Linux-Advocacy Digest #524, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 14:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: How Tux helps Linux succeed (was: Is design really that overrated?) (Matthias
Warkus)
Re: Whistler review. ("Simon Palko")
Re: Whistler review. ("Simon Palko")
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... (mark)
Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is... (mark)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: How Tux helps Linux succeed (was: Is design really that overrated?)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:20:27 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:36:35 +0100...
...and Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was the Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:13:16 -0500...
> ...and the_blur <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Why is the Linux penguin used so much when it's so goddamned goofy-looking?
> > This thing I see at boot (the scrolling list of things that load when you
> > start Mandrake) assaults my sense of style. Why do you all have to put up
> > with such a silly-looking mascot?
>
> The Linux penguin is one of the greatest logos I know. Its
> un-logo-ness is the key to this:
>
> 1. it is not offensive or aggressive: it looks calm and friendly
>
> 2. it will not clash with a non-technical environment (try pinning a
> Windows logo to your shirt at a party)
>
> 3. people who will not recognise it will still see a cute penguin in it
>
> 4. it's got nearly no connotations because most people don't know
> altogether too much about what penguins are like
>
> 5. any penguin will look like it, so many companies can derive
> penguin-based logos from it and you'll still get the reference (it's
> hard to derive a different logo from, say, the Windows logo)
>
> 6. it is easy to turn into very creative forms of merchandise (cuddly
> toys, inflatable toys, penguin-shaped soap, ...) because it is an
> animal with a compact shape without sharp protrusions or holes
>
> 7. it looks infantine and thus appeals to the subconscious
>
> 8. its two-dimensional image consists of uncomplicated forms and flat
> coloured surfaces with a simple, yet distinct colour scheme; that
> makes it easy to render in any colour scheme, including greyscale
> and black-and-white
>
> 9. it can be recognised easily by its shape alone, even if distorted
> and/or clipped (Tux-shaped shadows falling over some kind of
> landscape are a popular element in corporate Linux advertisements)
>
> I could go on. Tux, in this respect, shares many properties with the
> original Apple logo at the time it came out (i.e. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8,
> 9).
Addendum: I've had a look at your "pinguinos". You missed the point.
These are not logo-like; they're just pictures of penguins. Anyhow:
a) They miss characteristic 1, as they look neither calm nor friendly
since there's no human expression (they've got no human-like faces
with two eyes above a mouth).
b) They miss characteristic 3, as they're not cute (see also d).
c) They miss characteristic 6, as they're too slender, with distinct
legs, long necks, long beaks and (one of them) fine feathers all about
the head.
d) They miss characteristic 7 (no infantine characteristics such as
round head, stubby features, large eyes).
e) They miss characteristic 9 (Tux's shape is unique. The shape of a
penguin is ubiquitous.)
I bet you're one of the guys who think Disney would be more successful
if Mickey looked like a photorealistic mouse. However, if you want to
see a great penguin-based Linux logo which does not at all look like
Tux, have a look at the following site:
http://www.linux-verband.de
Lots of Tux-based logos can be found at:
http://lol.rotfl.de/billihunter/bilder/linux/penguins/on-the-web/
The probably most comprehensive archive of Linux logos that do not
look like the original Tux, i.e., Tux derivatives and non-Tux
penguins:
http://www.lwn.net/Gallery/
mawa
--
Das ist schwer: ein Leben zu zwein. Nur eins ist noch schwerer: einsam
sein!
-- Kurt Tucholsky
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:17:48 -0500
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:40:30 -0500, Simon Palko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >> If MS thinks that they are so hot, why don't they just release the
> >> API spec, and challenge someone to come up with something better....
> >> and pay the winner a prize
> >
> >Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available for
> >ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
> >implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now, haven't
> >checked up on it in a while).
>
> Um, WINE is purely the result of reverse-engineering... (why would MS
> want to help get the w32 api set onto other OSs? to break their monopoly?
> I can imagine them wanting that... not...)
A reverse-engineering of the IMPLEMENTATION. The full spec for the API
(with behaviors and whatnot) is freely available.
That's like saying that everyone's implementation of a Java VM is a
reverse-engineering because they're only implementing the spec!
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: "Simon Palko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:18:52 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon Palko wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Bennetts family wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "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.
> > >
> > > I would hav ZERO problem with Windows...if someone would come up with
> > > an implementation COMPLETELY FREE of development by Microsoft
personnel.
> > >
> > > If MS thinks that they are so hot, why don't they just release the
> > > API spec, and challenge someone to come up with something better....
> > > and pay the winner a prize
> >
> > Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available for
> > ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
> > implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now, haven't
> > checked up on it in a while).
>
> WINE is an attempt at reverse-engineering, NOT a clean-room
> implementation from a published spec.
Win32 IS A PUBLISHED SPEC.
It's freely available, with EVERY SINGLE API CALL DOCUMENTED.
Do you know that COM is an open spec now, too? And that there is an
implementation of COM available for Linux? Is that a reverse-engineering,
just because it's a different implementation of the spec?
--
-Simon Palko
"More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
backs!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:15:57 +0000
In article <6zSU5.3434$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, the_blur wrote:
>> No, but that's beside the point here. The point is that criticiszing
>> a dumb symbol like a penguin or a daemon or whatever has nothing to do
>> with the OS or its development. It's simply a bunch of greasy-fingered
>> cretins trying to grab part of the "action."
>
>Hi Bob, make sure you mention to the KDE and GNOME GUI teams that you think
>of them as greasy-fingered cretins.
>
Err, he didn't say that, that I can see.
If you want to draw penguins, please go ahead.
You'll need to get good support from the linux community to see
a replacement for the current penguin, however. This approach
is unlikely to achieve that.
Good luck
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Ok, putting money where my mouth is...
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:17:47 +0000
In article <975428409.490731@marvin>, Frank Van Damme wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Robert Kiesling"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> No, but that's beside the point here. The point is that criticiszing a
>> dumb symbol like a penguin or a daemon or whatever has nothing to do
>> with the OS or its development. It's simply a bunch of greasy-fingered
>> cretins trying to grab part of the "action."
>
>No, it wasn't the point. But you're right, of course: a good os with dumb
>artworks is still better than an all-grey-gui on top of a crap os (no
>names).
Agreed. But it's also better than a colorful gui on top of a crap
os as well.
The penguin is fine.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:55:54 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Adam Warner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:20:29
> [...]
>>> I don't believe that universities will go this way without Microsoft
>>> giving them vast amounts of kit & software.
>>
>>Do you mean it won't happen or it will? Microsoft is quite capable of
>>helping large institutions implement Microsoft solutions.
>>
>>I posted those University of Auckland URLs because I have a close
>>association with them (number of degrees, research work) (and the links were
>>available on Goggle by the way). If you check out the Word document URL I
>>posted you will see it states that the U of A is intending to have
>>large-scale student systems using Active Directory by 1 January 2001, and
>>all systems using it through 2001.
>>
>>That's a pretty impressive implementation rate for a Microsoft technology
>>that only came out of beta this year with the release of Windows 2000.
>>
>>So there you go. How internationally widespead this is I'm not sure. But I
>>found it easy to find info about other Universities that are also planning
>>the implementation of Active Directory.
>
>I would bet money that the reason you find these announcements is
>because Universities were forced to announce and plan their lock-in
>migration in order to get free W2K servers. MS always gives good
>bennies (an offer you can't refuse, in fact) to those who announce
>they'll use MS products.
That was more or less the point I was driving at, but I hadn't
considered the lock-in aspects in order to gain Microsoft additional
publicity, particularly when mentioned in the same breath as
world-renowned learning institutions.
I imagine that Microsoft will do them an exceptionally good deal.
Of course, when it comes to upgrade time, I imagine that the
story changes a great deal, but I also expect that the deal will
prevent the institution from mentioning their problems. Bit
like the Eula.
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:56:21 +0000
In article <900tj0$5u43s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:23:40
>> >"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?
>>
>> Guffaw.
>
>You've some problem with your throught?
>
>
snark
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:57:38 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > > Netscape 6 supports multiple POP severs, but I've not yet tested it
>> >
>> > According to a review from one of the more known computer reporters in here,
>> > it sucks.
>> > Of personal experiance (beta, though) it has the stability of a dove in a
>> > hurrican.
>>
>> I gave a quick test (under linux) of beta's. Until PR3 they were just
>> for fun. PR3 appeared to be a reasonable beta (a little buggy, something
>> not implemented, but usable).
>> You may have different behavior under Windows, because the application
>> must handle a lot of issues which under Unix are handled by OS.
>
>Is that why about all previous versions of Netscape about all Unices are widely
>regarded by Unix folks as unstable too? Windows Netscape has always been the
>flagship for obvious reasons.
Those reasons being directly related to the monopoly of desktop
OS space by microsoft. Says nothing about stability or quality,
just monopoly.
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:59:21 +0000
In article <8vut4e$5s87r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vsjnl$5ffj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > My windows version of Netscape 6 (release) has never run. It
>always
>> >> > > crashes with a DLL error message. Based on experience with other
>> >> > > programs under windows, I interpret this as a windows problem, not
>> >> > > something Netscape-specific.
>> >> >
>> >> > How can it be a windows problem?
>> >> > If Netscape crashes, it's Netscape problem.
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily. I wrote an app that worked fine, sent it to a
>customer,
>> >> who complained that it crashed when he moved the mouse over a toolbar.
>> >> I felt bad, until I discovered that Visual C++ had updated
>COMCTRL32.DLL
>> >> on my machine. I sent him my version (who knows if I violated some
>> >> MSFT law?), and that fixed his problem... a Windows problem. There
>have
>> >> been other similar examples of broken DLLs, if I recall. How wuz I
>> >supposed
>> >> to know that all my clients had to install IE 4 for my code to work.
>> >> Yeeeesh!
>> >
>> >No, that is *not* windows problem.
>> >That is *your* problem.
>> >You application used updated DLL, which you didn't bother to check.
>> >If you'd an *older* version of COMCTRL32.DLL, they you'd a case, but not
>> >when it's an updated version.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, you were supposed to know, you fool. Don't ever write any
>> code for windows again, foolish mortal. Keep your hands of
>> anything from Redmond, because if it goes wrong, it *will* be
>> your fault, and we'll tell you the reason later. Maybe.
>
>When did I say that?
>
I will quote to help you:
>> >No, that is *not* windows problem.
>> >That is *your* problem.
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:01:40 +0000
In article <8vut4e$5s87r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vsjnl$5ffj4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >
>> >> > > My windows version of Netscape 6 (release) has never run. It
>always
>> >> > > crashes with a DLL error message. Based on experience with other
>> >> > > programs under windows, I interpret this as a windows problem, not
>> >> > > something Netscape-specific.
>> >> >
>> >> > How can it be a windows problem?
>> >> > If Netscape crashes, it's Netscape problem.
>> >>
>> >> Not necessarily. I wrote an app that worked fine, sent it to a
>customer,
>> >> who complained that it crashed when he moved the mouse over a toolbar.
>> >> I felt bad, until I discovered that Visual C++ had updated
>COMCTRL32.DLL
>> >> on my machine. I sent him my version (who knows if I violated some
>> >> MSFT law?), and that fixed his problem... a Windows problem. There
>have
>> >> been other similar examples of broken DLLs, if I recall. How wuz I
>> >supposed
>> >> to know that all my clients had to install IE 4 for my code to work.
>> >> Yeeeesh!
>> >
>> >No, that is *not* windows problem.
>> >That is *your* problem.
>> >You application used updated DLL, which you didn't bother to check.
>> >If you'd an *older* version of COMCTRL32.DLL, they you'd a case, but not
>> >when it's an updated version.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, you were supposed to know, you fool. Don't ever write any
>> code for windows again, foolish mortal. Keep your hands of
>> anything from Redmond, because if it goes wrong, it *will* be
>> your fault, and we'll tell you the reason later. Maybe.
>
>When did I say that?
>By all means, develop for windows, but don't blame the OS when you use an
>updated version of a file when you developed the application, and it didn't
>work on a system with an older file.
>If it was the other way around, you might have a reason to complain, but not
>when an older version not supporting something a newer version does.
>
>> >> > And, for what it worth, MS didn't release anything lately that can
>break
>> >> > Netscape, so this arguement is pointless.
>> >>
>> >> And how do you know that, my friend? Does Netscape not use any Windows
>> >> DLL's?
>> >
>> >If it run on windows, it use windows API.
>> >A common anti-ms arguement is that it change the API without bothering to
>> >tell anybody and thus breaking competitor's applications.
>>
>> And we all know that this never happens, don't we children.
>
>Please show me a time when MS changed *documented* API (if you use
>undocumented API, that is your problem)
Ah, so it's okay for Microsoft to use undocumented APIs in
order to further leverage their illegal monopoly, but if
someone else were to try to do so in order to compete on
a level playing field, then Microsoft will change it in order
to further leverage their illegal monopoly by preventing
you from competing on a level playing field.
I see that clearly now, thanks.
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:03:11 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> How wuz I
>> supposed
>> > to know that all my clients had to install IE 4 for my code to work.
>> > Yeeeesh!
>>
>> No, that is *not* windows problem.
>
>Your right, it was a Microsoft problem.
>
>> That is *your* problem.
>
>It sure was, I had to deduce that COMCTRL32.DLL was at fault, because
>it sure wasn't part of the Visual C++ documentation at that time.
>
>> You application used updated DLL, which you didn't bother to check.
>
>I learned, after that, that Microsoft modifies the addresses in DLL's
>any time they want to, without warning.
>
>> If you'd an *older* version of COMCTRL32.DLL, they you'd a case, but not
>> when it's an updated version.
>
>Nonetheless, I blame Microsoft. Also, Paul Delascia, who writes the
>C++ column in MSJ (now MSDN Journal), wrote sternly of the consternation
>this DLL caused in the developer community. So I wasn't the only
>asshole.
Yes, but you missed the point - you are a fool and should
not write for win32, because Microsoft will change the
api and it *will* be your fault. Ayende will explain
why later.
>
>> > > And, for what it worth, MS didn't release anything lately that can break
>> > > Netscape, so this arguement is pointless.
>> >
>> > And how do you know that, my friend? Does Netscape not use any Windows
>> > DLL's?
>>
>> If it run on windows, it use windows API.
>
>Which many DLLs call.
>
>> A common anti-ms arguement is that it change the API without bothering to
>> tell anybody and thus breaking competitor's applications.
>
>They didn't change the API -- they changed the location of a function
>inside COMCTRL32.DLL, causing code that used the new location to
>of course crash when the function was still at the old location.
>
>All I can say is, Microsoft has never been up front about providing
>change pages. At least Borland tells you what to expect.
>
>Chris
>
>--
>
>[ ] Encrypt Microsoft.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:04:36 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>mark wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>How about going to the root of the problem and updating your BIOS?
>
My BIOS has nothing to do with Win98 failing to shut down.
Interestingly, if I use APM and linux on the same hardware,
not only does it close down properly, but it powers down as
well.
Win98SE is failing to even close down, let alone power down.
So - Chad - can you sort this for me, please - an email to
tech support is all it takes you, I understand from your
previous posting?
Ta,
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:05:34 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>> Giuliano Colla wrote:
>> >
>> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > > The NT4.x and 9x EULAs specifically prohibit ANY customer statement
>> > > > which is damaging to Microsoft in any way.
>> > >
>> > > Can you point me out to where those statement are?
>> > > I can't see how this is true, because when ME came out (and 95/98 too, for
>> > > that matter) a lot of magazines said something like: "You buy a new
>> > > computer, get it, otherwise, keep your own OS" Which is clearly damaging MS
>> > > http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm is taking apart several of MS
>> > > application.
>> > >
>> > > Two examples out of the millions I could've given.
>> >
>> > EULA binds customers, not journalists or net sites, hopefully!
>>
>> But most journalists are ALSO MS customers.
>
>Most users are MS customers.
>
Is this really true? I'm an MS user because I have to be at
work, but I'm absolutely not a customer and will not be. How
many others are in the same position?
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:06:15 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>>
>> Question: Is Terminal Server the rich man's X-Windows server?
>
>Again. Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.
>
No, Linux is free whatever your time is worth. Your time
may or may not be valued at some rate or other, of course.
Linux is free.
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: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:25:33 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tore Lund wrote:
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>> Microsoft was hot for the desktop. Now that they've
>> won (at least this round), they're going back to the
>> old server model that they so abjured back in the
>> days when all they wrote was toy operating systems
>> for toy computers.
>
>Just wondering, why is it so despicable to write "toy" operating systems
>for "toy" computers? The PC of 15 years ago made excellent sense as a
>home and business desktop machine (well, apart from the IBM design). It
>was no "toy", unless you consider a bicycle to be toy in relation to a
>car.
The PC of 15 years ago was aimed at businesses, not at homes.
>
>Was not Unix designed on machines that would be considered "toys" by
>today's standards
So was Concorde, Apollo12 and so on.
>
>For that matter, why do people buy "toy" lawn mowers when perfectly good
>tractor size models are available? (Hint: because the former type is
>cheaper and more appropriate for small lawns.)
Er, so you argue that people buy a suitably sized tool for the job.
Okay, hard to dispute under any circumstances.
>
>If Unix people had been able to overcome their revulsion against "toy"
>machines, they could have made a scaled-down version of Unix for the IBM
>XT or AT and secured a user base in the PC market.
So far as I can make out, there is a fair user base in the PC market
for linux and BSDs. It looks pretty secure, and it's continuing
to grow at an astounding rate.
>
>Actually, QNX did just that, but they stuck to a specialized niche and
>never went for the general desktop market. Typically Unix...
>--
> Tore
>
They were obviously way ahead of their time. It's happening now
in a massive way.
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
******************************
