Linux-Advocacy Digest #69, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Feb 01 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Please explain this to me. ("Martigan")
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (Ray Chason)
Re: The Wintrolls (Ray Chason)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Cerberus AOD)
Re: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison ("Adam Warner")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (J Sloan)
Re: NTFS Limitations ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Cerberus AOD)
Re: The Wintrolls ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Wintrolls ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Please explain this to me.
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:13:35 GMT
Well as I see when RH and others did their IPO's the prices sky
rocketed, like the .COM's. But these flaky ass investors are wanting
immediate returns. I know the stock market is a money game, that's all it
is. People want money NOW! This is why it is hard for me to understand why
people worry so much about it. So what is RH and some others go DOWN. Her
is a reality bite...They are still all based on Open Source!...So quit
bitching about the prices and investors not getting the returns they want.
Hell the should start to realize the Evolution takes years or even months,
not days. I happen to like the idea of keeping Linux open source-free. You
know why?
Simple, as soon as you commit your all your money into a product and ask
the consumer to pay...say $100, then you are bound to make that product to
their likening. Hence you will get computerly challenged idiots, "why do I
have to pay for it?", mainstream users that will determine your income.
There for causing YOU to do what ever they want, so you can keep making
money! Hence Microsoft only did what the money holders wanted, but they
also made the people love an 80% operational, over bloated(so anyhardware
can be used), when will it stay up- OS.
In all this nonsense, I guess what I wanna say is, leave Linux like it
is, I don't care if I have to Dig for Info to get my hardware too work. I'd
rather have a some what generalized OS that 'I' can tweak, then forced one
that appeals to the masses, even the idiots that don't deserve a computer!
My Grammar sucks, and my spelling...prolly one thing I can't blame M$
for. ;-P
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:25:11 -0000
"Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm sure I'm just a knucklehead but I don't get the way focus is handled in
>linux GUIs. For example, PAN for one, when you setup the properties
>focus defaults to the OK button instead of to the first edit box on the
>dialog. I've noticed this in many GUIs in linux. However just as common is
>that you get no focus what so ever and you have to explicitly click your
>mouse on the field that you want to edit (posting a new article in PAN is
>another example - you can't even tab to put focus - grrrr). This is just a
>pain to go back and forth from the mouse. GUI navigation in linux, in general,
>just doens't feel very intuitive.
>
>Another weird thing is sometime when you click in an edit box and move
>your mouse of of the way to type, nothing happens. I noticed that you
>have adjust your mouse with just the right proximity to the edit box in
>order to type in it. Netscape is real bad about this.
What window manager are you using? Older window managers tend to take
away the focus when the mouse moves away. KWM (which ships with KDE)
is very Windows-like. Enlightenment (older GNOMEs) can be configured
either way. Can't speak for Sawmill (newer GNOMEs), I'm afraid.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:28:35 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 07:28:26 -0000, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <dDEf6.29252$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But I don't hate Linux!
>>>
>>>Sometimes you seem to, other times you don't.
>>
>>Pete, I think, is offering reasonable criticism (unlike flatfoot, who's
>>just a Winshill). Linux can't improve if we all pretend it's God's
>>gift to computing.
>
> No, thinking that Microsoft is god's gift to computing is
> actually far more dangerous. Indulging in the linux variant
> is far less dangerous. Linux is not quite so tightly defined
> as "Windows" or "Mac".
Perhaps so, but Linux isn't perfect, and it won't become so if we
pretend it is. God has made no gift to computing, other than some
gifted programmers.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cerberus AOD)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:48:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By that definition, only MS-DOS would make for a "consumer OS"
At least 50% of all computers I've done anything with have had problems. From
simple IRQ and DMA troubles, to people who "think they know" trying to use
bus-mastering devices in the wrong slots, to onboard video and the real video
card having conflicts, improper jumper settings, wrong drivers, etc.
What you are asking for is something that currently requires proprietary
hardware. In a few decades it might not, though...
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 04:08:27 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, G3, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karel Jansens at
:)>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/7/01 6:20 PM:
:)>
:)>>>> 90% of the PC market.
:)>>>
:)>>> That's a stupid definition.
:)>>
:)>> Not even that.
:)>
:)>Um 90% of the PERSONAL COMPUTER market is most assuredly CONSUMERS they are
:)>very much varied, from people who know a LOT about what they're buying to
:)>people who have never used a MOUSE before.
:)>
:)>Until ALL of those people can open a shrink wrapped copy of linux and
:)>install it with AT MOST 10% of them having ANY problems then it is not a
:)>consumer OS. Currently at least 50% WOULD have problems.
:)>
:)>-G3
==================
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:45:26 GMT
Thanks J Sloan,
> Telnet to port 80 and type, for instance:
>
> HEAD / HTTP/1.0
>
> and 2 carriage returns.
Cool it worked, thanks (I needed to use the right port number).
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:57:54 -0600
"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001 13:57:21 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> 2. By controlling the specification of .NET, MS puts itself in a
> >> >> position to squeeze out competing platforms that it doesn't like.
> >> >> Again, this is exactly what MS claims about Java, that by
controlling
> >> >> the standard Sun is using it as a weapon against MS. That MS has
got
> >> >> ECMA to rubber-stamp their spec means little, and I think you know
it.
> >> >> What's really different here?
> >> >
> >> >If it means so little, why did Sun refuse to let ECMA "rubber stamp"
> >Java?
> >>
> >> Why isn't MS submitting the CLR to ECMA?
> >
> >Well, I don't know if they will or not. Clearly they can't submit it yet
> >because it's not done yet, DUH! C# and the CLI are quite finalized.
>
> I see, the CLR spec isn't done but the CLI's is? That doesn't jive
> with your the "CLR is just a implementation of the CLI" misinformation
> now does it?
The R in CLR is "Runtime". The spec for the CLR is the CLI, so again. DUH!
The spec for the CLR *IS* done, and it's been submitted to the ECMA.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:50:10 GMT
Ray Chason wrote:
> "Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Another weird thing is sometime when you click in an edit box and move
> >your mouse of of the way to type, nothing happens. I noticed that you
> >have adjust your mouse with just the right proximity to the edit box in
> >order to type in it. Netscape is real bad about this.
>
> What window manager are you using? Older window managers tend to take
> away the focus when the mouse moves away. KWM (which ships with KDE)
> is very Windows-like. Enlightenment (older GNOMEs) can be configured
> either way. Can't speak for Sawmill (newer GNOMEs), I'm afraid.
kwm, sawmill, blackbox, icewm and even fvwm can all
be adjusted to "click to focus", "focus follows mouse",
or "sloppy focus", and also whether a window is auto
raised, and the amount of autoraise delay.
It's been a Unix feature for quite a few years.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 01:41:06 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95v04j$lvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> : news:95sg5o$158s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>
> :> : I didn't say it wouldn't. The failure of WORA was not Java's
failure,
> : but
> :> : rather Sun's refusal to relinquish control enough to allow
> : standardization
> :> : and to implement what needed to be implemented and their constant
> : promising
> :> : of things they couldn't deliver in a timely fasion.
> :>
> :> So let me see if I understand your "logic" here: You think
write-once-run-
> :> anywhere would have worked better if Sun had let Microsoft make its
> :> proprietary Windows-only extensions?
>
> : No, I said nothing about the viability of WORA. I simply said that Java
has
> : failed (no, it's not dead, but it's failed to take over the market it
tried
> : to) because of Sun, not because of WORA.
>
> You said it was because Sun didn't relinquish control. You appear to
> be ignorant of the fact (or are deliberately lying) that the REASON
> Sun wouldn't release that control is because it would have destroyed WORA.
Why do you keep trying "interpret" what I say into what you want me to have
said?
I said it failed because of many reasons, all of them being related to Sun's
management.
1) They promised to make Java an international standard. They lied. This
isn't some marketing blunder (promising what they can't technically
deliver), it's a flat out screwing their customers that took them at their
word.
2) They failed to commit enough resources to Java to make it anything more
than a toy for serveral years, and then when they finally got help from
companies like IBM and ORACLE, they stabbed them in the back (see #1)
3) They made a very public spectacle of cutting off the hands of the thief
(MS), further enforcing the idea that they will never relinquish control of
Java by even an iota. They cut off their nose to spite their face.
4) They failed to provide interoperability between traditional environments
until it was too late.
5) They refused to sanction other languages on the JVM.
6) It took them 4 years to come out with a decent JIT (HotSpot).
And many more...
> : WORA isn't as big of an issue as
> : one might think. Yeah, it's annoying to have to work around bugs in
> : different VM's, but it's not the end of the world.
>
> Deliberate incompatabilities, placed there by DESIGN, are not "bugs". It
> is precisely these incompatabilities introduced by MS that Sun was
> pissed-off about, and that's why the suit was brought up.
I was talking about JVM's from companies like Symantec, Netscape, IBM,
etc...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cerberus AOD)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:41:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 08 Feb 2001 03:58:36 GMT, in my rec.games.frp.dnd coffee mug, which was
quite moldy, G3, a dying weevil, wrote the following with his antennae:
:)>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:)>wrote on 2/7/01 7:22 PM:
:)>
:)>>> Um if windows 95,98,and 2k all find hardware that red hat and derivatives
:)>>> don't it is the OS fault if I have to reconfigure perfectly working hardware
:)>>> configs to get linux to see them.
:)>>
:)>> Doesn't matter. If the current configuration of the device prevents an
:)>> OS from recognizing it, and the device would be recognized if it were
:)>> configured differently, then all it says is that the device is
:)>> incorrectly configured for the OS that doesn't recognize it. It
:)>> doesn't matter if other OS's recognize it or not. The device is still
:)>> incorrectly configured for that OS. Thus it is not the fault of the
:)>> OS.
:)>>
:)>> Josh
:)>
:)>Bringing this back to the consumer, who should have to touch hardware what
:)>it in fact says is:
:)>"Windows 2000 works. Redhat 6 doesn't."
And I've found Windows to be just as bad. Just depends on the exact hardware.
There is no unix-like OS even close to being useful for the average consumer,
but your windows there only works right because it is the big boy. More people
use it, so more people want hardware support, so it gets more. Jumper settings
and special drive settings are just as much of a bitch in any OS. If jumper
settings are correct, and everything is in as compatible a mode as possible, the
OS should go in fine. Then you tell it what you have, or let it find it (or
both), and then start messing around.
And putting on any new OS, it often helps to start w/ a barebones
default-as-can-be system (generic S3ViRGE 4mb, SB16/Awe32, etc.)
:)>-G3!
==================
Cerberus AOD / A Paper Cut ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
ICQ UIN: 8878412 (take out SCREWTHESPAM to mail me, okay?)
"Children of tomorrow live in the tears that fall today"
-Children of the Grave, Black Sabbath
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: 9 Feb 2001 07:38:37 GMT
J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >
>> > > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
>> > >
>> > > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video
>> card
>> > > problem.
>> >
>> > Eh?
>> >
>> > So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
>> > earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
>>
>> Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
>> their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
> hmm, isn't it something like:
> xmkmf -a
> make
> <wait a while>
> make install
> ???
>> SRPMS are not that common.
> For every RPM, there is a corresponding SRPM.
Again, eric has no idea what hes talking about.
Seriously eric, run linux for a while before you bitch about it.
Its quite clear that you never have.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: 9 Feb 2001 07:36:37 GMT
Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm sure I'm just a knucklehead but I don't get the way focus is handled in
>>linux GUIs. For example, PAN for one, when you setup the properties
>>focus defaults to the OK button instead of to the first edit box on the
>>dialog. I've noticed this in many GUIs in linux. However just as common is
>>that you get no focus what so ever and you have to explicitly click your
>>mouse on the field that you want to edit (posting a new article in PAN is
>>another example - you can't even tab to put focus - grrrr). This is just a
>>pain to go back and forth from the mouse. GUI navigation in linux, in general,
>>just doens't feel very intuitive.
>>
>>Another weird thing is sometime when you click in an edit box and move
>>your mouse of of the way to type, nothing happens. I noticed that you
>>have adjust your mouse with just the right proximity to the edit box in
>>order to type in it. Netscape is real bad about this.
> What window manager are you using? Older window managers tend to take
> away the focus when the mouse moves away. KWM (which ships with KDE)
> is very Windows-like. Enlightenment (older GNOMEs) can be configured
> either way. Can't speak for Sawmill (newer GNOMEs), I'm afraid.
All window managers have the "focus follows mouse"/"sloppy focus" option.
Also, in many windowmanagers you can turn this off.
I'm running KDE, and I use sloppy focus---focus is under the cursor all
the time; but when you move it over the backround, the last window that
was focused remains focused.
I started using graphical GUIs for UNIX with FVWM. FVWM didnt have a
click-to-focus option at the time, because no one needed it; there werent
any windows converts yet. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 07:29:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > <95i0sr$p64$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >Microsoft's assertion that Linux is not a technical thread is
> > >actually absurd. Eventually, Linux will reach the mainstream
> > >and executive desktops. When it does, Microsoft will be unable
> > >to pretend that it has originated technology that was forged in
> > >the cauldron of Open Source.
> >
> > They've had a long time to get there...
Actually, Linux has only been doing Desktop User oriented
systems since July of 1998. Up until that time the focus
was on ease of installation and ease of server administration.
I July of 1998, Linus officially challenged the Linux community
to "Take the Desktop". One year later, KDE 1.0 was released.
Two years later, KDE 2.0 was available. Star Office 5.2 was
released along with many other Desktop User applications which are
now part of the Mandrake 7.2 and SuSE 7.0 releases.
Linux 2.4 will add some important features like USB support for cameras and
scanners, but people who really wanted those features could get them with 2.3
kernel patches months ago.
Most of the other 2.4 features were focused toward servers, to give
new features like 16 million terabyte files (63 bit seeks).
Linux has already been offering a 64 bit kernel and clustering capabilities
which have been further optimized.
> > and they haven't quite made it yet.
> > Instead they (KDE) appear to be copying Windows.
Keep in mind that most Linux software is really "contributions from the Open
Source Community" which are compiled into a Linux distribution. This
"Anthology" is then distributed in easy to install packages that are
configured to be installed in groups based on a relatively simple set of
option selections.
Expert users may want more control and want to specify which packages need to
be installed. There are over 1600 packages and each package can install up
to 300 files.
> > What innovation Linux?
Keep in mind that the real innovation is the open source community.
Ironically, one of the first contributors to the X11 project was
the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) unit of Xerox. With Apple
literally stealing SmallTalk80 and porting to to Apple's Pascal
for the Lisa, the PARC team decided to port their constructs to
C (C++ wasn't really available yet).
The Athena Project included MIT (who still uses Athena products on campus),
Xerox, IBM, Hewlett Packard, Dec, and Sun. The most well-known products were
X11 and SGML, and more particularly HTML.
Keep in mind that Microsoft purchased the rights to most of it's GUI
technology from HP, who was one of the partners to the Athena project. They
also got technology from IBM under the OS/2 Presentation Manager (which they
eventually obtained through an out of court settlement).
Linux has been the beneficiary of nearly all of the original contributors.
In many cases, employees actually provided support for the ports to Linux.
Initially, the employees contributed in their own personal names under public
licenses such as GPL to minimize corporate liability.
Because all of this technology was available under Open Source
licenses, Microsoft could and often did attempt to steal the
technology. Microsoft has quietly settled numerus lawsuits with
cash settlements in exchange for sealed records and nondisclosure
agreements to prevent revealing the nature of the plagerism.
> I forget the quote, it was an admonishment of
> Apple suing Microsoft for copying
> the GUI, "Be generous with what you steal."
Apple wasn't the only one upset with Microsoft. HP, IBM, Sun, and Xerox were
all parties in certain claims against Microsoft. In addition to litigation
and settlements, part of the retaliation included putting most of the
technology under Public License agreements that would force Microsoft to
"give back" any derivative products it created from Open Source software.
Microsoft has been very cagey about avoiding these give-back terms
by filtering information flow through highly placed executives who
were the only members of the development team who knew that most
of the design and implementation details for Windows were actually
being taken from Open Source projects. Because the executives
had no direct "hands on" participation in the project, the "clean
room" environment was so well preserved that many of Microsoft's
own developers thought they were actually inventing the technology
themselves. Even today, Microsoft hires people familiar with the
intimate details of Linux who "feed" these clean room projects.
Of course, you can't prove anything because Microsoft's EULA
forbids any form of reverse engineering, including investigation
into copyright and patent violations.
> KDE may share some concepts with Windows,
KDE is a product of X11 Windows. Microsoft's Windows 3.0
and later were also dirivatives of X11. Microsoft had no
interest in remote access and eliminated X-Wire. They also
replaced the Xlib/Xserver with the DLLs. Since they didn't need
to serialize the messages, the events could simply be put onto
in-memory event queues.
> but NO GUI environment stands alone.
This is especially true with Microsoft Windows. Microsoft has
repeatedly obtained software from the NCSA, Athena, and X11
along with numerous other Open Source products through fraud,
blackmail, and simple theft. In numerous cases, the lawsuits
were quietly settled out of court to prevent the exact nature
of this intellectual property theft from being made public.
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Date: 9 Feb 2001 07:42:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Now...once again...do you even KNOW what the fuck ".NET" is, and if
>> > so, then, explain it to us.
>>
>> .NET represents an environment, a programming infrastructure that supports
>> the next generation of the Internet as a platform.
>>
> From what I've heard, it sounds like .net is merely an
> attempt to take the sort of open, working tools and
> protocols which are available today in the Unix world,
> and twist them into a proprietary, windows-centric
> model which can then be used to build a mechanism
> for extracting regular payments from windows users.
Right on the nose.
Microsoft doesnt know what its market is anymore, and it makes
terrible choices as a result.
.NET will die the horrible death that microsoft's little entry
into the console gaming market will.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:05:25 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 2. By controlling the specification of .NET, MS puts itself in a
> >> position to squeeze out competing platforms that it doesn't like.
>
> >If it means so little, why did Sun refuse to let ECMA "rubber stamp"
Java?
>
> Oops, it turns out that MS hasn't either, really, according to your
> other posts on the subject. They've only submitted a part of the
> enchilada. What was your point again? That MS isn't out to push
> developers to their platforms but Sun is?
Sun hasn't submitted *ANY* part of Java for standardization.
> >> 3. Given #1 and #2 above, why should anybody who isn't already an MS
> >> slave support .NET? All the FUD that MS has put out about Java applies
> >> equally to .NET even if you leave out all the licensing nonsense.
>
> > Not even close. MS is putting an orders of magnitude more effort,
> > money, and skill into .NET than Sun ever did for Java in the entire 5
> > years of it's history.
>
> Oh, so the answer to why the same arguments that apply to Java don't
> apply to C# boils down to "well they are going to spend a lot of money
> on it". Yeah, that always helps, just ask Fred Brooks.
Spending money doesn't guarantee success, but not spending it does guarantee
failure. Even Linux has lots of money being spent on it by companies like
IBM.
> The FUD about "write once, test everywhere" will still apply, no matter
> how much money MS spends or how many Wizards they make. The FUD about
> "they're trying to tie you to their products" will apply in spades. The
> FUD about "lack of security" will probably apply too, given MS's less
> than stellar history in that area.
Microsoft isn't advertising .NET as WORA. Sun did, and failed to deliver
(again) on that promise. The fact is, WORA can never be attained, since
there will always be compatiblity problems between platforms. The faster
developers realize this, the more productive they'll be, because they can
plan for such problems.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:08:21 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> > > >
> > > > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my
video
> > card
> > > > problem.
> > >
> > > Eh?
> > >
> > > So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
> > > earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
> >
> > Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
> > their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
>
> rpm --target=i686 --rebuild XFree86-4.0.2-1.src.rpm
> rpm -Uvh /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i686/*
Do you even *TRY* to follow the thread? I was commenting that I had to
upgrade RPM to get the files, and J Sloan was advocating downloading the
source from XFree86.org and compiling it.
Then you, moronically ignorant pop up with RPM syntax. The point was to do
it WITHOUT RPM.
> > SRPMS are not that common.
>
> Name one open-source RPM package that doesn't have an SRPM available
> for download.
Finding it is a different story.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
