Linux-Advocacy Digest #480, Volume #30 Mon, 27 Nov 00 22:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Is design really that overrated? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:29:23 -0500
the_blur wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm a designer...I recently installed Mandrake 7.2 and found it to be the
> only distro where everything set up as easily as Windows (with the exception
> of my cable modem connection, which still doesn't work...gotta figure out
> drakconf) more out of curiosity for an alternative to MS OSes than anything
> else.
>
> One thing I noticed is that when someone in another group
> (comp.sys.mac.advocacy) reviewed whistler, the fact that it had a nicely
> designed interface came under *vicious* attack. It's sad that for some
> reason, the Linux community doesn't believe in aesthetically pleasing
> design.
Oh god, it was one continous blather about the COLOR SCHEME.
Hint...ANY FUCKING USER INTERFACE CAN HAVE ANY FUCKING COLOR SCHEME.
If you like the "whistler colors", I'll bet I can get the same colors
in a few minutes on any other GUI in the world (provided it uses a
24-bit color pallette).
Microshaft writes unstable code. Who the fuck cares what colors the
system is *supposed* to display when the damned thing is crashing?
--
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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:12:37 +0200
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have used Windows 3.1/3.11/95/98/98se/NT/2000, NT was the biggest joke
of
> them all, installed a driver and NT failed to load, resulting in a blue
> screen memory dump, not very fault tollerant or reliable!
Very iteresting that you consider 9x & 3.x line to be better than the NT
line.
I don't think that I've run into this arguement before.
Even the linadvocates that claim that NT sucks almost unanimously agrees
that it's much better than the 9x line.
I don't have a super computer handy, so I can't calculate how much better NT
is from 3.x, sorry.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:13:17 +0200
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:G8CU5.28$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vupqd$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > As a note, Whistler should give you the option to turn off the GUI.
> > Which is something that can be very useful for a server machine.
> > I'm not sure if the workstation has it, or if it has, how to do this.
>
> It's Windon't. It'll never happen.
It's linargument, you know nothing about it, and you badmouth it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:15:01 +0200
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:LeCU5.34$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >
> > [..]
> > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not crash
> hot,
> > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new paint
> job. And
> > » that *matters*.
> >
> > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
>
> Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4, and
> Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge fixes, and
> the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
Well, they got it half right :)
2K is much more than simply a more stable version of NT4.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:19:42 +0200
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> »
> » "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> » news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> » > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> » >
> » > [..]
> » > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not
crash
> » hot,
> » > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new
paint
> » job. And
> » > » that *matters*.
> » >
> » > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
> »
> » Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4,
and
> » Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge fixes,
and
> » the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
>
> You really should use it before saying even that. :=)
>
> You may be surprised what you experience. I've seen many a skeptic who
> have been surprised. Now, I'm not saying it's the holy grail and a
> perfect OS because that doesn't exist. I'm just saying that it's miles
> ahead of it's predecessor, and is pretty much testimony to the fact that
> the server and high end user OS market is very much not monopolised and
> is very competitive.
Cellular phone OS never crashed. (Yeah, I know it's much more simple than
the simplest usable OS. Nonetheless, it can do a lot of tasks that my
computer can do.)
It *is* possible to write bugless code (or nearly as such).
You might want to read "The Software Conspiracy", a really good read about
bugs in the software industry.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:24:13 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > No, he claimed that you can't buy a intel based PC in 1996 without
paying to
> > MS.
> > (I bought computers then, I didn't go to the OEMs, I didn't pay anything
to
> > MS for this)
>
> If the operating system came with the PC, you paid, whatever else the
> salesman told you.
No, I didn't pay anything for MS.
I bought a naked PC, (caused a lot of commotion when I finally put it where
it belong, people said that it was indecent).
> I bought my laptop about a year ago. I told them I wanted no operating
> system. It arrived with Win 98 installed, with no CD-ROM. I sure as
> hell paid something for that copy, even if it was a small amount
> absorbed into the cost of the laptop.
IIRC, OEM version of 9x should cost about 30$
I don't buy in dollars, and I didn't buy a 9x OEM lately.
> (And I had a hell of a time installing NT until I realized that
> the disk would of course be formatted as FAT32! Now, of couse, the
> old laptop has a multitude of NT and Linux partitions.)
A disk that is formatted as FAT 32 is unreadable to NT 4 unless you've SP4
(which you can't isntall until you install the OS, of course)
You could've told the NT installer to install it as a NTFS partition,
though.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:33:16 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:29:53
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Chad Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000
16:59:04
> >> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]
> >> >> Wrong, Netscape sold it (for around $35, if I remember right) until
> >> >> M$ decided to crush their competitor.
> >> >
> >> >But it was available on multiple FTP Servers for free, infact, in
direct
> >> >contravention of law, Netscape had exclusive use contracts with many
ISP's
> >> >that forbade the ISP from supporting any customer using IE. These
ISP's had
> >> >among their number large members such as Pacbell.net and AT&T.
> >>
> >> What laws precisely do you think this contravenes?
> >
> >The very same ones that you accuse Microsoft of violating. It is an
"Unfair
> >Business Practice" to limit support to customers because of the platform
> >they use when this is done by an exclusive contract. It equates to price
> >fixing...
>
> You've confabulated the charge; you'll have to be more clear. As
> stated, the behavior would not seem to contradict the Sherman Act, or
> any other anti-trust law that I'm aware of, by itself. You see,
> anti-trust law doesn't outlaw certain acts; it outlaws a *class of act*.
> Netscape can ask ISPs to enter into contracts in which they promise to
> not support IE; that itself is not illegal. On the other hand, they are
> not allowed to monopolize or attempt to monopolize or restrain trade,
> regardless of what contracts they used. So, was Netscape attempting to
> control prices or exclude competition when they did this? I think not;
> sounds like they were trying to survive against an illegal monopoly.
When was it, exactly?
Because prior to late 1998, Netscape *was* a monopoly in the browsers
market.
MS didn't have a fighting chance in the browser market until IE4. And the
reason that I moved to IE wasn't because he was better, it was because
Netscape was bloated and heavy and buggy.
I don't think that I would've moved if they were of comparable quality.
> >Opera is OK but I find IE most useful.
> >Netscrape hasn't had a decent version since 3.5 (that's why IE became the
> >market leader BTW).
>
> I've never been able to figure out what people are referring to when
> they say things like this. I haven't been able to see a whole lot of
> difference between IE or Netscape since... well, ever.
IE has a tendecy to take a 9x down with it when it die. (Not on NT, usually.
And 2000 & Whistler has an option to launch IE & Explorer as seperated
processes, a little slower to launch {*mcuh* faster on Whistler, a
difference of almost 2 seconds, but it's not fair comparing a workstation to
a server} but it increase system stability.)
Netscape only takes itself down (usually, at least, there had been
exceptions), but it takes as much time to load it as it takes to reboot
windows.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:49:28 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vsa0t$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vr8r9$5a7fd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >
> >> >> Doh. How do you get a trojan onto a unix machine?
> >> >
> >> >Same mecanism you get one into a win machine.
> >> >Lure the user to open it.
> >>
> >> No, the user needs to save it, give it executable permissions,
> >> su to root, give it root/suid permissions, put it into the path,
> >> add a script into /etc/init.d or /etc/rc.d to get the trojan
> >> started, modify the firewall scripts to open the required ports,
> >> etc. etc. etc.
> >
> >We've been through this before.
> >If the user execute the program, it can handle the rest on its own.
>
> Not without root permissions, it can't. You really don't
> understand the unix security model, which is causing you
> to fully misunderstand why the scenario you describe
> cannot happen.
>
> Please take a look at Eric Raymond's intro to unix, it
> will help you no end with these quite hard questions.
Oh, I am.
The point I was trying to make that 9x is a *single user OS*
You seem to be unable to understand what a *single user OS* is.
A *single user OS* has no cocept of permissions.
On a *single user OS*, the *single user* has root-like status.
Now, try to make the same arguement for the NT line, and you fail.
You really need to understand the concept of *single user OS*.
If you want to talk about the *disadvantages* of single user OS, that is
another matter, but trying to compare a *single user OS* security model
(non-existant) to a linux or unix is laughable.
Why don't you compare a bike to a motorcycle?
No, that is not a good enough comparition, why don't you compare a carrige
carried on the back of a hundred turtles (average land turtles, normal speed
400 meters per hour) to a Formola 1 car?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:52:07 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vsa1i$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:hxdU5.25015$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:8vqs63$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Win98 will fly on 32MB (I used to work on 16 win 98)
> >> > And I'm running a server on a 64MB which is also used as a desktop
> >> machine.
> >>
> >> You have a strange idea of flying. My 32MB machine crawls if you
> >> open more than a couple of windows.
> >
> >What are you doing on it?
> >What windows? What services run on the background?
> >
> >
> >
>
> Yeah - don't *run* anything, that'll slow it down.
Naturally, if you run anything, on any OS, it will take resources from the
system.
Therefor, there will be fewer resources to hand around to other programs
(assuming multi tasking OS)
Do you know of a way to avoid this?
If you do, please learn some engineering, because we need perpetual motion
machine.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:29:10 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:23:41
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Yes. What do you do if the file type doesn't already exist? Or if you
> >> wish to change, not the association of an extension to a file type, but
> >> the file type to the application? Or if you want to re-arrange which
> >> extensions belong to which pre-existing file types? (This last would
> >> be, for instance, if you wanted multiple extensions to remain part of
> >> one file type, and multiple extensions to change to a different file
> >> type.)
> >
> >Define file type, please.
>
> If only I could. File type is an abstraction, see. But I'll do the
> best I can, and we'll see how it goes.
>
> In Win3.x, Microsoft used "file associations" to provide document
> launching capabilities similar to other OSes. On Unix, "magic" is used,
> which is essentially looking at the first few bytes of a file and
> identifying the format; but document launching was never widely used.
> Magic was actually designed for slightly different things. On the Mac,
> they sort of split the difference. There is a couple of codes, one
> which identifies the creator app (providing similar capabilities to
> magic) and one that identified the "document type", the equivalent of
> the file association on Windows, used for document launching.
>
> File associations in Windows worked on the extension of the file, using
> DOS's 8.3 file format. A particular extension is associated with a
> particular application, so that launching any document with that
> extension loads it into the application.
>
> In Windows 95, in an effort to try to improve this mechanism and
> incorporate additional functionality, file associations were modified.
> Now, instead of relating an extension directly to an application, the
> extension is related to a file type, and the file type is related to an
> application. Some of the ostensible flexibility in this system is that
> multiple extensions can be associated with a given file type, and
> multiple applications can be related to a file type.
>
> All in all, it would seem to be a quite useful and adequate system.
> However, it really only works as long as you do things a certain way,
> this being limited to relatively trivial direct management. So long as
> you are satisfied with 99% of the configuration, and wish merely to
> change simple associations in limited ways, you would probably never
> realize how badly designed it is. Even trying to forget (it ain't easy)
> about that pathetically bad "Open With..." dialog, or the difficulty of
> finding an arbitrary "file type" in a listed sorted by invisible
> information, and what not, doing anything less brain-dead than
> clicky-clicky re-assignment of an extension or two (one at a time, of
> course) to a different file type is really not operationally effective.
> Even after trying several programs specifically designed to handle the
> relationships between extensions, file types, and applications, I can
> say without question the system sucks. Not merely because of
> Microsoft's little problem writing competitive software; that's just the
> seed of it, really. Its every bit as much the application developer's
> fault, as well, for "hard coding" how the associations *must* be set up
> in order to function correctly at all. And the business about
> "hijacking associations" and RealPlayer and all that crap....
Okay, so your defination of file type in this context is similar to the
windows one.
Now, let me see what you wanted:
(Note, any text in qoutes has been posted by T. Max Devlin)
"What do you do if the file type doesn't already exist?"
You go to Tools>Folder Options>File Types>New
And type the new extention you want to associate with the file type.
You click Advance, and Choose <New> as the Associated File Type
You click okay.
Go to the new extention you created.
Click Advance, there would be a name there, usually something like FT000001
You change the name.
You've created a new file type.
"Or if you wish to change, not the association of an extension to a file
type, but the file type to the application?"
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean here.
I've a the extention .zip
It's associationed with the file type: WinZip File
It opens by the following path: %PROGRAMFILES%\Winzip\winzip.exe %1
What do you mean when you say to change the file type to the application?
An example of what you mean using the following as a way to explain it would
help.
"Or if you want to re-arrange which extensions belong to which pre-existing
file types?"
You go to Tools>Folder Options>File Types
And delete the extention that you want to belong to another file type.
Then you click New.
Type the extantion, click advance, wait a second or two, and choose the
pre-existing file type.
You have to all of this this for each extention individually, as this is the
way File Types works
But I don't see any reason why you couldn't build a tool that would do this
for several extentions at a time.
If you so wish, I can attach the code of a simple application that will do
this.
Associate multiply existing (and create new) file extentions with a file
type.
I still fail to see how this is badly designed.
That the application that you've used may be badly designed, that I can
understand, there is no lack of badly designed applications.
I just don't see how you reached the conclustion that because the tool you
used wasn't good enough for you, the entire system isn't good.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:39:23 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:47:25 -0500;
> >Could you give a practical, productive reason for wanting to create a new
> >file type that doesn't exist?
>
> Yes. When you want to set up a program which does not have its own file
> type as the default for files with a certain extension. I had a
> UUDecoder program, for instance. The clicky-clicky, "spare me from
> knowledge", "just do it for me" crowd might think that an application
> that doesn't create its own file type is deficient. In truth, it is the
> presumption that every application needs, uses, or should have its own
> file type which is silly, at best.
An application that is handling files has a good reason to either create its
own file type or add itself as alteranative to the file that it handle.
By handling file I mean that the program's is mainly open, changing, and
using in some way in file with common extention(s).
For example, a program that rip CD-Audio has every reason in the world to
add itself as an alternative to the CD-Audio menu.
An HTML editor should put himself as an alternative on the HTML file type,
and maybe ask whatever I want it to be the default.
A program that doesn't handle files directly has no need of it, though.
I agrees with you that not every applications need it, but most of the
programs do.
> 90% of the file types listed in your Open With... dialog have no
> practical, productive reason for being there. To hell with creating new
> ones; how about getting rid of the useless ones?
I disagree with you on the principal, and agree on practice here.
When I use the Open With dialog (I assume you mean the one for unknown
files), I want to be able to associate the file with every program that I
like.
On practice, I hardly ever use the Open With dialog, and when I do, I choose
one application to open it with, and ignore all the rest.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:40:32 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > What does the cow has to do with the eagle?
> >
> > You are confusing totally different subjects here, are you even aware of
> > that?
>
> You're a real Dale Carnegie!
Who is he?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:43:01 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 14:12:08
<big snippage>
> >The first is a perfectly legal, morally correct, and a wise bussiness
> >decision. The second is considered illegal, but still a wise bussiness
> >decision, moral I leave to others to ponder about, as value systems are
> >different around the world.
>
> No, monopolization is not a wise business decision. It isn't a business
> decision at all; it is a decision to avoid doing business, and instead
> to engage in criminal activity.
Monoply is a wise business decision because it increase revenue.
That is what I was talking about.
On pure logical level, wise business decision is one that increase revenue,
monoply increase revenue.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:51:02 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:38:11
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >There are plenty of alternatives, and the barriers you are talking about
> >are, what?
>
> There are plenty of *possible* alternatives, *technical* alternatives.
> There are no commercially feasible alternatives, however, since MS
> doesn't produce a competitive product, but merely locks in a monopoly
> product. Which means they have the (illegal) power to prevent these
> potential alternatives from finding a large enough market to break the
> Win32 application barrier.
No, there is no such barrier.
Please provide me with any evidence that you can't duplicate what a certian
appilication does on one platform on another platform
> >What are those barriers that you are talking about?
>
> The only barrier anyone is talking about is the *application* barrier,
> which you seem to have remained brain-dead ignorant about.
Mainly because I've been hearing again and again that such barrier does not
exist
> >What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/ Os/2 ???
>
> You tell us. What prevents you from moving to a technically superior
> alternative which costs less money? Huh? What?
I would disagree with the technically superior part.
But here is why, anyway.
Because, right now, Win2K gives me the best balance between ease-of-use and
stability (among other things).
Mac is easy to use, but it isn't very stable.
Linux may be stable, but isn't easy to use.
Dito for linux.
I can get Linux's stability with an easiness of use that is surpass by none
but the Mac.
> >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?
>
> Win32 and Microsoft's illegal behavior, which results in an application
> barrier. It would not be as convenient (and time is money, as well as
> the most profitable commodity possible) and therefore Microsoft makes
> using alternatives *more expensive* than it would be if they weren't
> around to begin with.
What applicaiton barrier?
What is so wonderful about Win32? I've been hearing for ages that it sucks.
According to !winadvocates, TCO of non-win machine is lower, so while the
initial price tag on choosing another platform may be higher, according to
your own side, in the end, it will be cheaper to use something else.
> >> 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.
>
> And again we find a Winvocate who is a bit behind the times in his
> argument. A lot of people go with alternatives, do they? Then what's
> with the 90% monopoly?
No, they *have* the alternatives.
They choose no to constitue it for variety of reasons.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
