Linux-Advocacy Digest #485, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 00:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Curtis)
Re: Why Java? (George Russell)
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Mike Byrns)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Larry Pyeatt)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Charlie Ebert)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 06:36:08 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vsa11$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >Why would he need one?
> >You put it in the cdrom, go to DOS, and install from there.
>
> That's a pretty key point here, because the tale is about
> installing Win9x *after* the slackware was already on there,
> and a 2nd HD which didn't have it on before. So where was
> the DOS?
On the win98 disk.
> >> But this whole situation is odd including
> >> (especially) the concept of expecting win98 to be able to do anything
> >> helpful. The only thing realistic about the whole story is having
> >> problems with a win98 install.
> >
> >No, win9x usually install without a hitch.
>
> Oh yea, that's right, it went wrong this time, but that's because
> the person installing it was an idiot - sorry, I forgot that
> bit. Or was it that the install CD from Microsoft was damaged?
> Or was it both?
No, because the disk (the media itself) was bad.
------------------------------
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 06:36:35 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
> >mark wrote...
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
> >> >mark wrote...
> >> >> >No, the user is an idiot.
> >> >> >An installer is an "it", no a "he"
> >> >>
> >> >> Er, the user is an idiot because microsoft's CD was broken?
> >> >>
> >> >> Wow I love windows people.
> >> >
> >> >You're doing the same crap with Ayende I see.
> >>
> >> Que? I'm still waiting to see this list of apps
> >> which run on all those different things which
> >> you claimed.
> >
> >Let's leave that to the other thread which is tiresome as it is already
> >is. <mutter> This one is tiresome as well </mutter>
> >
> >> If the user didn't know what to do when faced with a broken
> >> Microsoft install CD (which apparently had _only one_ file
> >> broken - something very rare indeed), then they need help
> >> and support not calling an idiot by you or by Ayende.
> >
> >A solution was offered to him. Ayende told him what could be wrong and
> >how to go about fixing it assuming it was just one file that was
> >corrupted. A single file corruption is a reasonable assumption
> >considering the OS installed and ran just fine otherwise. He refused to
> >attempt this and tried installing again as if the problem would magically
> >go away on the *third* attempt.
>
> No, a single file corruption on a CD is amazingly unlikely.
>
> Since this image came from Microsoft, there would be a batch of
> these made, 10,000s or so, so there would be either a history,
> or the whole batch would have been withdrawn (unless there's
> no QA at all on this, but I don't think even Microsoft would
> be that foolish).
Burn 1000 cds.
Now take one and scratch it.
Please explain me how a scratch on one CD render all CDs that were burned
unusable.
------------------------------
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 06:39:43 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vsjnl$5ffj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
> > A common anti-ms arguement is that it change the API without bothering
to
> > tell anybody and thus breaking competitor's applications.
>
> I think you mean "a common anti-ms observation"
>
> Even if they don't do it intentionally, they keep breaking things. I
> think it was SP6 that broke Notes server wasn't it? Required all clients
> have admin access or something...
Fixed within days.
Microsoft withdraw SP6 and released SP6a, which fix this problem.
Gee, if you wanted a story about how MS break other companies' applications,
it's about the worst you could pick.
Lotus didn't use the API the way the should've, and they messed up with the
NTLM.
MS went out of its way to fix this. Did it very fast, too.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:43:50 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| > > 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.
|
| Under Linux, things take as long or longer to start up, but there is no
| particular slowdown from having a lot of windows open at once
| when the others are not doing much cpu work. On windows things
| slow down just because more windows are open.
Which Windows are you referring to?
On Win2k here, I use a virtual desktop manager. Once I have certain apps
open, I don't close them. I don't see any slow downs with such a
practice or else I wouldn't adopt such a practice.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Java?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:44:54 GMT
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:17:44 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Let's not get into a language war, but I ask the quetion: Why Java.
Networking
Portability
Cleansing and simplification of C / C++
Extensive class library (Windowing / Containers / IO / etc...)
Rapid development
Threading
Compile and run time checking
>It is a proprietary API put out by Sun.
Indeed. It is being reimplmented by others though.
>Lets not argue how wonderful Java is "as a language." Lets discuss Java
>as a development strategy.
It makes writing applications that do useful stuff easy, due to its
large, supplied as standard, class library.
You can have equivalents in other languages, but Java is the 1st
to bundle (afaik) such a large and useful class library. Especially
if you include the optional extensions that become standard parts
over time - Corba, RMI, Swing, Collections, Java Mail, Java
Cryptographic Extension, Java 2D & 3D, JDBC, its HTML renderer etc..
Besides, its more fun than sitting in front of Random IDE on Random
Win 32 variant, since I can develop on Unix and run on Win 32.
All this imho, and possibly biased by my 4th year of using Java.
George Russell
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 04:44:58 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vtpdc$5k4hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Andres Soolo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vtl51$8bk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> > The mere open()ing a file doesn't execute any suspect code, so that
won't
> > work.
> >
> > > What delivery mecanism MS provides?
> > > No, win9x gives that to everyone. And it's shit.
> > And msw9x isn't a MS product?
> > That's news for me.
>
> First sentence is asking about the dilivery mecanism
> Second sentence is talking about giving everyboyd a root-like permissions.
>
> > > Use NT or better yet, 2000 for a good system.
> > Which also allow the same delivery mechanism.
> > At least by default.
>
> What delivery mechanism?
>
How many would you like?
http://www.guninski.com/index.html
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 04:45:11 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vv5ba$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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.
Out of curiosity, have you had any video-related GPFs yet? If not, what
hardware are you using? (If you posted this previously, sorry. I sometimes
don't have time to closely follow threads)
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 04:48:24 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vv5e2$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > >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.
>
But I was taught that crime doesn't pay.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 04:52:34 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vv5ea$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> 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)
Ibm was legally constrained from bundling products before they even
developed the PC. There is no way they would have been allowed
to force customers to buy their OS and they knew better than to try.
The question is, how did Microsoft get away with it for so long?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:53:04 GMT
In article <8vvcd2$5e9qk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> It does show you where M$ priorities lie, when security, a core function
>> that should be tight from the git go, is left lax on even an early beta.
>
>No, it shows that the defaults on a workstation release, on a beta1, are
>overly lax.
>It would take me roughly ten minutes to put the settings back to high alert,
>about half an hour to turn the computer to a paranoid.
>
That's great????
Don't be surprised if it doesn't work anyway.
>> to try and increase the proficiency of new users, and get them to at least
>> partially understand how things work and why they are the way they are. A
>> section on nettiquette would be nice, too.
>
>Well, Whistler apperantly has it, after the OS boots, it try to explain me
>*how to use the mouse*!
>I stopped there, but I don't think you can *get* any more basic than that.
>It was with pictures and movies and all of that, too.
>It make me wonder exactly *who* MS has in mind when they put this in.
>I mean, even the worst users I've seen knew what a mouse is.
>
This is extremely funny.
Are you advocating Microsoft?
Or are you saying they are silly?
>>
>> NS6 isn't worth looking at, try it's OS cousin, Mozilla. Much more stable,
>> and better compliant with standards.
>
>One reason I take Netscape 6 is that I do web development sometimes.
>Apperantely it's going to be the next-big-thing (I hope so, maybe we would
>see some retaliation again, the browsers war were good to the surfers)
>So far it looks nice.
>I'm on new application tour right now, so it seems.
>
Humm.
>
>Actually, I think that this is what whistler is doing.
>You get the pro shell (misnamed) which is friendly and nice and goes *out of
>its way in annoyingly cute degree* to help you.
>And the normal shell, which is probably very much like the usual windows
>look.
>You can also turn all the bell and whistes off once you stop finding them
>amusing.
>
And that's what most people do.
They buy Windows for the FLASH then when the new-ness
is OVER, all the crap get's turned off and you end
up with a ho-humm, sadly - rarely working thing.
>
>Very good.
>Install hardware on NT, blue screen.
>Install hardware on 2K, true PNP.
>
As of service pack 4 NT supported PNP.
And both W2k and NT bluescreen.
>
>Redhat 6 (for that matter, AFAIK, all versions of RH) would erase every bit
>of HD that they can reach if you do an install as a server.
This I think is still true.
Not much demand for a dual boot Windows box with a Server in the
other partion. If you stop for just 5 seconds to think about
that, doing a server in a seperate partition is absolutely stupid.
>Ever since RH6, I pull the power cable off any HD I want to keep and do
>custom installs.
>It's more trouble, but at least that way I won't get my data erased.
>
>
I think they just do a repartitioning of the drive in question.
I don't think they go after all the drives.
But again, it's stupid to have a workstation on one partition or
drive of your machine then a server on another. Why?
But further, if you choose a custom install you can do it
on the same hard drive if you want to. The choice is yours.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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 04:54:55 GMT
Chad Mulligan wrote:
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8qST5.5564$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
> > >> >mark wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >> >> >> Netmeeting phones home as well. It's kind of unsurprising that
> > >Windows is
> > >> >> >> so insecure - it needs to be in order to enable all these bits of
> > >soft-
> > >> >> >> ware to phone back to Microsoft Headquarters so they can see what
> > >you're
> > >> >> >> doing, or where you are, or who you are, or, well, what, exactly?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >> Incidentally, last time I mentioned this someone responded very
> fast
> > >to
> > >> >> >> say that you could disable this behaviour, but I've not been able
> to
> > >> >> >> see how. Maybe I need that MCSE :)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >And in today's MCSE lesson... how to make the fucking thing work
> the
> > >way
> > >> >> >you want.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >Tomorrow: How to stop your computers reporting your hard drive
> > >> >> >contents and bank details to Microsoft.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> :-)
> > >> >
> > >> >What I think would be really amusing is to prove where the operating
> > >system sends
> > >> >banking information to Microsoft. Netmeeting sends your conversation
> > >through
> > >> >Microsoft servers only if you configure it to. Just like AIM and ICQ
> et.
> > >al. If
> > >> >you use your own server then, of course, it does not. The where an
> who
> > >you are
> > >>
> > >> Er, no - that's wrong. The copy of netmeeting I'm looking at sets up
> > >> tcp links to microsoft even though the server is within our intranet.
> > >>
> > >
> > >During setup it asks you if you want to use ils.microsoft.com as a
> directory
> > >(read name) server. Say no and no connection to MS exists. This is also
> a
> > >setting change IIRC.
> >
> > Indeed, and it's not set up that way, and it _still_ creates TCP links
> > to microsoft.com.
> >
>
> No it doesn't. I've checked that everywhich way you can and those links
> are a figment of your imagination.
I concurr. I used a PIX firewall set to block and log all outgoing traffic.
Fired up Netmeeting Server (ILS20) with Netmeeting 3.01 (the latest) and set it
to use my ILS server only. There were no outbound PIX log entries generated by
the Netmeeting client IP.
This is just typically of the lies that come from the Linux peanut gallery.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 04:55:26 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vv78g$5nghc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Because I know that I've alternatives.
> I've within reach at least 5 or 6 dist of linux, three of BSD.
> If MS gets too annoying, I will switch.
> I always had this option, and I'll always will.
What would you have used in 1996? Which major vendor could have
sold you a PC without paying for a copy of Windows?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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 04:56:20 GMT
"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:04DU5.46$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> In any case, NT5^H^H^HWin2k has a fairly high retail price, especially
with
> the pissweak Aussie dollar, and with Linux, I get a more stable OS with
all
> the apps I need (I'm a big fan of StarOffice, I use under both 98 and
Linux,
> and I've never crashed it), a UI without the problems of Windows, plus a
> real insight into the system. Linux ain't for everyone, but it's fine for
> me.
>
> In any case, I think Windows' main problem is that it tries to be easy to
> learn. Let's face it, newbies are going to have problems whatever you run
> them on, and when you develop experience, the things that make the 'doze
> easy to learn get in your way. (Note: I didn't learn computers under
> Windows, I started with a C64 when I was 3 or 4, and went through DOS3.3
on
> an XT, Win3.1 on a 486SX/25/4Mb, 95/RH5.2/Zipslack on a DX2/66/24Mb, and
now
> 98SE/MDK7 on a Cyrix MII/6x86 333/64Mb).
The easy-to-learn thing is just a natural progression. Same thing happened
with autos, really. The plus side is that more people can utilize computers.
The negative is the burden it places on software developers. One of the
projects I've worked on involves tanning salon management software and
tanning bed control. (Long story) Making things both stable, un-resource
hungry, AND idiot-proof (Think of bleached blond tanning salon clerks...) It
ain't easy, but, Its' a commercial necessity now.
I'm trying to teach my fiancée, a blond, how to use Unix.
Personal crusade!
Wish me luck! <g>
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Pyeatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 28 Nov 2000 04:23:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >2) Only PSEUDO-intellectual dorks use Dvorak.
>> >
>> >The only tests that 'demonstrated' superior speed on a Dvorak
>> >board were those conducted by Dvorak himself (1943, US Navy).
I don't use Dvorak for speed, I use it because I have RSI and
Dvorak is a great deal less painful. In fact, the only reason
I know of that anyone uses Dvorak is to mitigate RSI. My typing
speed on Qwerty was 80wpm. On Dvorak, it is 90. Speed is
definitely not a reason to switch.
So, I guess finding a way to avoid pain makes me a
PSEUDO-intellectual dork in your tenth-grade opinion.
Your opinion of me really does not matter much, and neither do you.
--
Larry D. Pyeatt, PhD.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cs.ttu.edu/~pyeatt
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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 05:03:22 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vsa15$5grsc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> CorelLinux 1.2 acts like a single user OS, if you don't take extra steps
in
> order to make sure it wouldn't.
> The only acount defined is root, and you've *no way* of defining the root
> password during the install.
Apparently Corel went far out of their way to make their version of
Linux act like Windows. I don't think you'll find many people here
supporting either the concept or that implementation
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:04:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Curtis wrote:
>"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.
>
No your wrong. That's just a side benefit.
The OVERALL drive is to make the source code FREE of encumbrances
so that people are free to see how the software is written, to
inspect the product and further to add to the collection if they
wish. The free cost aspect is just a side benefit.
I really don't know why people get so damn hung up on free
software cost anyway. When I worked for HBOC we would GIVE
away software if they would sign the maintenance agreement
with us. We'd even give them hardware to boot! It's all
in the marketing. And that was copyrighted software also.
The GPL just takes that step and makes the software open
source and FREE for use. But the market really hasn't
changed from the day's when copyrighted material was
the norm.
>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.
>
Except with the GNU/GPL model, the enhancement is shared by
all. It isn't just for the benefit of one entity.
>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.
>
NO. The money made today is in the maintenance of software products
and NOT the sale of software products. Microsoft is actually
the last bastion of software SALES stupidity. The money is
in the market for maintenance.
We would sell a hospital a software package for $110,000.
But we would get an annual maintenance fee after the first
year of $90,000 a year for every year the product was licensed
to be maintained by us. 80% of our companies revenues is
in the maintenance contracts. Very little is in the sales
of software. They have actually been GIVING the software
away for FREE if they sign 5 year contracts.
>| > >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.
Well, again. Your talking about the days of when people will
be selling OS's and those day's are comming to a close.
You are living in the PEAK of commerical OS sales in human
history. After Microsoft fades away you will probably never
see computer OS's for sale again.
With Linux and the BSD's around there is little incentive
to buy Windows anymore. Even the Mac X croud is getting
a free ride.
Your talking about the market at the turn of the century
and you should be thinking of the market of tommorrow.
Charlie
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
