Linux-Advocacy Digest #930, Volume #32 Tue, 20 Mar 01 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What is user friendly? (Anonymous)
Re: Why can't Apple do it? (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: gates messiah (Steve Chaney)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: What is user friendly? (Anonymous)
Re: Stupid error message (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What is user friendly? (David Masterson)
Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism ("Shades")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:26:23 -0500
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > GreyCloud wrote:
> > >
> > > Rex Ballard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another poor Wintroll hits the meat-grinder.
> > > >
> > > > Jon Johanson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Wpht6.28385$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > For getting work done I love Win2000 like a charm
> > > > > > but I'm scared to death to
> > > > > > have something like that running one of our aircraft carriers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why? It works as well as any other server OS...
> > > >
> > > > You're kidding, right?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, Window 2000 really is 3 times more reliable than Windows NT.
> > > > Windows 2000 is the best Operating system Microsoft has developed to
> > > > date.
> > > >
> > > > Compared to Netware 3.5, Windows 2000 is pretty impressive (even though
> > > > Windows 2000
> > > > need 10 times the memory, hard-drive, and CPU speed to do the same job).
> > > >
> > > > Compared to AT&T System III, Windows 2000 is also pretty respectable.
> > > >
> > > > Compared to any modern version of UNIX (including Linux), Microsoft has
> > > > a very long
> > > > way to go...
> > > >
> > > > To put it politely, you need lots and lots (about 30) of Windows 2000
> > > > servers to the
> > > > work that a single Linux or UNIX machine performs on a regular basis.
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft has tried to come up with some cute little benchmarks and
> > > > tests, which use
> > > > none of the current 3rd party software, to attempt to prove that
> > > > DataCenter Edition
> > > > in the "Standard Configuration", is as reliable as Linux or Solaris.
> > > >
> > > > To do the reliability tests, they run all drives in RAID 1, front-end
> > > > and back-end pairs
> > > > each being a 4-way SMP server such as a Netfinity. Then they run web
> > > > server asps connected
> > > > to SQL Server back-ends. Actually cost of the system - just for the
> > > > royalties - approaches
> > > > $1/2 million for the four-by-four (16 processors at $20k each).
> > > >
> > > > To do the performance tests, they run the drives in RAID 0, with larger
> > > > tables split across
> > > > multiple servers, and strong effinity. It's fast, but unreliable. And
> > > > the costs assume
> > > > less than $50,000 per year for staffing and support of all servers and
> > > > users.
> > > >
> > > > I've read the "Fast Facts" pages, they come up every time a company
> > > > studies the choice between
> > > > Linux, Unix (Solaris, AIX, HP_UX, or BSD).
> > > >
> > > > My all-time favorite is the one where a lab attempts to "Prove" that
> > > > Windows NT will have
> > > > a lower TCO because you will need Solaris AND Netware servers (since
> > > > this guy never heard of
> > > > SAMBA), and you will need only 3 servers per 1,000 users. He also gave
> > > > a minimum price of $25,000 for the Solaris box compared to $2,000 for
> > > > NT.
> > > >
> > > > The Iloveyou virus alone caused nearly $2.6 billion in damages, and the
> > > > breaching strategy
> > > > was copied from Melissa, a virus that Microsoft had supposedly "cured".
> > > > Other viruses
> > > > weren't as widely distributed, but they corrupted hard drives, wiped out
> > > > critical files,
> > > > and pushed confidential information (cookies, passwords, e-mail) through
> > > > corporate fire-walls.
> > > >
> > > > Reality and real-world performance have consistently shown that even
> > > > Linux 2.2.17 can
> > > > run circles around Windows NT and Windows 2000 when it comes to the
> > > > overall combination
> > > > of performance, stability, security, ROI, TCO, and ROE.
> > > >
> > > > Within the UNIX world, Linux on Intel is usually considered the lower
> > > > end of the
> > > > spectrum of UNIX systems (even though Linux clusters now compete
> > > > favorably with the
> > > > largest and fastest clusters and mainframes).
> > > >
> > > > Both Sun and IBM are now offering their RISC versions of UNIX on servers
> > > > costing under $1000.
> > > > Linux 2.4.1 kernel supports nearly all of the features of the biggest
> > > > supercomputers, and
> > > > is now available on everything from Pentiums to Z-900 supercomputers.
> > > >
> > > > With Linux/UNIX, the standards are published, and supported by Open
> > > > Source software.
> > > >
> > > > With Windows NT/2000 the standards are proproprietary, closed,
> > > > incompatible with existing
> > > > infrastructure, and create security exposures that are well-known by
> > > > many and can be exploited
> > > > by middle-school kids.
> > > >
> > > > Linux has a number of engineering advantages, most of which are
> > > > available in open source,
> > > > which Microsoft is unable to exploit because they bet the entire company
> > > > that UNIX wasn't
> > > > going to ever be a viable platform.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps SCO will let them start marketing UNIX again :-).
> > > >
> > > > Linux - 100 million and counting.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Rex Ballard
> > > > It Architect
> > > > http://www.open4success.com
> > >
> > > Out of curiosity, does IBM produce RISC based desktop models around the
> > > $1k range?
> >
> > What's the price range for Power PC's these days?
> >
>
> If your suggesting Apple iMac its not for me. I was thinking more along
> the lines of the RS/6000 series. I think Power PC cpus are joint IBM
> and Motorola venture. I was hoping that IBM would compete against Sun
> in the Unix arena at the $1k mark.
>
Oh, god...no, you do NOT want an RS-6000.
RS/6000....on your Desktop? Where ya gonna put the monitor?
(RS/6000's consume a 2 foot x 3 foot patch of floorspace.)
> > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > Unix Systems Engineer
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:29:55 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
aaron wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > aaron wrote:
> > > > I'm not saying this is the whole problem, just part of it. And, given
> > > > the previous excuse, 5 years (its actually more like 3 for the solid
> > > > Linux environment that runs X-Windows) is not that long in the big IT
> > > > departments.
> > >
> > > Then why did M$ try to imply that Lose98 makes Lose95 obsolete,
> > > and now Lose2000 and LoseME make Lose98 obsolete?
> >
> > because they want to make lots of money.
>
> Translation: Your best interests are none of their concern.
and this makes them different from any other stranger... how exactly?
> And yet, you *STILL* trust them....why is that?
when did i ever say i trusted them?
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why can't Apple do it?
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:25:50 +0100
Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The interesting thing is that they *did* think about the future. A total
> of 128k of RAM and 32k of ROM for displays where the originals only used
> 32k of RAM and no ROM. 160k for additional device adapter ROM and RAM
> where the XT only used 4k. The design was very well optimized for the
> 1mb addressing range of the 8088 chip. They could *not* have forseen
> where the PC would go. 25 years after the Wright brothers airplanes were
> still fabric-covered biplanes. 25 years after the first auto (don't
> remember who built it) the majority of cars on the road were the
> equivalent of the Ford model T.
And 25 years after the first computers they still ran with vacuum tubes
and were programmed with switches on a board.
Anyway, the design of the PC wasn't the problem, the one of the AT was.
A20-gate, anyone?
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: gates messiah
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:35:38 GMT
On 17 Mar 2001 00:57:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
>Dark Angel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: Your archnemisis, Steve Chaney, seems to have had no trouble learning
>: to use unix. Guess you're finally conceding that Chaney's smarter
>: than you....
>
>And Jackie Pokemon didn't need a recount to realise it's time to concede. So
>she just might be slightly less stupid than a retarded lobotomised gibbon.
>Doesn't stop her from being an oxygen thief though.
Fucking hardcore.
-- Steve
===============================
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (remove the "-" to email me)
This site is just TOO COOL for a counter! http://www.self-acceptance.org
"As long as an enemy is judged solely by his
appearance, his victory is assured." - Outer Limits
STOP SMOKING NOW!!! ASK ME HOW!!! http://www.geocities.com/brenduh52/
The alt.bonehead.jim-dutton FAQ @ http://www.best.com/~paladin/jjd-faq.shtml
The Ramalamer fun page! http://www.best.com/~paladin/ramalane.shtml
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 18:40:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 20 Mar 2001 00:36:59 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ed Allen wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Have you ever built NT source code?
>> >
>> To give you an idea of the complexity, Jeff Merkey, who *has*
>> says it takes 35 hours per compile.
>
>
>Figures.
>
>In comparison, Linux takes only that many MINUTES.
I think "NT source code" is a far larger enterprise than
"Linux kernel"; presumably, that includes all utilities.
It might even include Microsoft Outlook and IIS.
I'd be interested if anyone has successfully downloaded, say, the
Debian source packages and recompiled a Debian system from scratch.
(RedHat also has this capability.)
That would probably be a fairer comparison. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 43d:06h:09m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 11:43:27 -0700
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
aaron wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > aaron wrote:
> > > Quantum Leaper wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Shades wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Unix has half a dozen GUI's that are so good that Mafia$oft
> > > > > > > copied (in their own, usual, less-than-elegant way) as much of
> > > > > > > this functionality as they could.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now....if Unix is supposedly soooooooooo difficult to use, then
> > > > > > > please explain why Mafia$oft is copying Unix ON THE BASIS OF
> > > > > > > EASE OF USE.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do not understand this statement. Where is MS copying Unix on ease of
> > > > > > use? All the newest GUI's I have seen on Linux look a lot like
> > > > something
> > > > > > I have seen before.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah..more like what you've seen before were copies of Unix GUI's already
> > > > > in existance. For example, the Windows2000 GUI is a (faulty)
> > > > implementation
> > > > > of the unix/linux-land Enlightenment GUI.
> > > > >
> > > > I remember the Mac users were saying MS copied Mac with Windows 95, but
> > > > after I talked with alot of my friends who have used alot of different OSs,
> > > > included Unix. The general feeling is MS copies EVERYONE but only tried to
> > > > take the best parts. BTW you can run Enlightenment (clone) on NT4 as an
> > > > explorer replacement, might ever be available for 2K.
> > >
> > > M$ gives new meaning to the phrase "not invented here"...as there
> > > is not a single feature of an M$ platform which was invented by
> > > Microsoft.
> >
> > who cares?
>
> For a company which prides itself on it's ability to "innovate"...
> the fact that it has not actaully innovated *ANYTHING* is quite
> interesting...don't you think...
no.
all i care about is that it works.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: Stupid error message
Date: 20 Mar 2001 18:44:34 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob Nelson posted:
>Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The name specified is not recognized as an
>> internal or external command, operable program or batch file.
>
>> Is there any other operating system in the world with such a
>> stupid and needlessly verbose error message?
>
>Do you prefer this style of error message?
>
>- ``You don't exist, go away''
>- ``Not a typewriter''
>- ``Aiee!''
No.
They're bad. But they're not needlessly verbose.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The name specified is not recognized as an
internal or external command, operable program
or batch file." -- cmd.exe
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:49:17 -0500
Shades wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Shades wrote:
> > >
> > > Can anyone imagine, let's say a CTO of a large multinational company,
> the
> > > kind Linux advocates would love say they beat MS in, jumping into one
> of
> > > these newsgroups and reading the "professionalism" expressed in this
> > > group(see below)? Unix people have always been touted as being this
> > > arrogant and narrow-minded and I have had my fair share of the
> > > unprofessional manner.
> > >
> > > In the past I have had Unix people say there were going to slash my
> tires,
> > > and some sabotaged a web server farm I worked in because they didn't
> like NT
> > > servers being there. But here one can see it first hand. It is sad
> > > because for all the good Linux and Unix may be over NT, who can trust a
> > > group of people who act like this to administer it?
> > >
> > > If I go to any of the MS groups it isn't this way. There is no
> masculinity
> > > tests for how much I know or do not. People there generally comment
> more
> > > positively if someone says Linux is better and give good arguments both
> pro
> > > and con. Here however, people tend to disagree by 13 year old name
> > > calling and not really giving out much in terms of information. (if you
> are
> > > too stupid to know I won't tell you). All anyone hears is "MS IS A
> > > MONOPOLY" or "WE DID GUI FIRST", and "IF YOU CAN'T INSTALL IT YOU ARE
> > > F***IN DUMB", etc, etc,... ad nauseum. But one rarely hears about
> > > solutions businesses need today coming out of this.
> > >
> > > I don't mean to say this of all Unix/Linux people for I know some that I
> > > consider good friends and they act extremely professional. But there
> are so
> > > many that do not and all it does is give Microsoft and others MORE
> > > ammunition to scare corporations that the Linux community so desperately
> > > needs away.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents....
> >
> > None of which excuses being a JACKASS by choosing Mafia$oft LoseDog
> platforms.
>
> Yep... thanks.
Sounds like something a Mafia$oft JACKASS would write.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:43:45 -0500
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
From: David Masterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron R Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Masterson wrote:
>> >>>>> "Aaron" == Aaron R Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > "Don't blame me, I bought IBM" worked in the 1960's. In this day
>> > and age, there is NO excuse for such lame reasoning.
>> Whether its a good excuse or not, it is still in use (substitute
>> "M$" for "IBM").
> I didn't deny that it's in use...I said that it doesn't WASH anymore.
And I didn't deny that it doesn't wash anymore.
>> >> > You have the EXACT same pointy-clicky functionality on Linux and
>> >> > Unix...in fact, it has been available on Unix for FAR LONGER...
>>
>> >> True. Although up until PC systems could handle (well) the
>> >> requirements of the UNIX interface (ie. X-Windows), not a lot of
>> >> people could justify the expense of buying into it (ie. pre-1996).
>>
>> > That excuse doesn't wash either.
>>
>> > Hint fucking hint: 1996 was 5 YEARS AGO.
>>
>> I'm not saying this is the whole problem, just part of it. And, given
>> the previous excuse, 5 years (its actually more like 3 for the solid
>> Linux environment that runs X-Windows) is not that long in the big IT
>> departments.
> Then why did M$ try to imply that Lose98 makes Lose95 obsolete,
> and now Lose2000 and LoseME make Lose98 obsolete?
Because they can (where do you tell the 900 pound gorilla to sit?).
However, even M$ must bow to all the IT organizations that will not
stand for having _*ALL*_ of their application software becoming
obsolete because of an O/S _upgrade_.
>> >> > Because Dell, Compaq, etc. were specifically PROHIBITED by
>> >> > Microsoft from offering operating systems sold by vendors other
>> >> > than Microsoft.
>> >> Also, because the dominant UNIX vendors were more interested in
>> >> fighting each other over the workstation "niche" rather than band
>> >> together and fight Microsoft over the much bigger PC market.
>> > This has NOTHING to do with Unix.
>> Of course it does. The UNIX vendors of the 1980s had plenty of time
>> to do battle with Microsoft before it became too big, but they were
>> busy fighting each other for "workstation" dominance.
> Not SCO.
One small player in the big picture.
> SCO was locked out of the desktop marketplace by M$'s illegal
> exclusionary contracts.
IIRC, M$ had a minority stake in SCO.
>> > For years, Microsoft got over, because the various OEM's were
>> > completely unaware of the specifics of the contract between
>> > Microsoft and other OEM's.
>> > Now that it has gotten out...well, that's why Microsoft keeps
>> > getting CONVICTED FOR CRIMES.
>> And I hope Microsoft gets whats coming to them. However, depending
>> on the government to slap Microsoft down may be a false hope.
> Not *all* justice comes from government agencies.
True. There may be a light at the end of the tunnel. However, the
walls of the tunnel are lined with people making the excuse mentioned
above.
>> > AT&T was PROHIBITED from competing in the computing industry
>> > at that time.
>> AT&T was released from this with the 1984 breakup. I know I was
>> using the (in)famous UNIX PC in 1986 and the AT&T 3B UNIX servers
>> were available even earlier. UNIX (with a GUI) was just too
>> powerful to run on the CPUs of that day and age *unless* AT&T had
>> committed to developing leaner and meaner versions of UNIX. But it
>> never did...
> true. On the other hand, AT&T had absolutely ZERO experience
> in the computer industry as a vendor...and given their previous
> several decades of telecom experience, was not even properly
> staffed (i.e management) to play the game.
True. A lot of vendors had the problem of poor management and
marketing. Commodore had a powerful machine in the Amiga, but didn't
believe in it until it was too late. Atari couldn't shake the game
machine image. Apple couldn't shake the desktop publishing image.
Sun couldn't make headway into the Intel world (Sun PC). HP embraced
both worlds rather than compete. DEC thought first UNIX and then PCs
were "snake oil". AT&T had a ready made user base for UNIX coming out
of college, but chose to market hardware instead. And we all know who
IBM sided with in the 80s.
Unfortunately, this left Microsoft with open territory that it
capitalized on.
>> Monopoly or not, there was no competing with Microsoft on its
>> playing field (ie. DOS/Windows) once Microsoft went into the
>> applications
> You've never heard of Digital Research, and DR-DOS, which had a 100%
> compatible, TRUE multi-tasking version of DOS on the market in 1985.
Almost forgot about them. They did do better than most. Microsoft,
though, had been "annointed" by IBM in the early 80s. This gave them
the backing and momentum that other companies could only dream of.
> Oh...and by the way...M$ settled that suit OUT OF COURT in return
> for an agreement that Caldera (who bought out DR) *NEVER* say
> another word about it again.
> Innocent parties don't do things like that.
I never said that they were innocent. Just that believing that their
illegal tactics was the sole reason for their success is a bit naive.
>> Well, there is still the excuse mentioned above.
> It's invalid. In the 1960's the only computer manufacturer
> most people had ever heard of was IBM....right up to the time
> of the PC.
There were others (including Honeywell and DEC).
> On the other hand, It was pretty hard to get through the 1980's
> without being aware of the TRS-80, Apple, Atari, Commodore, and
> other vendors.
The TRS-80 was DOS based and, so, not competition. The others had
their own problems that let Microsoft slip in and lock them out.
> In fact, the "Don't blame me, I bought IBM" excuse was solidly
> KILLED by the vast market of PC-clone manufacturers.
Until it became "don't blame me, I bought Microsoft". I still see
that in software sales to corporations.
> Anybody who generates and manipulates business-essential data with
> applications that use proprietary formats is a fool who will
> eventually pay for that foolishness by being driven from the
> marketplace for excessive operating costs.
One can but hope...
--
David Masterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Rational Software (but I don't speak for them)
------------------------------
From: "Shades" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix/Linux Professionalism
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 14:01:51 -0500
Many of these responses are similar to the ones I got years ago from a
number of Macintosh people when Apple was king. I don't see any difference
between this scenario and the ones of the past except that Apple/Novell
actually generated revenue and had something higher than 0.0 for an EPS.
Maybe you guys are right... maybe this time it will be different and Linux
will win the day.
However , MS is pretty relentless on stopping Linux now and they don't sit
around focusing on how Linux TCP implementation stinks. They take their
case to the customers and show how MS is better in very different ways.
They show where they do integrate with many products and how some of their
new products coming out will help them do business. You can all laugh at
me... but I have sat in both server rooms and boardrooms and have seen them
in action. Sometimes they fail but generally their sales reps are
relentless and MS doesn't like to lose. You can say they cheat, lie and
steal but in the end they can offer a CTO some damned compelling reasons to
go with them. I have seen Unix people throw things at director level
people because they discussing bringing in NT. Instead of giving them a
good story about why Unix/Linux and services that come with it are better
they do nothing but bitch. That becomes the most self defeating action
they can do.
I have read numerous posts all over from this group and that and I have
heard everyone compalin about MS and their evil tactics and how they aren't
going to get away with it this time and how Linux is so much better...
However I think you guys really should drop the anger and focusing on how
bad MS is and focus on solving the client's business problems. Is producing
a great OS one way. Yes. Is it all you have to do, No.
I am a little tired of watching year after year great technologies go down
the shitter because the company making them doesn't have a much of a clue
about anything else and because so many people are so damned self righteous
that they MUST win by shear will. Steve Jobs proved that to be wrong as did
so many others that MS went after. MS may be a bunch of assholes but they
don't seem to be as big an asshole as their competition can be.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
