Linux-Advocacy Digest #187, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Feb 01 10:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Chad Myers")
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) ("Chad Myers")
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows vs. Unix printer model (Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!) (Neil Cerutti)
Re: 10.8 Terabytes of storage for $50 ("Mike")
Re: Peformance Test ("Todd")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux ("Todd")
Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control) (Peter Hayes)
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (Rex Ballard)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:02:53 GMT
"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2001 03:40:34 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
<SNIP: Erik talking about how Java has failed, and spam questioning the
reasoning>
> >
> >Also, Java suffered from the fact that Sun only supported the Java language.
> >Yes, there are other languages that target the JVM today, but they are not
> >supported by Sun and discouraged.
> >
> >> >And, if people write .NET for Linux, as they'll be able to do from the
> >> >standards, you can run on Linux as well.
> >>
> >> Except for the things that don't. Since MS, the promulgator of the
> >> standard, and you can be real sure that ECMA won't be calling the shots,
> >> will not itself be providing .NET for Linux (or probably anything except
> >> Windows), why won't we see the same problems we saw with Java on Linux
> >> prior to Sun and IBM seeing the light?
> >
> >MS has already contracted with Corel to port .NET to Linux.
> >
> Started the work have they? Any links?
There were several news stories on this including a press release
from MS and Corel. A casual search should turn it up.
You'll also remember that Corel has decided to back off from the
Linux business for awhile and has started working with Microsoft
to build WordPerfect.NET and several other .NET applications.
The report was that 5 or 6 Corel developers were working on the
.NET CLR for Linux.
> >> Your rosy view of .NET assumes that they will be able to overcome all of
> >> the same problems Java faces, but because they are Microsoft it'll all
> >> be a cakewalk. That they will play fair and not try to use their
> >> control of the platform to favor their own interests. Basically, nobody
> >> but die-hard MS-lovers believes either one of those things any more.
> >
> >Java's problem was Sun. They killed it with their management.
>
> It's dead now?
It's floundering, lost in a sea of misdirection, at least.
Sun, nor IBM, nor anyone else really know where to take it.
First they try to make it an embedded language, then they try
to make it an enterprise transaction application server language
(EJB), now they don't seem to be pushing anything. I don't see
Java growing much beyond what it is right now. I've seen several
companies rushing to hire EJB developers, but I've yet to see
a site running JSP/EJB that has the slightest hint of decent
performance. Usually you just get a bunch of timeouts or errors.
Even Sun's own JavaStore which they funnel all their downloads
through (and charge you USD$0.00 for the free stuff, but you
still have to enter all your information) is broken 90% of
the time. I have a feeling when all these companies spend all
this money on EJB and then realize in the end it's horribly slow
and really isn't as scalable as Sun and others have claimed, they'll
be a backlash. Conveniently, .NET will be big around that time.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:06:37 GMT
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.wirednews.com/news/technology/0,1282,41614,00.html
>
> ---Begin 1st Quote---
> According to Microsoft, right now the current SAP function will play any
> files, but after the company's market share for the Windows Media Player --
> which is also built into Windows -- is sufficiently large, the company will
> turn on SAP and play only secured files.
>
> The system is designed to work behind-the-scenes, so that consumers aren't
> aware of any digital rights management. When the operating system accesses
> media files, noise is added so that if the audio is intercepted, it won't be
> usable. Once the file makes it through the hardware device and passes it to
> the Windows Media Player, the noise is removed and the file plays.
> ---End 1st Quote---
... and Wired has NEVER been known to blow things WAY out of proportion
or demonize Microsoft.
This is all BS, rumor, and speculation. MS has had DRM for over a year
now and they're not taking over the world with it.
Regardless, just like the RIAA, if MS pulls something stupid like this,
you just go out and download WinAmp, or any of a dozen other players
and be done with it.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: 14 Feb 2001 14:22:17 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.wirednews.com/news/technology/0,1282,41614,00.html
> ---Begin 1st Quote---
> According to Microsoft, right now the current SAP function will play any
> files, but after the company's market share for the Windows Media Player --
> which is also built into Windows -- is sufficiently large, the company will
> turn on SAP and play only secured files.
> The system is designed to work behind-the-scenes, so that consumers aren't
> aware of any digital rights management. When the operating system accesses
> media files, noise is added so that if the audio is intercepted, it won't be
> usable. Once the file makes it through the hardware device and passes it to
> the Windows Media Player, the noise is removed and the file plays.
> ---End 1st Quote---
> ---Begin 2nd Quote---
> "In order for an encrypted stream to play, Microsoft has to approve the
> driver for your soundcard and sign it," software consultant David E. Weekly
> wrote in an e-mail. "Without a signed driver, the digital rights management
> content won't play. With video digital rights management coming soon
> hereafter, what this really does is give Microsoft the power to determine
> what hardware it will allow to run Windows."
> ---End 2nd Quote---
Its too bad BeOS didnt last just a little bit longer. It could have really
made a place for itself in the home market in the next couple of years.
But linux exists, and thats a good thing. I can now and will continue to be
able to play anything I want on any hardware I like.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: Windows vs. Unix printer model (Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!)
Date: 14 Feb 2001 14:41:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Edward Rosten posted:
>That's not true. If you print to a captured port rather than an
>uncaptured port if the printer is plugged in to your computer,
>then the print job will go through the spooler.
I've captured LPT1: for network printers in Windows 95 (various
flavours), but is it possible to do so in Windows NT 4? I haven't
been able to find the technology, and it's convenient/necessary
for printing from old console applications that just want to dump
to LPT1:.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10.8 Terabytes of storage for $50
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:44:11 GMT
===== Original Message =====
From: "Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: 10.8 Terabytes of storage for $50
> > I'll bet you don't know how your data is really stored on your disk, do
you?
>
> It's not compressed unless I specify that it be compressed.
>
> 1-bit errors STAY 1-bit errors, unless I explicitly compress the file.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Before we get to that, though, let's spell things out. The error cases here
can be summed up as follows:
Compression:
C1: Data -> Error -> Compress -> Decompress : No error propagation
C2: Data -> Compress -> Error -> Decompress : Errors may propagate
Disk drive:
D1: Data -> Error -> Write to Disk -> Read Back : No error propagation
D2: Data -> Write to Disk -> Error -> Read Back : Errors may propagate
You can't compare C1 to D2 or C2 to D1, because you're inserting errors in
different places. But, you can compare C1 to D1, which is kind of pointless
(they return what was put in, just like you'd expect), or C2 to D2. I'm not
sure which cases you were trying to compare. On one hand, you're arguing
that 1 bit errors stay 1 bit errors on a disk drive, whereas they propagate
during decompression. This implies that you're comparing D1 to C2. That's
not really fair, since a disk drive just stores whatever you tell it to.
Similarly, if you add an error to your data, then compress it, it will
decompress just fine; the compression algorithm has no idea that you screwed
up your data. Or, you could be arguing that you're comparing D2 to C2, in
which case you don't know what you're talking about. It's worthwhile to note
at this point that D1 and D2 aren't the same thing.
So, listen up.
Data is always encoded before it's written onto a disk, into a form that
you'd be unlikely to recognize. It's still 1s and 0s, but not the same order
or number of bits as the 1s and 0s you wrote. Because of the encoding
methods and framing used, data can be encoded in 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8 byte
frames. On older drives, it could be encoded in blocks as small as one bit,
but that doesn't happen today. An error in one frame may result in error
propagation that may invalidate two frames of data, since the error
propagation may extend across the frame boundary. In modern drives, errors
propagate for two primary reasons. First, an encoded data bit is not written
in a single location - it's spread across multiple locations, and written
partly on top of other data bits, so errors don't affect bits individually.
Second, after the data is read off the disk, it has to be decoded to recover
the original data - if one bit is corrupted it may cause the entire word to
be decoded incorrectly. In some codes, if one word is decoded incorrectly,
the next one may be also. Codes are constructed so that error propagation
will be limited,
Let's go another step further. Not only do errors propagate during readback,
but errors occur with remarkable regularity. If you were to fill a 30GB
drive to capacity today, there would probably be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 2.5 million to 25 million errors when the data is read back,
and in a typical drive today those errors would invalidate roughly 7.5
million to 75 million bytes of data due to error propagation. The chances
are very good that you won't see any of those errors, though, because of
error correction.
Which brings us back to the main point. The reason you don't see error
propagation (or errors at all, for that matter) is because your disk drive
contains error correction circuits that effectively reduce the error rate
from around 1 in 10,000 bits on read back to less than 1 in
1,000,000,000,000 bits after error correction. Error correction could be
similarly applied to compression algorithms, so that if an error occurred
between the start of the compression algorithm and the completion of
decompression, the errors could be corrected.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:49:31 +0800
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:963ql9$i8f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> W2k will not work without a Video card and not a keyboard either.
>
> > Sorry, wrong on both accounts. It's true that NT and W2k won't work
without
> > a video card *DRIVER*, but there are headless drivers available that are
> > just NO OP's for headless operation. Also, it runs fine without a
keyboard.
> > You have to make sure your BIOS is configured not to halt on keyboard
errors
> > though (one of the funniest errors ever.. "Keyboard missing, hit F1 to
> > continue")
>
> If by funny, you mean "pathetic", youre quite right.
>
> Also, dont unplug your mouse and then plug it back in and expect it to
work.
Ummm... I do this all of the time with no problem... I am using a MS optical
mouse though... are other mice a problem?
-Todd
>
>
>
>
> -----.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:52:10 +0800
As a Windows 2000 advocate, I'd have to agree that MS is going to kill
themselves if they forge ahead with .NET.
What the hell are they thinking? I hope they don't really think people are
going to buy into their plan... it might make even diehard windows users
change...
-Todd
"Mike Martinet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> From what I've read
>
> http://wired.com/news/business/0,1367,41622,00.html
>
> Microsoft isn't waiting for antitrust legislation to destroy them.
> They're doing it themselves. If I understand correctly, with Whistler,
> people will have to phone in registration numbers to get systems to
> run. And that the copy protection supposedly includes a scheme by which
> the reg. number gets tied to the machine's configuration - hard drive,
> net card, modem, etc. This is insane. If true, people will have to
> re-phone in their regs when they upgrade peripherals!
>
> But it gets better.
>
> Future versions of MS software (upgrades, service packs*, add-ons) will
> only be available online through .NET. This looks like an attempt by MS
> to force people to pay for software on a monthly basis - like cable TV.
>
> So, you change your NIC card and in order to make use of your monthly
> software subscription to get the new driver you have to wait on hold
> with your computer's configuration list for someone to re-enable your
> machine so you can download the software you're already being billed
> for. This sounds neat.
>
> In my experience, copy protection just doesn't work - either at home or
> work. People blithely trade registration numbers and disks and software
> with dongles gets replaced with applications that don't require keeping
> track of a serial-port plug. I can't imagine home users being happy
> about MS using their machines against them.
>
> I think in about 2 years there's going to be a hell of a lot of business
> for people who know how to set up Linux.
>
> *Service pack. What a great marketing spin on the old 'patch', eh? "We
> don't need no stinkin' patches!"
>
> MjM
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is astonishing (MS/DRM/Hardware Control)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:49:45 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:34:16 +1200, "Adam Warner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "In order for an encrypted stream to play, Microsoft has to approve the
> driver for your soundcard and sign it," software consultant David E. Weekly
> wrote in an e-mail. "Without a signed driver, the digital rights management
> content won't play. With video digital rights management coming soon
> hereafter, what this really does is give Microsoft the power to determine
> what hardware it will allow to run Windows."
And my digital rights management gives me the power to determine what
software I will allow on my computer.
-- and it ain't anything from Microsoft.
I think that'll go for many, many people. Just hastens the day the world
becomes Microsoft free.
Peter
--
In the 19th century surveyors measured the height of Everest
from 500 miles away in India.
This cannot be done today. Everest is no longer visible from
the survey location due to increased atmospheric pollution.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:59:11 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <9602e9$86m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (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.
> >>
>
> Considering the number of superclusters using Linux today
> I think we could easily say it hit the mainstream.
Ironically, even though the average computer user spends over half the
time he spends on a PC interacting with UNIX systems (via the Web
browser) most computer users don't know what server they are using.
Many users actually think that it's their PC doing all the work.
This is one of the reasons that a good strong desktop initiative is so
important.
Until Linux is running on the desktop, people will not have all of the
capabilities
available.
> >> They've had a long time to get there...
> >> and they haven't quite made it yet.
> >
> >
> >> Instead they (KDE) appear to be copying Windows.
> >> What innovation Linux?
> >
>
> I dont' get this. Windows isn't an original thing!
> Windows is a copy of a MAC from the 80's!
> People who make comments like this must not have been alive
> very long...
It's even worse than that. Windows 3.0 was a variant of the HP widgets
which were the source for much of Motif. Simply put,, Windows was
actually
based on UNIX (X11) code base.
Most of the "innovations" in the Windows 95/NT4 desktop were based on
the capabilities of Fvwm, Motif, and CDE.
ActiveDesktop was actually an attempt to mimic many of the features of
the
FVWM, KDE, and GNOME desktops.
Windows ME has many of the features of AfterStep.
Of course, what makes this humerous is that Microsoft Winvocates will
slam and dis
the Linux interface, until Windows exhibits the same behaviors.
I've even noticed that Microsoft has "been inspired" by some other UNIX
features.
Windows 2000 uses the equivalent of "sticky bits" to make MS-Office and
other Microsoft applications to load more quickly. Of course, since
third party products don't have
the documentation for this feature, they seem to run much slower (Notes,
Netscape,
WordPerfect...).
Judge Jackson shouldn't have lifted the Behavioral remedies. Under
those remedies,
Microsoft executives would be facing criminal charges right now.
> --
> Charlie
>
> **DEBIAN** **GNU**
> / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
> / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
> /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
> http://www.debian.org
--
Rex Ballard
Information Technology Architect
Open Systems/Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
