:
>
> Let's plead ignorance for a while. We need to figure out our overall
> strategy for this. I'm surprized people aren't flaming yet,
> maybe they won't.
> ----------------------------------------
> i am wondering if we should change the detection words to say we failed
> to detect ms-dos, rather than say we detected an os
> other than ms-dos. the latter words would make people think we are
> looking for drdos . . . .
> ----------------------------------------
> what the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has
> bugs, suspect that the problem is dr-dos and then
> go out to buy ms-dos. or decide to not take the risk for the other
> machines he has to buy for in the office.
> ----------------------------------------
>
> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
>
> 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.
>
>
> >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.
>
> >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.
>
> >"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."
>
> >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 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.
>
> "Who at Microsoft gets up every morning thinking about how to compete
> with these guys in the short term -- specifically
> cut their revenue. Perhaps we need more focus on this. . . . After their
> behavior in this FTC investigation I am very keen
> on this."
>
> Bill Gates, July 21, 1993
>
> --
> 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: Raffael Cavallaro <[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: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 05:02:14 GMT
In article <sU9I5.113233$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bruce Schuck"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Standard Oil and AT&T were monoplies.
>
>IBM and Microsoft are not.
>
>Microsoft has competitors for every product they make.
1. You don't know the legal definition of 'monopoly.'
2. By law, 'monopoly' does not equal 'no competitors.'
3. Although several posters have pointed out this legal fact (note that
it is a matter of US law, not a matter of semantics, dictionary
definitions, or, least of all, your opinion), you persist in ignoring it.
When you ignore facts, you're bound to be wrong.
Raffael
--
Raffael Cavallaro, Ph.D.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 05:05:18 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Only if your intent is to deceive. Its certainly preferable to actual
> anonymity, isn't it? Aside from making it difficult to know what to use
> as a casual reference, "Tired O'Shills" sounds more like he's trying to
> communicate, in a whimsical way, that he's sick of people like you, who
> show a complete lack of intellectual integrity.
Well, my heart bleeds for him. And for you.
I'm completely sick and tired of people like you and him who throw insults
like they're frisbees. At least I wait until they throw the first punch.
Simon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
