Linux-Advocacy Digest #431, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 04:13:12 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:28:06 +0000
In article <qyZT5.10122$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <vrST5.5567$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <J4cT5.5264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Try publishing an "unhappy Microsoft experience" on company letter
>> >> >> head, and watch how quickly Microsoft has your company in court
>> >> >> for violating the EULA, which specifically states that the
>corporation
>> >> >> MAY NOT publish *anything* disparaging about Microsoft's products...
>> >> >> EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Not true, I published a letter to the editor of PC week some 6 years
>ago
>> >> >with a minor complaint about Microsoft and received a call from MS
>asking
>> >> >what they could do to fix the problem, I told them and it was done,
>both
>> >> >retroactive and made policy in their next release.
>> >>
>> >> I thought that the EULA was not enforcable 6 years ago, but might
>> >> be now? Related to UCITA or DMCA or something?
>> >>
>> >> Would be interesting to see what happened now.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Most likely the same, MS saw this as a PR/Marketing problem and did what
>> >they do best, give the customer's what they want.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Chuckle. I'm still waiting for any of the things I want. Still,
>> I'll assume you were joking here.
>
>Not exactly, They do try to meet marketing requests. Little things like the
>Terminal Server addition to Win2K Server for remote adminstration originated
>from an e-mail sent to tech support at MS by myself.
Does that mean that if I want something fixing in windows,
you can ask for it on my behalf and it'll get done?
This just seems kind of doubtful.
But I won't look a gifthorse in the mouth. Can you
get my Win98SE to shut down properly - an email to
tech support?
Ta,
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 03:39:06 -0500
mark wrote:
>
> In article <G90U5.279316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
> >
> >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:10:37 GMT, Mike wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> >Without going into the historical context, what customers demand is an
> >> >editable document.
> >>
> >> They may or they may not. It depends on the type of document.
> >>
> >> HTML is editable (and modern word processors can import it).
> >>
> >> RTF is also editable and can be created on any platform.
> >
> >Sure it depends on the document. There are lots of those where format
> >doesn't matter: presentation foils, memos, emails, and so on. In general,
> >nobody cares what format those are in. But when a document has to go into a
> >document control system, and be added to other specifications, and be
> >modified and returned for approval, and modified by others when they create
> >similar specs later, and so on, LaTex isn't going to cut the mustard. It's
> >just not a common, accepted format.
>
> I always think it's interesting that the rfcs are all in ascii. It
> strongly suggests that most specs do not need to be in any kind of
> strange binary format for any particularly proprietary word processor.
>
> Latex is common, it's just not supported by the monopoly providers
> software (MS Office or whatever).
>
> >
> >The point I was trying to make was that using an editable text file, LaTex
> >or otherwise, to do word processing isn't viable, because we don't just
> >create documents for ourselves. Today, it's a given that others who come
> >later are going to have to edit and change the stuff I create. Similarly, I
> >don't create new specs from scratch - I use the documents that were created
> >before. Donn's original point was, "...in a nutshell, I think word
> >processors suck. I ... [use] html and LaTeX as a substitute."
>
> Our organisation is increasingly moving to HTML for document storage,
> management etc., not least because the vast majority of users in
> our intranet userspace navigate that space with a browser (most
> commonly netscape, but a lot of ie as well). HTML is not so much a
> substitute, but the target format.
>
> I suspect that if the content creation volumes were measured for
> HTML and proprietary MS formats for the planet, the MS formats would
> be quite small compared to creation in HTML.
>
> >
> >Presumably, if he thinks word processors suck, he's not using one to do his
> >editing, and he's not likely to read in HTML or RTF.
> >
> >Even if he was using a word processor, HTML is neither a page description
> >language or a viable word processor storage format, and browsers like
> >Netscape still have a difficult time printing it correctly.
>
> I don't seem to have any trouble printing. And the page numbering
> works, and content pages are consistent.
>
> >It's not good at
> >tables,
>
> I haven't noticed any problems there.
>
> >can't handle arbitrary embedded graphics,
> Inline graphics seem okay to me.
>
> > has no inherent equation
> >capabilities,
> equation markup is being worked on, it is not yet stable or
> in production browsers that I'm aware of.
>
> > or much of an ability to handle complex page formatting,
>
> What exactly is 'complex page formatting'? If this is trying
> to put characters or objects at specific points on a page,
> I would point out that the nightmares caused by docs written
> for eg., letter size paper that are printed on eg., A4 are
> , well, nightmares. It's just bad writing style.
>
> This is where the concept of a markup language is so far
> away from the traditional word-processor.
>
> It's probably also why word processor usage is dying a
> rapid and in my view timely death in my organisation.
>
> >not
> >to mention references, footnotes, page numbers, and on and on. That's not a
> >bad thing: HTML is great for browsers. But trying to substitute HTML for a
> >word processor isn't viable unless you don't do much.
>
> Trying to substitute a word processor for writing in HTML is
> short-sighted - document access technology has massively moved
> on. It's interesting to note that people over about 45 still
> tend to print their documents to read them - people under
> that age tend to do it on-screen.
I'm in the middle...it depends on the document.
Short documents, I read on screen.
Long documents...I want to print and read on the couch,
(unless I'm just looking for a specific bit of info).
>
> In 20 years nobody will be printing at all (ie., the 'printers'
> will have retired from the workplace - they will probably
> still do it at home :). If you're writing documentation you
> expect to still be in use at that time, better write in a format
> which will be suitable for browsers.
>
> Mark
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: 26 Nov 2000 08:47:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Stuart Fox wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > I was rather unaware that collecting uptime information from the
>> > > network was a requirement of an OS. The uptime tool reports
>> accurate
>> > > information, but I can't see how MS having a 49.7 day limit or Linux
>> > > having a 497 day limit on information gathered from the network is a
>> > > fundamental design flaw.
>> >
>> > Even with a BETA-TEST KERNAL, Purdue's Gould PN-9080 machines
>> > stayed up for 60+ days in 1985-1986.
>> >
>> > Face it. Microsoft NT (Neutered Technology) STILL is not ready
>> > for prime time.
>> >
>>
>> Are you being deliberately stupid, or is a serious mental condition?
>>
>> Here's a clue: Uptime reported via the network is not accurate, so the
>> uptimes reported are wrong. Incorrect uptime does not mean the machine
>> does not stay up.
>
>
>Yes, but the experience of real-life NT admins DOES mean that
>the machines don't stay up.
>
>Here's a clue:
>
>A fellow contractor told of helping with an inventory...
>there was a Sun box which had been overlooked in the last
>inventory, and had gone 13 months without any sort of
>maintenance.....everyone had completely FORGOTTEN about
>this machine's existance....because it was performing
>ALL of its functions flawlessly.
>
>If this were, instead, a LoseNT machine, would such a situation
>even be possible?
>
>for 5 weeks...maybe. 13 months? Not on your life.
Was this machine not connected to the outside world? Given the number of
patches that Sun/Microsoft/Linux put out in a year I would find it hard
to believe that this machine wasn't patched for security reasons or
rebooted from memory leaks. Of course I have seen uptimes of 400+ days
under Solaris so I'm not completely doubting it. The best I've done under
Linux is 120 days and that was only ended due to the machine being moved
to a different room.
>
>
>--
>Aaron R.Kulkis
>Unix Systems Engineer
>ICQ # 3056642
>
>
>H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
>I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
>J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
>A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
>C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
>D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
>E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
>F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
>G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:40:10 +0000
In article <8vploe$5eu5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vpf2i$5buf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vp23h$58vlq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In article <8vnubl$4ujgg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>> >wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> The interesting question is 'with linux, how many times has
>> >> >> your /etc directory been rendered unusable?
>> >> >
>> >> >Five times, two power failure related, one with the system hanging so
>I'd
>> >to
>> >> >do a reset, one with 'rm -f', one when upgrading.
>> >> >That is just my personal experiance, you know. And I don't deal with
>> >linux
>> >> >extensively.
>> >>
>> >> I find this absolutely unbelievable. You are claiming the
>> >> complete and total destruction of a whole directory containing
>> >> 10s to 100s of files on the ext2 filesystem. Upgrading has
>> >> no impact on this filesystem at all - this is not windows!
>> >> rm -f suggests that you're not fit to be in charge of a
>> >> lawnmower, let alone a computer. (My 6 year old is allowed
>> >> to drive my mini tractor, he's safe with it).
>> >> Your claim to not deal with linux extensively is the _only_
>> >> thing in this post which rings true - the rest reads like,
>> >> well, fantasy, really.
>> >
>> >rm -f was indeed my fault, what is your point here?
>>
>> You can hardly claim that you deleting hundreds of files
>> from a directory is any kind of weakness in a system design.
>> You could just as readily have deleted the windows registry.
>
>Actually, no, I couldn't.
>If I'm on win9x, I would've to go to Dos(real mode) and do it.
>Otherwise, I would get permission denied or some such error.
You have to be root user in linux to achieve this, this means,
at the _very_ least you've made a specific decision to do
some admin task. Otherwise you'll get permission denied or
some such error.
>ME wouldn't let you go to DOS, but you can stick a dos floppy and do it from
>there.
>NT/2K wouldn't let you do this even if you.
>
>> >upgrading was also my fault, I choose server install in redhat 6 and it
>> >wiped my system.
>
>> I do not find this credible.
>>
>> > (I used to do custom installs, and intended this to be a
>> >test to RH6 until I would decide if it was good enough to move to, which
>is
>> >why I didn't choose upgrade, I intended this to go to another HD, but
>choose
>> >to do a server install instead of custom one, and it wiped the system.
>> >Documented, but unwarned from.)
>>
>> But I'm not a Redhat expert. I'll need to leave this to a
>> Rhat expert to let us know whether installing redhat can
>> 'wipe the system'. This seems like another windowsism
>> to me.
>
>stick redhat cd to the cd-rom, boot from it.
>Choose install, choose server.
>The program will, without a shred of warning, erase all your HDs, and use
>them as it sees best.
>It's a well documented highly-annoying things about it.
>
>http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-6.0-Manual/install-guide/manual/do
>c020.html#s2.7.2
>
>
>"A server-class installation removes *all* existing partitions on all
>installed hard drives, so choose this installation class only if you're sure
>you have nothing you want saved! When the installation is complete, you'll
>find the following partitions:"
>
>"*Please Note*: A server-class installation will remove any existing
>partitions of any type on all existing hard drives of your system. All
>drives will be erased of all information and existing operating systems,
>regardless if they are Linux partitions or not."
So if you know all this, why did you do it?
>
>
>
>> >> Resets do not have this effect, nor do power failures. Please
>> >> provide more information about any of these claimed events.
>> >
>> >The HD didn't boot, fail to mount on linux systems, fail to be read on
>win
>> >ext2 readers.
>>
>> No - this is not working for me. Are you saying that the master
>> boot record was corrupted? If so, that will affect any OS at all.
>> That is not a linux issue. It is *certainly* not an ext2 issue.
>> Even if that did happen, it is *extremely* unlikely that, armed
>> with a rescue disk, the ext2 partitions would not be fully
>> recoverable. I don't think you've any experience of this at
>> all.
>
>Read what I said, it won't mount on other systems.
>I tried the rescue disk method, and it failed.
>The hardisk was find, I repartitioned it and it worked, no bad sectors.
What do you mean by 'if failed'. Rescue disks can't fail, they
just boot. That's what they do. If you can't boot the
machine you've bigger problems than you're claiming already.
Why would you repartition? The only reason to do this is if
the partition table has been damaged on the machine. If that
has happened, it is nothing to do with the filesystem on
any partition at all. It will not prevent a rescue disk
from working. How did you know that the partition table had
been damaged? This just doesn't add up.
>
>> >If you think that an admin is beyond making mistakes...
>> >Well, we will leave it at that.
>> >Is that the
>>
>> Mistakes which involve deleting all the files, powering
>> the system down .... No, the MCSEs I know are better than
>> this.
>
>That was only part of my list.
>Please pay attention.
I am, I'm not sure whether you are or not.
>
> >> To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
>> >> Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
>> >> credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
>> >
>> >FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
>>
>> FAT certainly is not.
>
>FAT has yet to take all my files away from a system crush or power down.
For ext2 to do this, you'd have to have information about every
single file in a given area stored in the cache, which means you'd
have to be editing eg., every /etc file, at the same time.
I just do not believe this. No-one in the right mind would
even consider doing something that risky.
>
>> NTFS I don't know much about.
>> Please provide evidence that this has happened.
>> Perhaps you could list the files in /etc which
>> were corrupted, that might help us here. (Although I
>> strongly suspect you can't because you don't know).
>
>You weren't paying attention.
>The whole FS vanished.
Vanished???? This is isn't the X-files! Further back, you
were claiming that the partition table was damaged. Now
you're claiming that the filesystem vanished - what, every
single bit on the HD just 'went away'?
>
>> >> >> The registry is well renowned as a major weakness in the design of
>> >> >> windows.
>> >> >
>> >> >It takes a *lot* to corrupt the registery, usually a hard drive
>failure.
>> >> >Currupting the data *inside* the registry is another matter, and can
>> >cause
>> >> >system instability, just like putting invalid data in the files in the
>> >/etc
>> >> >dir.
>> >>
>> >> Err, text file damage is a minor problem - binary file damage is a
>> >> massive problem, especially if it happens close to the start of the
>> >> file.
>> >
>> >Please provide more information about any of these claimed events where
>the
>> >registry was damaged that badly.
>>
>> I didn't claim an event - I said that damage to a binary file is
>> a massive problem, especially if it happens close to the start of
>> the file.
>
>I agrees with you on this.
>But we are talking about the registry here.
>The registry cannot be access (directly, on FS level) while the OS is
>working.
>The registry doesn't get curropted, because nothing can access it except the
>OS, which doesn't curropt the binary file structure.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You hope.
>The almost sole reason that the registry become curropted is HD failure.
HD failure is extremely rare compared to Win crashes in my experience.
In fact, I've never had a HD fail (although I do know several folk
who have).
>
>And, if we are already talking about it, the registry is not a single file,
>but several.
>
>
>> Damage of 1 or 2 bytes to a monolithic binary file can cause
>> the whole file to be unparsable; to achieve the same effect
>> in /etc., you'd have to damage *every* file in there, near
>> the start of the file *and* each package would have to have
>> non-sensible defaults compiled in (which they don't).
>
>And as I've said, you are very unlikely to damage the registry short of
>damaging the HD itself.
The registry is as likely to be damaged as any other file.
>
>
>You claim that binary files' weakness is that they can get corrupted, and I
>agrees.
>However, I've yet to see a registry that get corrupted from a non-HD issue.
How long have you been administering computers, or using them,
or programming, exactly?
Mark
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:44:17 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla wrote:
>mark wrote:
>>
>> In article <8vpf2i$5buf6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>[snip]
>>
>> >upgrading was also my fault, I choose server install in redhat 6 and it
>> >wiped my system.
>> I do not find this credible.
>>
>> > (I used to do custom installs, and intended this to be a
>> >test to RH6 until I would decide if it was good enough to move to, which is
>> >why I didn't choose upgrade, I intended this to go to another HD, but choose
>> >to do a server install instead of custom one, and it wiped the system.
>> >Documented, but unwarned from.)
>>
>> But I'm not a Redhat expert. I'll need to leave this to a
>> Rhat expert to let us know whether installing redhat can
>> 'wipe the system'. This seems like another windowsism
>> to me.
>>
>
>Redhat offers you two options (besides others not relevant in this
>context): either upgrade or install.
>Upgrade fully preserves the existing filesystem.
>Install assumes an installation from scratch. A custom install allows
>you a certain amount of control on partition handling, while server
>install will just use the full disk, effectively wiping whatever was
>there before.
Ah, thanks for the info. I can see that this might catch out
someone inexperienced, but an experienced computer admin or
user should have no problem with it.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:51:06 +0000
In article <8vpm8e$5alsr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vpjvh$5autc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> This is why monopolies can chase profit quite happily, whilst
>> >> completely avoiding providing what the customer *actually* wants.
>> >
>> >Do this, and you are no longer a monopoly, because other people will give
>> >the customer what they actually want, and the customer will go with them.
>>
>> The definition of a monopoly that that there is nobody else to do
>> that. More subtly, the reality is that the monopolist ensures that
>> the barriers to entry for the market in question are too high for
>> any competitor to overcome, thus preventing the customer need
>> to be met by another party. ie., what you're saying cannot
>> happen in a monopoly by definition.
>
>There are plenty of alternatives, and the barriers you are talking about
>are, what?
>
>Mac: High cost, now this is eliminated.
>BeOS: Lack of drivers, any new info about this? I've not looked into it in a
>long time.
>Linux/Unix: Lack of application, taken care of, unfriendly, taken care of,
>not yet complete.
>OS/2: ???
>Amiga: ???
>
>What are those barriers that you are talking about?
>What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/ Os/2 ???
>I can get applications to do much the same things that I do in windows, I
>can read windows files, I can do everything I can do in windows on other OS.
>(And in 9x & especially ME case, a lot more)
>
>What prevents me from moving OS?
The barriers to entry in monopoly analysis are business barriers
not technical barriers. This is how they are defined. This is
not really the place for a lecture on economics, but...
Massive existing installed user base of technology X is a major
barrier to a vendor who would like to introduce technology Y.
When the user base is over 49% it is considered to be virtually
impossible to overcome without vast resources. This is usually
impossible because the organisation which has the vast resources
is the one which already has the 49%. This is why governments
have agencies or departments charged with observing and analysing
markets and taking action where monopolies are found to exist.
They also observe for Cartels. A Cartel is where a small group
of organisations artificially joins their market spaces together
such that the sum-total of their joined market is 49% or more.
They can then impose technology, pricing or whatever on the
market because they have made the barrier too high for another
organisation to overcome.
>
>
>
>
>> >> >> I believe that some Government pressure in the
>> >> >> end caused them to change their minds.
>> >> >
>> >> >IIRC, it was that they were offered by Iceland goverment to get paid
>for
>> >> >doing the localization.
>> >>
>> >> *Exactly* Nothing pressurises a monopoly more than cash.
>> >
>> >No, if there is money in it, it will be done.
>> >If there isn't money in it, it won't be done.
>> >Basic rules of economics.
>> >Localizing windows wasn't worth it.
>> >Getting paid to localize windows was worth it.
>> >Simple.
>>
>> Getting paid *additional money* by a 3rd party was enough.
>> There customer demand for that market was not significant
>> enough for the monopoly to care about, since they'd get
>> the customers anyway (see further above for the reasons
>> why).
>
>No, if you don't get enough money to return your invesement, you don't do
>it.
>The additional money was enough to return the invesement.
The additional money would not have been required had there
been any competition, since a competing organisation would
have provided the functionality. Basically, Microsoft had
to be bribed by a Government to meet the customers
requirement, since they were not going to do it themselves,
because they have nobody to compete with.
>
>
>> Thus, in a non-monopoly, one of the competing organisations
>> would have provided a localised version; in a monopoly, it
>> was necessary for a Government to pay the _only_ supplier
>> to do it.
>
>No, they could do a whole lot of other things.
>Go with Macs, BeOs, Unix, Linux, a lot of other things.
No, because of the barriers to entry given above. The issue
here is a business/economic issue not a technical one. Monopolies
are business entities not technologies.
Mark
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:53:10 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>mark wrote...
>> In article <8vpb92$5c60s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> mark wrote...
>> >
>> >
>> >> > Linux at some undetermined point after 1996 and
>> >> > up to and including today, (wonder which version & which
>> >> > distro?), and now Win2k with its somewhat restricted set of
>> >> > available apps?
>> >>
>> >> Restricted apps for Win2k. Hehehehe. What apps are you looking for that
>> >> gives you this impression? Or is this second hand information that you're
>> >> stating?
>> >
>> >There are all too many application that are written by lazy/idiot
>> >programmers which assume 95/98/ME and full access to the registery.
>>
>> The thread was about a claim of some applications which were
>> available in 1996 for win9x, had some functional equivalent at
>> the same time for OS/2, had some functional equivalent at
>> some indetermined later date on Linux and also have some
>> functional equivalent now on Win2k (or they've been ported).
>
>You're misinterpreting me. What do you mean by functional equivalent?
>
>When I say I found similar apps, I meant I found apps with similar
>functionality, not ports of the same applications. Do I have to spell
>things out to you?
'had some functional equivalent' is what I wrote, about 5 lines
above.
What were these magical apps which were available in 1996 for win9x,
had *some* *functional* *equivalent* at the same time for OS/2,
had some functional equivalent at some indetermined later date on
Linux and also have some functional equivalent now on Win2k (or
they've been ported).
What are these magical apps?
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
