Linux-Advocacy Digest #604, Volume #30 Sat, 2 Dec 00 10:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: A Tholen exodus! ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 14:31:46 GMT
In article <sw2W5.4733$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
>> We have good support with MF and we pay a high
>> fee. They don't know what to say.
>
>Who is MF?
>
>If you pay such a high fee, then sue 'em! If they don't help you fix the
>problem what are you paying them for?
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
MF is of course the british company Micro Focus.
I thought you would at least know that.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 14:37:11 GMT
In article <K43W5.686$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> According to trial testimony, IBM was threatened by MS in that if IBM
>> >> didn't stop promoting OS2 (or was it LotusNotes, I can't remember)
>> >> they would have to pay retail for each copy of Windows 95. Where it is
>> >> estimated that most OEMs were paying $35-$40/license, IBM would have
>> >> to shell out almost $200 at the time placing it's PC business at a
>> >> severe competitive disadvantage.
>> >
>> >I believe that this was actually in regards to the millions of dollars
>IBM
>> >owned MS in back Windows 3.1 licenses, not OS/2.
>>
>> You are correct in that this is the reason MS claimed in order to
>> withold the new licensing until the matter of royalties was cleared.
>> However, according to the testimony, MS was willing to "forgo" the
>> audit provided that IBM stopped their promotion of products that
>> competed with MS. In a side note, MS also lost millions in royalties
>> on this delay, possibly far more than the disputed amount.
>>
>> This is a great source of debate with the pro-MS group stating that MS
>> was standing for principle and what not, and the Anti-MS group stating
>> that it was akin to extortion. The judge decided that MS was acting
>> uncompetitively.
>
>IBM was negotiating a new contract. Typically, when one negotiates a new
>contract, one looks at past performance. IBM apparently didn't pay it's
>bills, thus MS wanted compensation before agreeing to a new contract.
>
>Principles didn't even come into the matter. MS wanted to be compensated
>for the licenses they had lost payment on. Allowing IBM to "get away" with
>not paying their licenses would have made it difficult for MS to enforce
>licenses on anyone else.
>
>Further, the judge made no ruling that the testimony you mentioned was
>uncompetitive behavior. Lots of things were testified about at the trial.
>An overall ruling does not mean that everything that was testified was
>uncompetitive behavior, just that there was enough evidence for the judge to
>believe that uncompetitive behavior went on.
>
>> >Windows 95 came out in August of 95. No way did it take IBM 4 months to
>get
>> >machines out the door. Hell, it'd surprise me if it took more than 2
>weeks.
>> >Most colleges don't start until late september or early october.
>> >
>> My college started the third Monday in August that year. And you may
>> not recall Win95 required greater system resources (hardware) that
>> would have to be ordered. IBM could not just place an order the next
>> day for lets say, 1,000,000 RAM chips, 100,000 hard drives, specific
>> motherboards. and have them ship overnight. These products had to be
>> manufactured, and other OEMs had priority because they ordered first
>> because they had their license already.
>
>IBM was well aware of Windows 95 and it's system resources as much as a year
>ahead of time. They didn't need their signed licenses to order stock,
>especially since OS/2 required similar resources.
>
This this is another way of proving that Microsoft is doomed.
Charlie
------------------------------
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: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 14:39:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:16:28
> [...]
>>> I could write, say, a wave editor, and sell it, posting the
>>> code for anyone who wants it, with a GPL license. Some people
>>> might want to buy the software so they can call me to get help.
>>
>>Most people, however, would opt to the free choice, which is the get the
>>source and compile it, and then use it.
>
>That is irrelevant. The question is how many people would, and how much
>they are willing to pay.
>
>>All of this without you seeing a penny.
>
>You are aware that in business, you generally make the product first,
>and then sell it? It's not you've got to set up a special production
>line for this or that particular piece of code.
>
>>Not to mention that someone else might take your application, make some
>>minor changes, and sell it, profiting from *your* work.
>
>No, they'd be profiting from their work. Admittedly, its not much work,
>taking an application (did you pick the right one, or the best code
>base, or the correct set of features?), making minor changes to it
>(knowing how to avoid changes which will have far-reaching major
>ramifications, understanding the codebase enough not to introduce bugs,
>ensuring the changes are attractive to the marketplace), and selling it
>(finding the customer, knowing their price-point, engaging in commerce,
>delivering the goods), but, then, if he can do it better than you can,
>doesn't he *deserve* to earn a profit on it? Obviously, he couldn't
>earn very much profit, since he hasn't the ability to actually *support*
>the product. But, then again, if his minor changes turn out to be
>popular, guess who just benefitted from a little competition and learned
>how to improve their product without a dime in market research?
>
>>And if you design your application well, people won't *need* to call you for
>>help.
>
>Yes, indeed, the great paradox of commercial software. I'd rather see a
>million programmers fighting with dogs over scraps in an underpass than
>fat, dumb, and happy monopolists continuing to extract exorbitant
>profits from goods who's only value is the artificial barriers they
>build to prevent consumers from controlling their own computers.
>
>--
>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! =-----
The GNU/GPL arrangement will eventually ASSURE the removal
of overly redundant applications - competing - forever.
The world of software for the future will be dynamic!
It will come from the minds of true geniuses!
It will not come from the collections of public utilities
we have today which are thought of as software competitors!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 14:55:13 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Giuliano Colla wrote:
> > >
> > > He had also mentioned avoiding Trojans. Most of the stuff there is just
> > > intended for that purpose.
> >
> > I meant for Trojans and port 139 exploits to be treated as different.
> >
> > To lock down any system, Win or *nix, a hell of a lot of steps have
> > to be taken. Maybe a few more for Win, especially Server. The
> > end result is a machine no one can use very well. And often the
> > quickest cut to this Gordian knot is "social engineering".... calling
> > some poor dumb peon and eliciting information from him or her.
>
> Not that many steps, actually.
> It goes like this:
> Shut down the machine.
> Uplug power cables.
> Open the case.
> Remove all network or modem cards.
> Close the case.
> Plug power cables.
> Bott the machine.
>
> 7 steps method, and you're 100% safe from hacking attempts.
> You've my word on it that no other method is that easy, or that successful.
> :)
You forgot a few of steps!
Disconnect data and power cables from floppy.
Disconnect data and power cables from CD-ROM
Boot and install password on BIOS
Now the only way to install software is using DEBUG <grin>.
By the way, I read that the NT/2000 Resource Kits are just loaded
with hacking tools.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 Tholen exodus!
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 14:56:40 GMT
Oy, he's back, and we thought it was safe to read this group! Tholen
tholes:
> > Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
>
> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
Incorrect; not all computers have a power switch; the power switch is
neither a necessary nor sufficient identifying factor; and the power switch
can be turned off, unlike some guy in Hawaii who apparently "teaches" at the
UofH when it comes to posting.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:55:06 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:45:55
> >The rule is to put machine settings in HKLM, and user setting, in HKCU.
>
> In a desktop PC environment, such a distinction is an arbitrary one. MS
> should have a better method of doing things, so that these kinds of
> problems don't come up. As Giuliano pointed out, an OS is supposed to
> be *designed*, not merely *piled up*.
No, it isn't.
In a desktop PC using single user OS, this distinction is an arbitrary one,
and indeed, in win9x, it doesn't matter.
Which is what I'm complaining about.
Because when you move an application writen mainly for win9x, as my dailer
is, you encounter many troubles with it. Because now, in a multi-user OS,
this is no longer an arbitry distnction.
As a rule, you should put your user spesifics settings in HKCU, and machine
settings in HKLM.
I'm sure you can understand why.
That the application put user spesific settings in HKLM means that it was
badly designed, not that the OS is badly designed.
I tried to give some examples for this, but have failed to give a good
example.
Now I've found it.
Do you consider unix/linux to be a good OS?
Do you consider Netscape 6 to be a good browser?
Apperantly, it suffers from exactly the same problem.
Netscape 6 require /usr/local/netscape to have read/write to *all* users.
Since it stores *user spesifics* settings in there, instead of storing them
in /home/<user>/netsacpe
By your own statements, then:
> You keep missing the point, I think. So I'll make it plain. Yes, it is
> the applications fault when this kind of bug happens. It is Microsoft's
> fault for letting it happen; OSes are supposed to support apps, not trip
> them up because they didn't follow "conventions".
It's linux/unix fault for letting it happens.
> >On the 9x line it would work, (you lost the ability to support multi
users
> >unless you build it up yourself, though) , but on NT it breaks the
programs.
> >Is this the OS fault?
Just as a note, if you want to get Designed for Windows logo, you must store
user spesifics settings in HKCU, never mind if you application is targeted
to 9x or NT.
9x applications that does this are violating rules of writing software to
windows.
> Yes, of course it is. Why do you ask?
So it's linux fault that Netscape doesn't work well unless you run as root?
How interesting.
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 14:45:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lack of adequate Cobol compiler for Linux.
>
Surely some sad bastard has ported one?
> And we'd also have to mate up the FEP system
> and get our other vendor involved.
>
> But it could be done.
>
> Or they could choose FreeBSD possibly.
>
> Recently MF came out with a Linux compatible
> Cobol compiler but it's nothing compared
> to NET EXPRESS which has features
> necessary to make this a reality.
>
> But the BIG thing is the Cobol compiler.
>
I had one other question that I forgot to ask:
What did Microsoft PSS say about your problem? I'm not talking about
the guys who ask you whether you've got the power plugged in, I'm
talking about the guys who charge you about $150US (from memory) and
who can escalate up to the developers, who have access to the source.
We're had very good response from the Australian PSS group(when I was
based in New Zealand), and they don't close the call without your
permission, and that's quite often how hotfixes are generated.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 15:00:45 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > How can you make money by owning copyright wrapped in a trade secret?
> Are
> > > you talking about licensing software instead of selling it?
> >
> > As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent you from
> > selling GPL software. Linux vendors do it all the time.
> > I buy those products for the convenience of the bundling and all
> > the work that went into adding scripts to make configuration
> > and installation simpler.
>
> You can sell a copy for anything you want, but if it is GPL'd you
> can't prevent your customer from putting copies in a prettier
> box and undercutting your price.
>
Such as what Mandrake did (at first) to RedHat.
Or even putting them in no box, like those flaky CheapBytes disks.
Chris
--
Are you sure you want to read this message?
Click Okay to continue, and Cancel to okay
this dialog.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:10:38 +1300
The two commercial version of UNIX for x86 are, Sco Unix and Solaris,
both are great as a Server, however, as a desktop or workstation OS for
x86 they are shit in the area of hardware support, and like previous
posts, if I could use Solaris 8 x86 on my hardware, I would, however, I
can't since it does not support my soundcard, video card and has very
limited range of software compared to the Sparc counterpart. Also,
prior to getting Solaris, SCO was running the "free for non-commercial
use" give-away, I would have gone for it, however, it lacked majorly in
the area of hardware and software support.
kiwiunixman
JoeX1029 wrote:
>> Right now, RedHat would be best to concentrate on the Intel/AMD market,
>> as the Sparc machines ALREADY HAVE a unix operating system on them.
>
>
> Are you implying that x86 dosent have UNIX?
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:22:42 +1300
The Airbus (with is the British Aeroplane Company) company works in
conjunction with the French aerospace company, Aerospateal (I don't
remember the proper french spelling), it is quite a completed
"collaberation", but basically, on their where it's made tag, its made
in the EEC, so parts are made all around Europe.
kiwiunixman
Ilja Booij wrote:
> kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> And another parallel:
> M$ software is made in Redmond, Boeing planes in Seattle
>
> Airbus planes are are made all over Europe, and assembled in eh,
> Toulouse i think. you can see the metaphore i guess
>
> Ilja
>
>
>
>> Airbus Aircraft have much nicer sets as well, on the boeing 737's it
>> feeling like ya wedged between two brick walls. :)
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>>
>> Bennetts family wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1. Comparison: Windows is like a Concord, is has been riding high for a
>>>> long time then it will crash and burn in a big heap as it's viability is
>>>> reduced by better, more well designed aircrafts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Windows being a Concorde implies that it goes incredibly fast and high for
>>> ~25 years, despite being horrendously expensive, before secumming to a piece
>>> of metal that fell off another plane. That last bit seems accurate ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. Comparison: I see Microsoft like Boeing, it has been the major
>>>> producer of large, commercial airliners, Linux is like the Airbus,
>>>> although in the past, only a small number of airlines bought their
>>>> aircrafts, however, they have gained some very lucrative contracts with
>>>> airlines such as Qantus recently.
>>>
>>>
>>> No doubt you've noticed that both M$ and Boeing are based in the general
>>> vicinity of Seattle. Coincidence? I think not...
>>>
>>> --Chris
>>>
>>>
>>
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 02:31:37 +1300
When comparing Linux, to say, a commercial UNIX such as Solaris or IRIX,
it is very disjointed, and un-professionally (mainly due to the, "how
many packages can we fit in a CD" syndrom many distributors have when
designing a distro) intergrated applications that donot communicate the
best. However, with that said, I am willing to put up with these little
nagging things until I get either a SUN machine or SGI machine. However,
in the future, (hopefully :)) the distro's will make more of an effort
to ensure not only compatibility, but complete application-OS
intergration is made when designing a distro, whats the point of having
1500 packages, consisting of 5 editing tools, and each has it's only
problem, hopefully, distro's will combine the source code of all five
and create on complete editor, making life simpler for the user.
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 19:39:49 +1300, kiwiunixman
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> I always feel sorry for the underdog in any industry, it's like the
>
>
> A lot of people feel sorry for Linux, especially after trying it.
>
> claire
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:00:59 +1300
I have never bashed my computer (because of the damage I may do) so
instead I play the piano to relieve the stress, either scales, or a
Beethoven or Tchaikovsky (March Slave, a good, keyboard "emphasising
piece") piece, and if that fails, meditation.
kiwiunixman
Les Mikesell wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> If you left me in a room and told me to programme, all you would hear
>> would be, "bullshit, there are no errors", "year, bloody right, what
>> ever ya piece of shit" for the next couple of hours, the computer will
>> always come out second best when I get so pissed off I must release my
>> anger on it!
>
>
> That's the way I feel when I have to do something by hand that the
> computer should be doing for me - especially if it involves mouse-clicking
> through a dozen tabbed forms where you can't see everything at once
> or do a simple search or global change through everything.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
