Linux-Advocacy Digest #542, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Rob Barris)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Steve Mading)
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
Re: The Sixth Sense (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:15:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob Barris wrote:
> >
> > In article <903r8m$594r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <903l4c$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1500 apps on one machine?
> > > > > Assuming average install time of 5 minutes, that means about 5
> > > > > days of
> > > > > just
> > > > > sitting there 24 a day, just installing software.
> > > > > If we assume 8 hour work days, it results in over two weeks.
> > > > > No one install 1500 apps on a machine.
> > > > > No one *need* 1500 apps on a machine.
> > > >
> > > > I have 1,177 on my PowerBook.
> > >
> > > 1,117?
> > > Doing what?
> >
> > Rephrase your question?
> >
> > Generally they launch when I tell them to, do what I want them to do,
> > ad
> > quit when I am done with them - to be realistic some are far more
> > popular than others, but they are there nonetheless. The top few might
> > be:
> >
> > Eudora
> > CodeWarrior
> > Internet Explorer
> > MT-NewsWatcher
> > MPW Shell
> > Photoshop
> > Excel
> > Word
> > Sherlock
> > SoundJam
> > AOL instant messenger
> >
> > less frequently run ones might be things like an animated GIF builder,
> > an anagram generator, an old sound synthesis program, serial port
> > tracing tools, TCP/IP network admin tools, telnet, etc.. you never know
> > what challenges each day will bring.
> >
> > The poster claimed that having 1500 apps would be a burden due to total
> > installation time. Here is a data point showing that this need not be
> > the case. I've probably only done 10 or 15 full blown CDROM installs
> > since June on this laptop, the rest of my stuff came from the old
> > system's hard drive or from net downloads.
>
> How long did it take you to accumulate and install all 1117 apps
> INCLUDING the ones you copied from the old hard drive...
>
> Aggregate time is in WEEKS.
>
> I can go from no OS installed to equivalent functionality in
> only 2 hours with Linux.
I agree here. This is a collection spanning years, and it's been
moved through five or six different machines from a MacII to a
PowerBook-G3..
To be fair, many of these apps took *seconds* to install when I first
found them - I dragged a copy off of a server or hit a link to FTP it,
no CDROM or InstallShield juggling in sight.
I wasn't picking on Linux - I was picking on Windows. Ask the
typical Windows user to drag a folder full of apps from one machine to
another and they usually turn green because they know it's a long shot
that any of them will still work.
I have to wonder how many people have machines that they are afraid
to retire or shut down, simply because they have apps "installed" on
them that they don't know how to move to their new gear.
"Go back to the original media!!".... hmmm what if it was a net
download and the installer got thrown away ?
Thumbs up for apps which are self contained and pleasantly move from
one environment to the next. What good is having 75,000 apps on your
platform if you can't take them with you when you change machines?
Rob
------------------------------
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:35:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>[snip]
>| Boy, you are an odd poster, aren't you? You seem to be arguing that OSS
>| is bad, in principle,
>
>Not all software can be developed profitably as OSS.
>
I don't think the intention of the OSS was to
attempt to make a profit at developing such
dribble as more Word Processors, Spreadsheets, ect.
If anything the GNU/GPL will force the developers
at comming up with NEW material. Not the
same old crap, over and over again.
>Linux is an OS. Perfect for the open source model. The entire Linux
>community use Linux including businesses and companies. One is
>guaranteed that Linux will continue to be developed. There'll always be
>those who will contribute.
>
This is true. The entire nature of software development
will change over time. Gone will be the big software
powerhouses which screw millions of people with
copyrights on CD's. In come in it's place the decentralized
development model. For programmers it will be a boom
as every business will want to have software developed
under Linux for their uses. And that software
will HAVE TO BE GPL'ed.
So we will return to the business of service and
leave the business of screwing people.
>What about applications that have a niche audience or userbase. Even
>worse, niche applications that require a lot of coding and a requirement
>for not much tech support or recreational apps. Games come immediately
>to mind. How will that market survive in an OSS setting. Yes, you'll
>have the game here and there, but not the booming market that exists in
>the commercial arena.
>
Niche applications require a lot of development under Windows
today. There is no generic NET interface which fits'
all companies.
>Take graphics editing software for instance. What is there for Linux?
>Which OSS efforts are underway .... The Gimp .... what else?
>
The GIMP is but one. There will be others
aside from Star Office and Applix.
There will have to be as Linux is slowly winning
this war with Windows for the global market.
As more people come on board the GNU/GPL skeme
of doing business things will become better.
But don't forget. Windows has no built in
graphics editor. Other people produced that.
And in that frame of mind, the GNU is ahead
of Microsoft.
>| but that the existence of a monopoly is sortof
>| neutral. Is that it?
>
Yet another interesting point. Microsoft has
been convicted of being a Monopoly.
Linux some day might actually gain the same
status.
The difference is they can't BREAK up LINUX
as there's nothing to grab a hold of to control.
Linux is produced by just thousands of groups
world wide. It's not just one company throwing
it's weight around.
So when Linux wins the war there will be little
anybody can do about it.
And Linux will remain in domination for longer
than I'll be alive.
That's why you keep seeing people reference
Linux as the "GHOST INSIDE".
>No. That's not it at all. I *am* against monopolies. I have always been.
>MS is guilty of monopolistic practises to further their monopoly. I have
>no argument with that.
>
That's true and it's because Microsoft is a CORPORATION.
Linux will eventually do the SAME THING but it
will be on a cooperative rather than adversarial
basis.
See, people won't loose a price status or be
strongarmed into special deals as the software
is freely available from just about anywhere.
If one company tries to get RUFF, you can go
to your choice of a dozen or more places to get it.
But it's still going to be Linux.
>Every commercial software vendor wishes to make a profit. They wish to
>do so by selling their software and they will only sell if they please
>their customers ... unless they are a monopoly. Therefore, they make
>their software attractive to their customers and then they make their
>profit which is their ultimate selfish aim, just as MS's selfish aim is
>to continue making a profit through their monopoly. They need to
>'nurture' this monopoly for it to continue or they can smugly feel it
>will continue no matter what they do and do any crap they like with
>their software. They can do the 'nurturing' in two ways. Either through
>cutsy fluff that will dazzle the passing ignorant user, or offering
>genuinely useful features that takes some effort and thought to
>implement. I disagree with you that the latter phenomenon never takes
>place in Windows development. In fact *both* take place.
>
>Win2k is a great improvement to me over NT. You may not find these
>improvements useful to *you*, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful
>to anyone else. Linux is certainly not the holy grail for my purposes
>because if it was you'd see how fast I'd have migrated. A lot of our
>discussion has been about my not really choosing my OS and your feeling
>that I was suckered. What do my disagreements on this have to do with
>being neutral or otherwise about monopolies. Also, if I were to use
>Linux, would I have made a choice then? If yes, why do you say that?
>
>Finally, Ayende brings up the fact that MS supporting his language is a
>good thing. Your retort was that it was not done with good or profitable
>intention but only to further their monopoly. I disagreed with that
>point. What does that have to do with my having neutral feelings about
>monopolies? The fact that I disagree with your point that a particular
>thing that MS does is to further its monopoly makes me support the
>existence of monopolies? Come on T. Max, that's a grossly unfair
>assessment.
>
>--
>Curtis
>
>| ,__o
>!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
><(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
Microsoft is a dying company as nothing seems
to be stopping Linux growth. Microsoft's 1% growth
is just dwarfed by Linux's comparable 47% growth.
You would THINK that if Microsoft were so great
and had such a strong hold that this growth would
eventually come to an end.
I've been wondering about that for 4-5 years now.
And so far, it just seems to be building steam.
People keep writing on COLA why they think
Microsoft whips Linux's ass.
Then why on earth has IBM and Dell and Compaq
so interested in selling the product?
Is there a problem with other people thinking
Windows sucks? Do they not understand Windows
has a major problem in the quality and cost
departments?
I find mainly 3 types of Windows trolls here
on Cola. You have the kid who's worried about
his video game not being supported anymore.
You have the computer programmer whining about
how the GNU/GPL will starve his family. Then
you have the Microsoft investor.
And generally is your not in one of these 3
groups your probably not on Cola being
a WINTROLL.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:36:35 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:903l4f$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> About the documents, I can read documents made in office 97 or 2000 with
> Word 6.
> File > Save As > Word 6.0
> No problems there.
How do you do that when you only have word 6.0 and an office 97 document?
And please don't tell me about the conversion program that was released
much later.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:38:33 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90417r$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > Only if you never need to exchange a file with anyone else.
>
> But I do, and I never had a problem with it.
> For crying out loud, *Wordpad* can handle word 6 documents.
> And StarOffice has better be able to handle word 6 documents.
> So, why wouldn't I be able to exchange files?
What is it about the Microsoft mentality that makes it impossible to
understand that 'exchange' is a bi-directional process?
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:41:34 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:903865$376c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > > A> When I buy a computer, I don't go to major vendor. On general, I
> rather
> > > build my computers per my needs. Vednor system has much quircks that I
> > don't
> > > like. Therefor, I don't have a problem here.
> >
> > What do you do when you need a hundred at once, delivered to some other
> > office? Or even a few dozen rack-mount systems?
>
> "Hello, it's me again. I need computer with the following specs. Can I've
> them by next week? Yes, I knew I could, thank you very much. And please
> arange that they would be delivered to this adress. Nice talking to you"
You are dreaming. Try it for real.
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:43:28 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:903jsn$568q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > As usual you are avoiding reality. Do you dictate to everyone else in
> your
> > office and your clients and customers how they are allowed to
communicate
> > with you, or do you do what you are forced to do and accommodate them?
>
> I dictate them to use a file format which I can use.
And just how many clients and customers have gone along with your demands?
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:45:20 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:903jsi$568q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >
> > No, I want them to stop monopolizing. That doesn't mean they have to
> > lose market share (though its practically guaranteed in a free market
> > that one producer won't have such a dominant market share, which is the
> > whole point of a free market), but that's their problem. All I want
> > them to do is obey the law and act competitively, rather than
> > anti-competitively, which is illegal when you have large market share,
> > and stupid when you don't.
>
> Can you list actions of illegal behaviour on the side of MS in the last
> couple of years?
Why don't you just look up the trial records and court decision yourself?
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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:50:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) posted:
>
>| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>| >"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.
>|
>| Microsoft parted company with IBM. IBM didn't even get their
>| windows license until the eve of the launch.
>|
>| curtis - are you turfing, by any chance?
>
>Yes, I am.
>
>--
>Curtis
>
>| ,__o
>!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
><(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
IBM could have had OS/2 go on for years but they
CHOSE to pull out.
IBM realized a frightening thing.
People who didn't work for IBM were writing
software for PC's and some of those people
were writing GNU/GPL'ed software.
And it grew from there.
But IBM has more bucks to spend than Microsoft does.
Comparing IBM to Microsoft is like comparing
Boeing to the Cessna company for Aircraft.
Both are sucessful in their respective fields.
But it's absolutely assine for Boeing to make
a private plane to seat 4 people and even
crazier for Cessna to make their version
of a jumbo jet.
That would probably put the two companies
in a perspective that people could understand.
Another way to demonstrate this would be
the simple example that Microsoft doesn't
manufacture mainframe computers like IBM
does. They haven't been in the business
since the 40's selling to business's like
IBM has. And they haven't written 27
distinct operating systems since the
50's like IBM has.
So IBM could have kept OS/2 going.
They chose not to because they knew
Linux would win at or around 1997.
It wasn't worth the trouble for them
to continue on with a loosing battle.
Rather than fight they joined Linux.
But they are not exactly enemies
of Microsoft either. Despite what
people think.
They just want to stay on the side
of the winner as they want to
remain popular with business's.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:53:49 +1300
> >"You must buy the latest version of AIX, or you can't have the machine"
> >should also be illegal.
>
> IBM has a worthwhile (as opposed to "facially plausible") reason to
> support only their newest hardware systems with their newest OS release,
> and screw anyone who doesn't want to keep up.
Of course, if the customer requested the machine with no operating
system, I don't see any reason IBM should be required to support anything
beyond hardware faults and issues. If the customer chooses not to buy
the complete package, they should have that right is all I meant to say.
If part of that right includes giving up IBM support, the customer should
be made aware of it, and then be given what he asks for.
> >I can't help but notice that a lot of places wanted to charge me for
> >Win9x/NT even when I asked for it to not be included... Our supplier
> >doesn't even have an option on their website for "No operating system".
> >We have to select one and put a note on the order and manually
> >recalculate the price.
>
> If you publish those prices, you may well be causing some sort of
> contract violation for someone. Please, by all means, post them.
Can you elaborate on this a bit? What kind of contract could be violated
by me posting unofficial prices?
I could say that every time we choose Win98 and remove it, the price of
the PC drops by about NZ$80-90...
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:57:00 +1300
> >turfing?
> >How does grass has to do with computers?
> >
> If you have to defend microsoft, I imagine its probably essential.
Yes, when I have to use an MS OS, I like to smoke a bit of the old grass
beforehand to ease my pain...
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: 30 Nov 2000 01:56:16 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And... if I bought a system for Linux, what will I find. Oh look! Windows
: will run on it!
Please describe how to get Windows to run on any of the following
machines:
1 - A Sun Sparc workstation.
2 - A Macintosh PPC-based machine.
3 - An IBM AS/400.
...etc...
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:02:20 +1300
> > Fucking fanatic.
>
> Don't you find it boring to be so predictable?
No, I find it boring reading a humourless reply to an obvious joke.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:05:01 +1300
> Again. Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.
Well, when you consider that I get paid at my job, and I spend a portion
of my time at work learning about linux (to do my job better), I would
say that linux, as well as not costing me a thing, has actually earnt me
money for the 'training' I've done. And it was most enjoyable...
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 15:06:21 +1300
> > Or did you mean commercial third party addons for NT that allowed telnet?
> > MS's one never appeared to make it out of beta until 2k.
>
> No the resource kit has had a telnet server for years.
So what was the reason for the beta of the MS telnet server we tried for
NT4?
IOW: if they already had a stable working version, why was ours only
available in beta?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
