Linux-Advocacy Digest #156, Volume #33 Wed, 28 Mar 01 10:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze multitasking ("Chad Myers")
Re: Windoze multitasking ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: OSX Links - (SamanthaJoy)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Michael Vester)
Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP. (Mott The Hoople)
Re: OSX Links - (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Communism ("Scot Mc Pherson")
First Cross platform (w32 and Linux) virus ("Jon Johanson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better ("Dan
Shaw")
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why can't we just all be friends? (Chad Everett)
Re: Communism (Chad Everett)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze multitasking
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 13:22:41 GMT
"Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ" wrote:
>
> > All this under Win98SE. Not too shabby for a DOS based piece of crap. BTW,
> > i'm not the only one who thinks that Win9x multitasking abilities aren't
> > that far behind WinNT.
> >
> > From http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/2q99/g3-350/g3-350-5.html
> >
> > "I'm willing to wager that MacOS 8.6 will improve this score, though I'm not
> > certain it will raise it to the level of NT (which, by the way, is not that
> > much more efficient than Windows 9x in terms of multitasking, although it's
> > certainly more stable.)".
> >
> Ee gads! That is awful! So does Win2K multitask any better than NT?
1.) NT has great multitasking. It is certainly better than Win9x, so
I don't know what this guy is smoking. Win9x and WinNT both have
preemptive multitasking, so the values for RC5 might be similar, but
I'd like to see him running several server processes that are serving
several thousands of clients, and then we'll see where NT's better
MT comes in. NT has several levels of priorities for applications.
He was probably running the RC5 at the default priority. Also,
was he running NT workstation, or server? Workstation has the quanta
(the time slice, from what I understand) optimized for workstation
tasks, and it also is set to give the foreground application a 2
priority level boost. In server, this is not the case. In server,
the numbers probably wouldn't have dropped at all, or very slightly.
2.) Windows 2000 is slightly better in that it offers even more
fine grained control over the priorities. I think it offers more
than just the 16 that NT offers, but I may be mistaken. Also,
I think for Win2K server, they have tweaked the quanta slightly
as well to eek out slightly better performance for workstations
and servers in their respective roles.
This guy doesn't really know what he's talking about, I mean,
he's using RC5 to test true multitasking and doesn't even mention
anything about quanta, priorities, whether or not he's using NT
WKST, or server and in what roles they are being used in.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze multitasking
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:49:41 +0200
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:BAlw6.2794$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Paul 'Z' EwandeŽ" wrote:
> >
> > > All this under Win98SE. Not too shabby for a DOS based piece of crap.
BTW,
> > > i'm not the only one who thinks that Win9x multitasking abilities
aren't
> > > that far behind WinNT.
> > >
> > > From http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/2q99/g3-350/g3-350-5.html
> > >
> > > "I'm willing to wager that MacOS 8.6 will improve this score, though
I'm not
> > > certain it will raise it to the level of NT (which, by the way, is not
that
> > > much more efficient than Windows 9x in terms of multitasking, although
it's
> > > certainly more stable.)".
> > >
> > Ee gads! That is awful! So does Win2K multitask any better than NT?
>
> 1.) NT has great multitasking. It is certainly better than Win9x, so
> I don't know what this guy is smoking. Win9x and WinNT both have
> preemptive multitasking, so the values for RC5 might be similar, but
> I'd like to see him running several server processes that are serving
> several thousands of clients, and then we'll see where NT's better
> MT comes in. NT has several levels of priorities for applications.
> He was probably running the RC5 at the default priority. Also,
> was he running NT workstation, or server? Workstation has the quanta
> (the time slice, from what I understand) optimized for workstation
> tasks, and it also is set to give the foreground application a 2
> priority level boost. In server, this is not the case. In server,
> the numbers probably wouldn't have dropped at all, or very slightly.
Here is an article about NT (And Unix) multi tasking.
http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=4500&pg=3
------------------------------
From: SamanthaJoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OSX Links -
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 07:59:51 -0600
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, that would only become a contribution if and only if Apple
> decides to license its GUI to the Unix community, or better yet, open
> source its GUI. One possible contribution to the open source community
> is that Apple has done the bulk of the work of porting the FreeBSD
> kernel to the MAC/PPC platform. Well, that would only matter if the
> FreeBSD team ever wanted to port their OS to MAC/PPC. There's a good
> possibility, though, that they would just take some examples from NetBSD
> instead of Darwin.
Somewhat true... but I see a fairly large migration of Linux code
directly to OSX since there is a "true market"... not a limited "closet
server opportunity".
It's fair to say, OSX will be the main distro of UNIX within the year,
just by the shear size of Apple's channel... a million units every 100
days is very interesting if your into the worldwide view.
I agree that if/when the Aqua GUI is opensourced it will increase the
opportunities at the low end/wintel space... but even Apple's offering's
at $799 with full firewire, 100BaseT, cdr, usb and fine quality monitor
runs circles around what SUN is able to offer at this point and time.
http://www.apple.com/imac
I think we are starting to see an "earthquake" in computing... SAMI
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 23:55:22 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Michael Vester wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian Rourke wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 16:39:02 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Brian Rourke wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >[snipped]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Installation is not a usability issue, it is what it is, a compatibility
>issue.
> > > >
> > > > For me, as a user, the target of their market, if I can't USE the
> > > > install program for any reason then for me it is a usability issue.
> > >
> > > Brian didn't do his homework
> > >
> > > BLAME CANADA!
> >
> > Don't blame us. We have suffered under the oppressive boot of Bill Gates
> > just as much as anyone else. Perhaps Brian should not even be using a
> > computer. I have seen the type, "Too stupid to even be just a user."
> >
>
> Watch the South Park movie and get back to us.
Finally saw it a few months ago. Thanx for the reference, I understand
now. Great comedy. Laughed myself stupid.
Southpark certainly has no barriers to what is taboo. The local
fundamentalist Christian groups here are petitioning the tv stations not
to show. Any show that they disapprove of, has to be ok in my books.
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> > >
> > <snip>
> >
> > --
> > Michael Vester
> > A credible Linux advocate
> >
> > "The avalanche has started, it is
> > too late for the pebbles to vote"
> > Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
<snip>
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: Mott The Hoople <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I regretfully conclude that Linux is a piece of CRAP.
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 09:02:53 -0500
Giuliano Colla wrote:
> You're right to be set off. What I was pointing is that the
> distros follow a general trend of addressing a target made
> of dumb people, making people even dumber, and failing to
> satisfy the non dumb portion.
> Microsoft has given a not negligible contribution to this
> trend.
So true. It's largely in part to MS and Windows that so many home
computerists are just plain illiterate when it comes to knowing what makes
their machine function, and why. In their zeal to make an easy-to-use
graphical environment, they've dumbed things down to the lowest level.
But is it all their fault? Or did they just respond to what the consumer
told them they wanted to see in a GUI?
--
{mott}
mott-the-hoople at myrealbox.com
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OSX Links -
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:26:22 +0200
SamanthaJoy wrote:
>
> I really don't think Apple is "out to make money" with Darwin, Apple has
> never been much into "materialism" like a MicroSoft. The whole idea has
> been to build a "great computer" for friends.
>
That was surely one of the reasons for the infamous "look and feel"-
lawsuits. Those I found so disgusting that at the time Apple could have
given me something for free and I wouldn´t have it.
Meanwhile that´s changed, but please stop telling us of Apple´s
altruism where there clearly is none.
Peter
--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
------------------------------
From: "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:36:44 GMT
Hey Listen I hate to tell you this, but what YOU have described is NOT
communism but is loosely "Social Anarchy/ism" The principle distinguishing
factor between the two is this:
Communists -- although the leadership may not be considered to be anything
except an equally important task, a communist still recognizes the superior
position of management authority and its importance to the community.
Social Anarchists do not recognize a leadership organization NOR
organization. They do what they want in hopes that it benefits their
community, but ultimately they answer to no one and are distinctly equal to
everyone else in the community. This is VERY OFTEN mistaken for communism.
Communes still require leaders and leadership, and the leaders may voted in
democratically or somehow leadership conducted in an otherwise equitable
fashion (such as leader-less democratic methodology) there are still haves
and have-nots and people who don't get what they want. Although this is a
far shy from being killed if you don't submit, it is still a level of
submission that "have-not" members of the commune must adhere to or "leave"
Scot Mc Pherson
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Being a guy who has researched this a lot I'd like to comment on a few
> things.
>
> First of all, anyone who mentions Russian Communism, Chinese Communism,
> North Korean Communism, etc. as communism---sorry but you're wrong.
> Those are NOT communism, they are totalitarian governments. Basically
> they're dictaror governments (layman term, really authoritarian). Anyone
> who critisizes communism for anything there just doesn't get it.
>
> Yeah Stalin rounded up farmer who resisted him and killed them. If you
> think that was communism, go look up the definition. Thats a cruel
> authoritarian goverment. Same with China, but you could only call that a
> dispersed authoritarian (uncertain, but I'm quite sure its a 'council'
> of rulers), still you resist the Chinese government and your in jail for
> life--or dead.
>
> For those of you who are now wondering what communism is:
>
> Communism is based on the ideal of a commune. What this means is that
> there is no money, (note: were talking 'pure' communism now, not one of
> its offspring like socialism), no wars, no different social status, etc.
> How? Lets try to put it this way (a little old fashioned but it gets the
> point accross) the baker makes his food but he doesn't sell it: he
> distributes it evenly throughout the community. How does he live? Well
> everyone else does the same exact thing, so everyone gets an equal
> amount of everything. Its very ideal where everyone is equal and well
> off, doing something they like to do, and helping out the community with
> jobs no one likes (trash collection, sewage treatment to name a few).
> Yes everything works on honor system (one minute..) but if it worked we
> would never have problems like poverty, overly-wealthy, etc.
>
> Now on to why it doesn't work. I should note that I have very strict
> hobbesian beliefs (dont know what that is? look up Thomas Hobbes) The
> reason it doesn't work is that human nature prohibits it. Some people
> could not stand being at the same level as the rest, some would try to
> revolt and take leadership (there is none in communism). Many would try
> to do this and guess what would happen? Feudal Wars all over again.
>
> Now I'm tired of writing, but I think I corrected a few people.
>
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: First Cross platform (w32 and Linux) virus
Date: 28 Mar 2001 08:41:07 -0600
http://support.avx.com/cgi-bin/command/solution?11=010327-0017&130=098573182
5
Gotta love this:
W32.Winux contains the following text: "[Win32/Linux.Winux] multi-platform
virus by Benny/29A" and "'This GNU program is covered by GPL."
------------------------------
From: "Dan Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:40:03 +0100
Reply-To: "Dan Shaw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I find it interesting that within these posts, especially the NS/BS ones,
that it was almost being assumed that the granting of copyright is like a
licence to print money and charge over the odds, and that is practically the
only reason. Certainly in the case of BS/NS, even if copyright didn't
exist, the companies would still be charging over the odds.
My reasoning for this is that the reason Britney sells so well is the
marketing (read stimulating of demand) for her products, whether they be the
singles, videos, school lunchboxes or whatever. As an example, look at
British football shirts. A lot of companies make legal copies of the shirts
which have minor differences to prevent prosecution. However, all that
happened in response from Umbro et al is that they made the minor
differences (which is often a stamp sized logo) the de facto of owning such
a shirt. End result - kids all wanted the originals despite their parents
pleads to save money. When I was in High School, if you didn't have genuine
Kickers (with those stupid little tags on the laces), then you weren't cool,
even if your own shoes were better made, more comfortable, etc.
Copyright has been abused by companies, but saying that getting rid of it
will cure this is just plain silly talk. It's far from the only trick the
companies have up their sleeves. As a more relevant example, if you exclude
us techier types, most people still believe that Intel Inside is better,
though couldn't back that up if you held a gun to their heads. Thats
nothing to do with the copyright, but simply the marketing. And it's a
result of the sucess of the marketing of the logo that those humourous Linux
PC badges have come into being,
Dan
Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nick Condon wrote:
>
> >Jay Maynard wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:05:16 -0800, David Kankiewicz
> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>After pondering your non-retroactive argument, I've come to conclusion
> >>>that the only way to change the copyright law would be to devalue all
> >>>copyrighted works to as close to nothing as they can get. Thus, the
> >>>uncompensated taking of property would not really matter because there
> >>>would be nothing to compensate for, even if you still consider it
> >>>property, it would be worthless.
> >>
> >>Ah, but reducing the value of something to zero by government action is
> >>just as much a taking of property as is taking ownership of it outright.
> >>This is a settled principle of law.
> >
> >You've got this backwards. Copyright only has value because it is a
> >government awarded monopoly.
> >
> >If the government backs out and says we're not getting involved in
> >copyright-enforcement anymore, even for civil disputes, the value of
> >copyrighted works will drop pretty close to zero; which is their free-
> >market, no-government-intervention level.
>
> Of course this would happen for real property, too.
>
> What I meant was: if the government got out of the business of *awarding*
> copyrights, then the sale value would fall to zero.
> --
> Nick
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Has Linux anything to offer ?
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:44:23 +0000 (UTC)
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: Hmmm.. seeing that you are at a U... do you know of any win98 print
: manager replacements??
That's a good question. I wish I had a good answer.
Unfortunately, I don't use Windows enough to know :(
Tried Google?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Why can't we just all be friends?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:49:57 GMT
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:42:29 +1200, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, what's your point? Remember this phrase:
>
>"Religion is the opium of the people" ---- Karl Marx
>
>In a nut shell, "stop living in a world of fantasy, and get back to
>concentrating on what is important on earth, in this life"
>
In a nut shell, "Matthew Gardiner is living in a fantasy world. One in
which can't quote a historical figure correctly". - Everett
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 14:54:42 GMT
On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Barry Manilow wrote:
>>
>> Craig Kelley wrote:
>> >
>> > Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> > > GreyCloud wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I have freedom to make as much money as I know how.
>> > >
>> > > The problem with this freedom is that this right ends up killing a lot
>> > > of hard-working, decent human beings. That is why capitalism is a
>> > > murdering system. It kills millions of people every year in the
>> > > world.
>> >
>> > As opposed to *what*, exactly.
>> >
>> > Cuba, North Korea and China are not paragons of virtue.
>>
>> China is practically a capitalist country right now.
>>
>
>Yes, they are beginning to see the light.
>
>However, the brutal ways of their Communist Revolution and
>subsequent Cultural Revolution are still with them.
>
comp.os.linux.advocacy.and.debate.on.communism.vs.capitalism
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:07:30 GMT
Said GreyCloud in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Mar 2001 14:12:56
[...]
>The Win9x series stock monitor is not reliable according to the
>MSCEs. NT, I know very little of so I can't argue its case for or
>against.
I think its a bit ironic that you've been flamed by the sock puppets
lately, as is they're usual rant, over your clearly stated ignorance of
NT. For years, now, (since at least '98, eh?) they've been hitting the
same note as your MSCEs. "Of course, we know Win98 is unstable, nobody
is claiming otherwise!"
Now they're faced with the bitter truth, and I expect it could very well
drive some of them around the bend. The fact is, MS still pumps out
millions of licenses of Win98, and the vast majority of victims of the
monopoly are still using it. Sometimes, we'd imagine that they would
gladly use XP, sometimes we might think they would rather not. There is
a chaotic swirl of perspectives concerning the matter, how contrarily
one must consider consumers rejecting WinDOS and wanting something else,
and insisting MS continue to supply WinDOS at the same time, how MS is
making millions on these licenses, but somehow doesn't want to sell
them, and in fact admits that the product is crap and they can't
understand why anyone insists on using it. It all comes down, obviously
enough, to the dual issues of price and compatibility.
Now, just how hard is it to be compatible with a piece of crap? WHY
would anyone NEED you to be compatible with a piece of crap? All this
constant harping about "backward compatibility" is, in most cases, a
smoke screen. Microsoft is unable to provide reliability, whether it is
compatible with former unreliability or not. The fact is, Microsoft
wants to charge customers three times what they have before for the
"next version" of their OS under the subterfuge of pretending it somehow
costs more per unit to manufacture and license ("and support", I'll
swear I heard, though I know MS charges for all support), or at least by
pretending the development costs should include lunch for the sales reps
and the entire advertising budget. And, even more ironically, the only
need anyone has for the next version is the realization that they've
been lied to about the acceptability of the previous one.
And, no, NT isn't near as reliable as the MCSEs claimed it was way back
when, nor was W2K, nor is XP, though each version is, admittedly *less
unreliable*, though no less vexing and even more crappy, than the
previous.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:07:31 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:21:09
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2001 03:58:22 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >MS also extended Java for java developers who ONLY wanted to
>> >develop on the Windows platform. MS didn't force anyone to
>> >do anything. They just published tools to help developers
>> >who wanted to develop for Java, and only for Windows and
>> >wanted to take advantage of Windows features.
>> >
>>
>> This was in direct violation of their contractual agreements with
>> Sun and the Java consortium. Making extensions to Java that were
>> platform specific were direct violations. Which is, of course,
>> why Sun succeeded in it's lawsuit against Microsoft.
>
>Which basically resulted in MS putting in a compiler switch to
>allow you to turn off the JDirect extensions.
>
>Big whoop.
Hmmm. Seems to me I recall a very large settlement (judicial seal
prevents us from knowing how large), and Microsoft's agreeing never to
develop Java. Woop.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:07:33 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:28:15
[...]
>MS has the best, most standards compliant parser on the market right
>now. It has full support for Schema, of which no other parser supports.
Well, gee, that's real tough when you've been monopolizing the OS for
more than a dozen years, eh?
[...]
>What about XSL? MS again is in the leading pack.
Yes, you've been telling us how they're stuffing specifications down the
W3C's throat...
>But, in the end, XML is just a framework for document standards
>and MS is involved in developing some of the leading document
>standards including WSDL and the UDDI framework among others.
Who needs proprietary document formats when you can have proprietary
document formats that are *standards*! :-D
>Meanwhile, Linux is still trying to get USB support and a decent
>file system that can support >2GB files.
Still trying to overthrow the monopoly, anyway; both those things are
taken care of. Its a tough goal, of course, and doomed to failure,
perhaps, but I think I hear the calvary comin'....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 15:07:34 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:23:30
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Bob Hauck <bobh = haucks dot org> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 00:25:01 GMT, Chad Myers
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> Basically, nobody in the embedded space really wants WinCE or NT.
>> >>
>> >>You have no facts to back this statement up.
>> >
>> >Apparently you have no facts to dispute it either. I design and build
>> >embedded systems. You claim to be a network admin. Let the reader
>> >decide who's making things up.
>> >
>> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2683068,00.html
>>
>> eWEEK: Linux, which you have described as your greatest competitive
>> threat, is also pushing into the embedded space. What exactly is the
>> nature of the Linux threat to Microsoft and what is your strategy to
>> deal with it?
>>
>> BALLMER: The Linux approach has led to an environment from which we can
>> all learn, as it's a great way to do developer support. While Windows
>> maintains its pre-eminent position in terms of developer support and
>> interest, there is something about the way the Linux community supports
>> itself that every platform provider should study if it wants to provide
>> broad community. The Linux community support model has resonated with
>> people.
>> [...]
>> This partly led to us reducing Windows CE prices quite dramatically over
>> the past year ... but I think those prices are now pretty much as low
>> as they're likely to go.
>>
>>
>> http://www.electronicstimes.com/story/technology/OEG20010208S0006
>>
>> In his speech Ballmer said their may be more concessions on licensing
>> terms from the company as it tries to build up market share in embedded.
>>
>> "We've dramatically dropped the price of Windows CE over the course of
>> the last year. There may be other things we need to do to show greater
>> flexibility on terms and conditions," said Ballmer.
>>
>> The only reason for "dramatically dropped the price" is because
>> nobody was buying at the asking price.
>>
>> Last year it was "No further price reductions are anticipated"
>> and then this. I am looking forward to next year.
>
>So... basically, Windows CE and PocketPC had significant share, of which
>Linux was eroding, so MS had to respond.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! No, I don't see any indication that CE ever had any
significant share. Just MS getting more and more desperate for someone
to buy *any*. There's nothing at all whatsoever in that quote to
indicate MS ever had any success at all in embedded systems, save
perhaps some self-serving insinuations by Mr. Ballmer.
>The original claim was that Windows had almost NO share in the
>market at all, which seems to be untrue (wouldn't be the first time
>from Bob).
No, the claim, which you made, was: (to requote)
[Bob:]
>> >>> Basically, nobody in the embedded space really wants WinCE or NT.
>> >>
[Chad:]
>> >>You have no facts to back this statement up.
And not only is that still valid, unrefuted by your rather pitiful
attempt at legerdemain, but proven even more so by the attention. Yes,
we have facts to back up our claim that nobody wants it. No, you have
no facts to back up your claim that a) we have no facts to back that up,
and b) that MS had any significant success in embedded systems.
You're Oh-for-two, Sparky. Wanna give up?
>> Linux: The Unix defragmentation tool.
>
>But I thought Linux wasn't Unix?
Guess not.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
