Linux-Advocacy Digest #483, Volume #30 Mon, 27 Nov 00 23:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Major shift ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[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 03:40:16 GMT
"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
> >> [...]
<trimmed>
>
> 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.
<quote>
No, it was the bundling, the restraint of trade charge which Jackson
*did* convict them of, along with monopolizing OSes and attempting to
monopolize browsers.
</quote>
Netscape was guilty of this same restraint of trade at the time they were
lobbying Justice to file the suit against MS. In '95 - '97 there was no
factual monopoly except the attempt by Netscape stated above.
>
> [...]
> >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.
>
> >as for middleware COM and COM+ are moving along rather
> >well I really have to disagree about the technological standstill as that
> >only applies to those stuck in the eunuchs world or think the bastard
> >stepchild (Redheaded or redhatted?) Linux will take over the world.
>
> LOL.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
> 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! =-----
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:43:49 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vr0id$5fqd9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8vqs5v$5e16i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> > >
> > >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
<snip>
>
> I don't use lotus notes (and probably should be grateful for it, Interface
> hall of shame has a dedicated page for it) but don't they use IMAPI?
>
IMAPI?????? I think you concatenated two standards there, IMAP the Internet
Mail Access Protocol and MAPI Mail Applications Programming Interface.
Notes uses IMAP and some bastardized virtual directory structure which
explains it's 60MB client.
>
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:44:34 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| > 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
The barrier there isn't a technical one but an economic one and
unfortunately the Linux community is largely to blame as much as the MS
monopoly. The linux community is growing and provides a potential for
commercial application breakthroughs. However, Linux is OSS and the
community rides on the OSS mantra which is that people shouldn't have to
pay for software.
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort and time to make software and
there are only two motivators there. Either direct economic benefit in a
commercial, closed source setting, or the developer is using the
software to his economic benefit and knows that others will help to
enhance the software to his and their benefit.
Most prefer the former arrangement since it has more promise in the
business setting where making money off sales of the software being
developed is concerned but the linux community doesn't welcome this
model. Of course, this is a general statement and I know that many who
use Linux are willing to buy commercial Linux apps but that's not
enough. There has to be an atmosphere there, a feeling of fertile soil.
OTOH, quite the contrary is happening because one is hard pressed to
find any company making a profit off marketing distributions and selling
support services for the most successful OSS to date, ie, Linux. There
are also other deterrents to the OSS model that many will not embrace.
| > >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
An economic one exists. When you develop the software, people need to
buy it so that it can be worth your while to develop it. This is the
reason behind the collapse of the OS/2 software market. Not enough OS/2
users exist to maintain the market. Developers invest a lot into
creating apps, employing other developers in the process and then no-one
buys the application. This is a serious barrier.
This is why MS markets Win2k only for the PC platform. It's not
economically viable for them to do otherwise because there's not enough
demand for it.
Before you develop an application, you need to have a target population
to market it to.
Curtis
---
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:45:56 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| > 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.
This is my exact impression as well. I don't see what's so hard to
understand with this?
Curtis
---
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:46:00 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_y1U5.24883$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:pJST5.5581$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > > > The nice thing about Unix is that the defaults are relatively
safe,
> > > > > and offer NO opportunity for one person to remove another's files.
> > > >
> > > > Interestingly, it's a nice thing that windows (on NTFS) can do as
> well.
> > >
> > > Unix had this from the Very Start.
> > >
> > > Why did it take Microsoft over 15 years to come up with similar
> > functionality?
> > >
> >
> > Because in the bad old days, none of the systems were connected to
others
> > nor were they connected to the outside world, such functionality was not
> > needed.
>
> I just love historical revisionism. Windows for WorkGroups didn't
> really exist, nobody ever used DOS or Windows on top of Netware,
> Windows95 didn't really offer to share files, Windows98 didn't offer
> to share files.
Not in the beginning. I guess I've been doing this longer than you. IAC my
point was even in those limited environments any access was local only
(Hint: LAN==LOCAL AREA NETWORK) outside connectivity was rare to
non-existent.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:47:05 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:CE1U5.24894$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:iwcT5.5295$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > The newer libs support the old calls even if they have to map them.
> The
> > > problem is
> > > > that 3rd-party installers have historically replaced NEWER DLLs to
> suit
> > > their own
> > > > needs thus breaking apps that depend on the NEW calls.
> > >
> > > And the historical reason that 3rd party apps had to overwrite these
> > > DLLS would be?
> > >
> >
> > None. They didn't have to if the lazy programmers either: a> Checked
the
> > dates before copying or B> Wrote their programs to the published Windows
> API
> > correctly.
> >
>
> And you are positive that there has never been a case where the newer
> MS DLL broke another vendor's previously working program?
>
None except for the SAMBA claims......
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:49:00 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Nj2U5.24977$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:2QZT5.10139$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Whereas I go to the pub and buy a pint with the money that I didn't
give
> > > to Microsoft :)
> > >
> >
> > To bad you wouldn't have the time, what with all the arcane tasks needed
> to
> > keep a UNIX healthy.
>
> That's funny, considering that many of us have unix boxes that have been
> running for years with no maintenance at all.
Still running that StarLAN eh? ;^D
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:50:41 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <2QZT5.10139$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
> >> >Les Mikesell wrote...
> >> >> Indeed, quite a lot of functionality has been withheld from those
> >computer
> >> >> users and they don't even know what they are missing. I'll bet if
> >they
> >> >> have a huge list of names in
> >> >> Last, First
> >> >> format and wanted
> >> >> First Last
> >> >> they would retype the whole thing since they don't have:
> >> >> :%s/\(.*\), \(.*\)/\2 \1/
> >> >> or any reasonable equivalent. Their loss. And it would be
> >> >> mine if that is all I had.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, what I do in Win2k here is fire up my TextPad, open the
search
> >> >and replace tool, enable regex's and for the search expression:
> >> >^\([[:word:]]+\), \([[:word:]]+\) or
> >> >I could use your expression to be less precise
> >> >\(.*\), (.*\)
> >> >and the replacement expression
> >> >\2, \1
> >> >I hit 'replace all' and I'm done. If I feel I have to do this on more
> >> >occasions, I just create a macro to do it with one programmable
shortcut.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Whereas I go to the pub and buy a pint with the money that I didn't
give
> >> to Microsoft :)
> >>
> >
> >To bad you wouldn't have the time, what with all the arcane tasks needed
to
> >keep a UNIX healthy.
>
> Even my updating is automated.
>
Check.
> And, I can admin my machines using my Psion series 5mx and my mobile
> phone from the pub if I really want to.
>
So could I, but I don't need to.
> Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:51:54 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <4%ZT5.10151$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
<trimmed>
> >
> >Wrong, Try again. SE Asia (Including NZ, and AUS) is the largest richest
> >market in the world, with China and India following. EC ain't even
fifth.
> >If we Californians ever get our sh== together we'll suceed from the union
> >and they'll drop to seventh or so.
> >
>
> Those are not a _single_ markets. The EC is the largest richest
> single market in the world. It's quite possible that because of the
> way currencies are valued internationally, that China and India are
> first and second in the world, but this is the way things are now.
That's a half rabbit. They are markets the way a company I left recently
looked at them.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:56:18 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <wWZT5.10145$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > > But it really is very simple to install wine. If you can't do it,
> >then
> >> > you
> >> > > have no brain:
> >> > >
> >> > > rpm -Uvh wine*.rpm
> >> >
> >> > This assumes you use a distribution that supports RPM, not all do.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The other major choice is deb. Just get the deb package and install.
It
> >is
> >> easy.
> >
> >Also an assumption. Ever looked at Slackware????
>
> It's not an assumption, it's a fact. 'The other major choice' means
> exactly what it says. This is not a Microsoft world with a one
> true way defined by some people in Redmond, it's a world of choice.
>
Not a fact. Claire said she can count on any install to be standardized.
The penquinista's response was so's ours, holding RPM, I say RPM ain't
alwasy there, then you said use deb, but it ain't always there either. So
you cannot count on a simple installation.
> The major choices are deb and rpm, but tgz is also available, as
> well as undoubtably other methods which people use because they
> can.
>
because they can or because they have to.
> You can install the source and compile. Oh yeah, you don't get
> that option from Microsoft at all, do you.
>
Why would I want to? (PS I do know how, in fact eight years ago I wrote a
source control application because SCCS was inadequate for our needs)
> Mark
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:55:44 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| > Well, if you presume that the monopoly does not do what monopolies do,
| > which is control prices and exclude competition, perhaps. But actually,
| > what you are presuming is simply that the monopoly is not a monopoly,
| > but a competitive business. This is not the case.
|
| IBM is a company comparable to Microsoft, if not larger.
| IBM apperantly had a technically superior OS.
| Why did IBM failed? IBM is more than powerful enough to break MS monopoly
| (which it created, apperantly)
|
| How did MS controled the price of OS/2?
IBM did an incredibly lousy job of marketing OS/2. They haven't been
pushing OS/2 for the desktop since the latter part of 1996. In fact they
seem to have been encouraging the opposite since then.
But that is water under the bridge. The fact exists now that it would
take a tremendous amount of resource input on the part of IBM to attempt
taking any of the desktop market away from MS using OS/2 as their
flagship. I don't think they're up to it and it's a risk as it is.
I don't know if this still applies but up until recently IBM was making
more money off selling NT related software, OEM machines and software
technical services than MS was making off of NT. This is a part of the
problem and how the monopoly propagates itself away from Redmondian
influence. Everyone is in for a profit and this is the basis behind the
momentum behind MS's OS's, of which I speak.
| > Could it be that they are unconcerned with whether the customer gets
| > what they want, but merely need to ensure that no user can avoid
| > Windows?
A combination of both.
[....]
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:02:42 -0600
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vv7oi$rri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "...a major shift continued toward non-Microsoft servers. "
>
> While the winvocates try to tell us what's so great about a 49 day
> uptime clock, the European server market is moving to Unix/Linux...
>
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU20001123S0008
If you read the article, it's not that they're moving away from Windows,
it's that they're moving to higher end RISC systems, which currently only
run Unix or Linux. With (until very recnetly) Intel based servers maxing
out at 8 CPU's, the 64 CPU systems that Sun and others offer are much more
attractive. That's changing though. Win2k Datacenter can support CPU
configurations up to 32 processors.
One datapoint doth not a trend make.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:02:36 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| > No, I have no "thing" against MS, other than the fact that they are,
| > indeed, a monopoly. Can I help it if that turns every argument about
| > their products, and how crappy they are, into a discussion about
| > monopolies? No, but you can; by giving up and admitting that MS
| > monopolizes, that this prevents their products from being competitive,
| > and that this means that W2K actually sucks rocks, while still being the
| > "best choice" for the preponderance of consumers locked in to the
| > monopoly.
|
| But Win2K doesn't "sucks rocks", so your entire arguement is invalid.
Win2k is NOT being promoted in a marketplace where a monopoly exists!!!
If anyone looks at any recent server stats they'll see that this is the
case.
The monopoly <-> crap equation doesn't apply and when you use Win2k and
see the improvement that has been made over NT this becomes pretty
clear.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
