Linux-Advocacy Digest #15, Volume #34 Sat, 28 Apr 01 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:52 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I think you should re-examine your history.
>
>YOU YOURSELF ARE CLUELESS about per-processor history! You are the one who
>should re-examine history! It has been altered by numerous "I heard" quoting
> of anti-Microsoft fanatics playing the telephone game. Let's get back to
>some actual history shall we?
Oh, this should be fun....
>Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the late
>1980s
Mid 1980s, according to the rather sketchy record possible through the
NDAs. At least as long as you don't include the early 1980s, when MS
was selling a "bulk license" with a stipulation that their software must
be included on every single system.
>at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the administration of
>their per system licenses.
OEMs were never given per system licenses before per-processor
licensing, as far as I can tell. The bulk licenses were balked at, of
course, and so when OEMs demanded per system licensing, they were
offered the choice of cliff's-edge agreements to ensure (just as with
bulk licenses) that every system was covered, or standard per system
pricing, probably at 200-500% price increase, or more. Remember, the
proportion of the increase would be calculated based on how many systems
the OEM sold, and could stretch the bulk rate across.
Of course, for any OEM where the bulk rate was more profitable, MS
wouldn't have offered that option.
>(Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97; Hosogi
>Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
>103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less frequently
>than they change other components of their systems, a per processor license
>decreased the number of contract amendments that had been necessary under a
>per system license due to system changes. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at
>96-97; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 103-06.)
This testimony is seriously flawed, in your analysis, anonymous troller.
You might as well just leave your argument on the pedantic point that
per-processer licensing "is not illegal", because MS was not convicted
of Sherman Act violations for engaging in it. Only, of course, because
they promised not to do it anymore, and then, of course, they broke that
promise immediately using the most convenient loophole and relying on
their already existent monopoly power to prevent it from causing any
competition to emerge.
After the 1995 consent decree, MS stopped the blanket per-processor
licensing agreements, but simply replaced them with per-product-line
per-processor agreements, which of course covered every product line an
OEM might have. Until very recently, of course. You could rest your
argument on the idea that this change did allow "competition to emerge".
Along with your ignorant presumption that Windows isn't utter crapware,
and your delusion that it takes 100% market share to be a monopoly, this
would make an acceptable presentation, if not a convincing argument.
Just quoting testimony doesn't make an argument.
>Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a royalty
"Royalties"? No, kid, you're not allowed to change the meaning of a
word like that. Software license fees are not "royalties". We'll
concede the metaphorical relationship, and consider your use of the term
merely a rhetorical attempt to "spin" your way out of the argument,
rather than a fabrication or a lie, because I have no intention in
getting into a troll-fest over the matter. Still, it is analytically
incorrect to use the term the way you have.
>on every machine shipped containing a particular processor, Microsoft
>negotiated exceptions with at least twenty-seven OEMs to allow those OEMs to
>ship up to ten percent of their machines containing particular processor
>types without paying royalties on those machines. (See Kempin FTC Testimony
>(Exh. 9) at 104-05; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 92; Apple Dep. (Exh. 10) at 23-24;
>Microsoft's Second Response to Department of Justice Civil Investigative
>Demand No. 10300 (excerpts attached as Exh. 21) at C001309-11.) Other OEMs
>with no such exception in their per processor licenses nonetheless offered
>non-Microsoft operating systems with their computers during the term of
>their per processor licenses. (See, e.g., Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 111-13;
>Roberts DOJ Decl. (Exh. 11) at C005864; Lieven Dep. (Exh. 12) at 187.)
I'm beginning to suspect that you think the term 'per processor' means
'per type of processor', or something like 'per system product line' or
something.
BTW, if you expect quotes from legal documents to be cogent, you're
going to have to learn to reasonably edit out the references.
The quote simply mirrors your delusion that 100% market share is
necessary to prove a civil or criminal conviction for Sherman Act
violations.
>During Microsoft's 1994 fiscal year - the final year in which it offered per
>processor licenses - approximately 59% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM
>customers were covered by per processor licenses. In fiscal year 1993,
>approximately 62% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEM customers were covered by
>per processor licenses. The prior year, Microsoft's 1992 fiscal year,
>approximately 51% of MS-DOS units licensed by OEMs were covered by per
>processor licenses. Per processor licenses made up 27% in fiscal year 1991,
>22% in fiscal year 1990 and smaller percentages in earlier years. 2a
Unless you are capable of analyzing *which* N% were under what licenses,
I fail to see the point in this presentation. Fewer statistics and more
analysis would make your argument more comprehensible.
>DRI similarly attempted to combat piracy by entering into exclusive OEM
>licenses that required the OEM (unlike in Microsoft's per processor license)
>to install and pay a royalty for DR DOS on **each and every computer shipped
>by the OEM.**!!!!!
Now suddenly its an attempt to combat piracy? You did learn how to do
this from Microsoft, that much is obvious. They do the same thing. For
them, as long as they maintain monopoly power, it doesn't matter how
pathetically obvious a facade it may be, it still works. For you, the
same effect is managed by blind stupidity.
>(See Vasco Dep. (Exh. 14) at 125; DiCorti 7/30/98 Dep.
>(Exh. 15) at 165-71.) DRI executives have testified that these licenses were
>equivalent to per processor licenses. (DiCorti 7/30/98 Dep. (Exh. 15) at
>357; Gunn Dep. (Exh. 16) at 165.)
Having bunches of reference numbers around the quote does not make it
any more true. I would not presume that DRI executives would be the
authority on the matter. You would, simply because it agrees with your
mistaken opinion, but I guess that's why you're an anonymous troll and
I'm not.
>Numerous examples of these DRI per
>processor-type licenses are attached as exhibits to this memorandum. (See
>License Agreement with ABC Computer Co. Ltd. (Exh. 26) at C0309430;
>[REDACTED] ; License Agreement with Olidata SpA (Exh. 28) at A0228806;
>License Agreement with Athena Informatica (Exh. 29) at A0654065.) In
>addition to combating piracy, DRI had another business reason for offering
>its version of the per processor license: giving the OEM customer what it
>wanted. (Gunn Dep. (Exh. 16) at 166.) DRI pricing policies authorized price
>discounts for OEMs that elected to bundle DR DOS with every hardware unit
>shipped. (See DRI's Price List, Pricing Memoranda, and Pricing Policies
>(Exh. 30) at PC9653-54.)
You still seem lacking in analysis. What does DRI's practices have to
do with Microsoft's? I guess another familiar aspect of your
fundamentally flawed arguments, that the Sherman Act outlaws certain
actions (such as per-processor licensing). It doesn't; it outlaws a
certain *class* of action (monopolization). Should the matter be more
clear, that MS acted anti-competitively in implementing their
per-processor licensing, no doubt the popular wisdom would be that 'per
processor licenses are illegal'. In fact, it would be more appropriate
to say, whether you consider the Consent Decree to show that they were
or were not used to monopolize or restrain trade, that they are
unlawful. The distinction which must be drawn between DRI's lawful use
of ppl's, and MS's unlawful use is not evident from the record of
testimony you've provided. It probably was not explored, since it was
only Microsoft's contention that it mattered; the prosecution didn't
need to prove ppl's were anti-competitive, as the attempt to leverage
the monopoly made its existence clear enough.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:22:57 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 26 Apr
[...]
>> Can you please tell me why Vobis was, wssentially forced into per
>> processor licensing, and why per processor licensing landed M$ in
>> trouble with the DOJ if it was so benign and so requested by vendors?
>
>I don't know anything about Vobis, but the claim flies in the face the facts
>so is most likely false. It (ppla) didn't land Microsoft in trouble. The
>DOJ, after wasting 12,000 man hours crawling up Microsofts ass looking for
>ANYTHING, found absolutely no prosecutable offences. And thus had to stand
>before a judge and declare "We have found no prosecutable offences" but have
>reached an agreement with MS volunteering to cease and descist on a couple
>issues. MS was being extremely generous agreeing to ANYTHING because the DOJ
>didn't have a leg to stand on.
GUFFAW <squared>, anonymous troll JS PL. MS was being generous, huh,
that's the reason they signed the consent decree? It wouldn't have been
to avoid prosecution, after the lengthy investigation (originally
started by the FTC; they're the ones who got hung up on ppl, because of
the same bullshit you try to pull when you pretend it's a volume
discount) by the DoJ showed that they were force bundling Windows with
DOS, and otherwise excluding other OSes. I guess had they not been
generous, the prosecution would have forgotten all about that, or else
it wouldn't have convinced a judge. And according to you, it wasn't
enough to convince MS, either; they were just being "nice", which we all
know is one of their most recognizable characteristics.
Guffaw.
--
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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:03 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
>JS PL wrote:
>>
>> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> > Personally, I love capitalism,
>>
>> Secretly, you don't.
>>
>> >and Microsoft is living proof of what
>> > happens when you break the rules of the market place, you get hauled
>> > through the courts.
>>
>> Every large comany participates in lawsuits and court battles as a matter of
>> routine business. You mistakenly pretend that it's a reflection of their
>> ethics. Microsoft customers know differently. That's why it's the chosen OS
>> product of 98% of all PC users.
>
>Popularity doesn't always equal a quality product.
Well, it sort of does, but this is why MS's products can't be considered
"popular", just because they are common. A very large proportion of
customers would use something else, better or cheaper, if they could do
so without incurring additional costs, both monetary and operational.
This fact is proven by Microsoft's own insistence on using exclusionary
tactics, not the quality of their product, to ensure their software
remains common, so monopoly apologists can pretend its popular.
--
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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:08 GMT
Said B.B. in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 23:23:02 -0500;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>@> Your .sig is too long. Even us uneducated types can spot it.
>@
>@Whatcha gonna do about it?
>
> Call you a moron. An immature moron at that. Maybe I'll stick you
>in my killfile too--your .sig is annoying, and you never write anything
>of merit anyway.
Aaron is, I'm afraid, too smart to be a moron. He is simply a fool.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:11 GMT
Said Zed Mister in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 21 Apr 2001 02:15:21
>The companies that are involved with 'selling' Linux are not doing well at
>all. In fact, they are doing very, very poorly.
Go figure. Who'da thought? Its almost as if there were some sort of
"barrier to entry", huh?
--
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: Intel versus Sparc
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:16 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:18:05
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9c52c1$lsi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Chad Myers wrote:
>> > >
>> > > <Disclaimer: I am not a professional C++ programmer>
>> > >
>> > > Have you ever used Visual C++? I know you guys hate Microsoft and all,
>> but
>> > > they have a good debugger that tracks memory overwrites. This is
>> probably
>> > > a common thing, but if it isn't, it's still pretty cool. It would catch
>> > > this kind of stuff in one pass.
>> >
>> > The Borland debugger caught it perfectly adequately; it just took me
>> > awhile to realize just what was happening. Actually, the Visual C++
>> > debugger is pretty good. To get as good, or a little better, you
>> > have to go to C++ Builder 5 with CodeGuard support compiled in.
>> >
>> > Visual C++ does have some serious language compliance problems, I feel.
>> > But C++ Builder, when you use VCL code, is even worse!!!
>> >
>> > Chris
>>
>> I like VC as a very good text editor, ignoring the language compliance
>> (anyone know how VS.NET fares in this matter?), it's a very good tool.
>> I just used a program called ObjectAda, which is a VC clone for Ada, it was
>> a... learning experiance.
>> One thing I hope VS.NET will do well is to be able to add more language to
>> it. I *hated* that debugger.
>
>I think VS.NET will be able to run all .NET-based language inside it as
>an IDE.
And I think that's a smoke screen, and you'll end up running one or
maybe two or three languages, all controlled by Microsoft.
>In fact, I thought I saw that ActiveState was working with MS for
>Perl.NET IDE integration with VS.NET.
I'm quite sure that Microsoft is "working with" a whole slew of sock
puppet organizations which are developing .NET stuff.
>... or maybe that's not what you were talking about. Forgive me if I'm
>rambling... wisdom teeth removed... on much pain medication...
Plus, you're a troll who can't resist spewing chunks from Microsoft
press releases about their vaporware.
--
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: Intel versus Sparc
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:21 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:xtqF6.198722$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
>> > > Visual C++ does have some serious language compliance problems, I
>feel.
>> > > But C++ Builder, when you use VCL code, is even worse!!!
>> > >
>> > > Chris
>> >
>> > I like VC as a very good text editor, ignoring the language compliance
>> > (anyone know how VS.NET fares in this matter?), it's a very good tool.
>> > I just used a program called ObjectAda, which is a VC clone for Ada, it
>was
>> > a... learning experiance.
>> > One thing I hope VS.NET will do well is to be able to add more language
>to
>> > it. I *hated* that debugger.
>>
>> I think VS.NET will be able to run all .NET-based language inside it as
>> an IDE.
>>
>> In fact, I thought I saw that ActiveState was working with MS for
>> Perl.NET IDE integration with VS.NET.
>
>I know that it would be able to run .NET lagnuages, the question is, will I
>be able to extend the languages?
Sure; Microsoft is your friend, after all. Why wouldn't they want you
to have control over your computing experience?
>Assume that couple of months after VS release, there is another language
>that support .NET, will I be able to use VS's IDE features for it by
>downloading some data file, or will the languages will be fixed?
Depends on if you threaten the monopoly, would be my guess. Like, maybe
you're trying to save money by avoiding having to buy a bunch of new
licenses. That's piracy, so it probably won't be allowed.
--
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: Intel versus Sparc
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:26 GMT
Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 23 Apr 2001 17:09:19 -0400;
>Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Figured it couldn't be compiler bugs! After some
>> more dicking around with cleaning up some of
>> the myriad of warnings, I noticed that the
>> bad function was pushing an array of structures
>> onto the stack. Looking at the size of the array,
>> found it was 64 Mb!
>>
>> At that point, we realized that the Intel platform
>> was the cause of the trouble (not to mention the
>> dumb way of allocating/using such a large buffer).
>> The code had been originally developed on a SparcStation.
>>
>> So, be careful about thinking PC's are the best
>> things around, just because they are much more
>> powerful than they used to be.
>
>What you are talking about has nothing to do with the "Intel." It has to do
>with the operating system AND/OR the compiler.
Well, the fact that it affects only operating systems and/or compilers
on Intel platforms seems to contradict your otherwise-valid observation.
--
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: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:31 GMT
Said Donn Miller in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 24 Apr 2001 11:00:28
[...]
>Yep, I know what you're sayin'. I remember back in the good 'ol days,
>when you had to boot into DOS first, and type 'win' at the DOS prompt.
>You could put `win' in your autoexec.bat file, and have Windows fire up
>automatically, but back then, DOS and Windows were more separate than
>they are now.
Yea. Now you have to edit msdos.sys.
>I remember Win 3.1 crashing sometimes, and taking me back
>to the DOS prompt.
Really? I remember it locking up the system, just like it does now, and
causing a reboot.
>At least I could get back by typing `win' instead of
>rebooting, then. DOS by itself did seem more stable than Windows.
>Why? Because it was a stripped-down CLI-based kernel, much like a unix
>kernel.
Oh, guffaw. DOS like a Unix kernel? You're high, or ignorant.
>Now, I don't think you can even boot into DOS with Windows ME. Wonder
>why? What is the motivation for preventing people from shutting Windows
>down and running DOS by itself? Of course, one could always dual-boot
>with some other version of DOS (perferably Caldera OpenDOS), but
>still...
MS has a lot tied up in the decade-old lie that there Is No DOS. It
doesn't matter how obvious a lie it is. Its bizarre, but that's just
the way things work.
[...]
>But does NT really operate the vid drivers in Ring 0? That sounds like
>Windows 98 to me. (Aaron's favorite OS.) I know NT's video drivers run
>in kernel space, but I thought they were still restricted to ring level
>2.
I think this is abstraction error. The 'video drivers' "run" in ring
level 2, maybe, but the video sub-system of Windows is a ring 0 thing.
--
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: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:36 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 02:15:05
[...]
>Well, Win95 was slightly different. It was 32-bit protected [...]
Wasn't that himem.sys?
>and actually
>had the beginnings of a "kernel" in that it had a seperate virtual memory
>manager (VMM32) and had decent 32-bit process isolation.
How is that the beginning of a kernel? Wasn't EMM386 a "separate
virtual memory manager"?
>You could boot to DOS in Win95 and type Win, but you weren't really running
>Windows on DOS at that point, Win95's VMM basically took over.
Took over for what? DOS didn't have a VMM.
>It's similar
>to how Novell 3.x and 4.x ran. You could type nwserver (or whatever it was)
>from DOS, but you weren't really running NetWare on DOS, you were running
>NetWare.
No, it wasn't like that at all, because NetWare wasn't based on DOS data
and operational structures, like Windows was.
>This difference made it slightly difficult to go back and forth between
>DOS, Win95, then back to DOS again.
No, that would have been easy, had MS not tried to so hard (not very) to
obscure the relationship. Truth is, you can switch from "Reboot to DOS"
(a pathetically obviously lie, since a reboot never occurred) to "win"
at will, with Win95. MS "fixed" this (broke it to support their lie) in
Win98 and later versions.
>In the end, it just created support nightmares for anyone dealing with
>Win9x about which apps could run in the 32-bit protected mode, and which
>needed to be in the DOS window, etc.
Huh? Guffaw.
>When Win98 came out, there were still legacy apps which required
>DOS mode.
When XP comes out, the same will be true. Go figure. Most producers
are smart enough to know that this means DOS is still worth money. But
a monopoly, well, they gotta keep pushing new shit.
>By WinME, there are almost no apps which require this, which allowed MS
>to finally get rid of the support nightmare and not require people to
>boot to DOS to some things, and boot to WinME to do others.
How on earth could WinME have any effect on Win32 apps, considering to
support WinME alone would be suicide for an app developer?
>And I hope you realize that NT/2K are completely different in that
>they are fully 32-bit from the get-go.
Except, of course, for the backward compatibility which allows them to
run some DOS programs. <*Hmpgh*>
>No DOS at all (except as a small
>sub-system for compatibility, just like the OS/2 subsystem and POSIX
>subsystem).
Oh, yea, right. Accept for the fact that its crapware, and has none of
the intelligent *design* of OS/2 or other POSIX-compliant systems.
>I had to mention this, because, believe it or not, many Windows-haters
>don't realize this and still think that WinNT or 2K are sucky like
>Win3.1 or Win95 and seek to insult it at such a level which is, as
>I'm sure you agree, really ignorant.
Let's see. They take DOS, build a crapware GUI on top of it, then right
a "new OS" to support the same crapware GUI, and expect us to believe
that the OS is thereby not DOS and not crapware?
Sorry. If MS had listened to that VMS guy who designed the underlying
non-DOS part, maybe you might have a point. But they didn't, and made
NT (and 2K and XP behind it) pure crapware, from top to bottom. Its
more stable and more powerful than DOS-based Windows, but that's what
makes it so incredibly BAD, ironically.
--
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: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:41 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
04:10:58 GMT;
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> I had to mention this, because, believe it or not, many Windows-haters
>> don't realize this and still think that WinNT or 2K are sucky like
>> Win3.1 or Win95 and seek to insult it at such a level which is, as
>> I'm sure you agree, really ignorant.
>
>True. Still, Microsoft has only started to realize the value of
>the UNIX style, and their software still is amazingly buggy for
>a company that supposedly devotes a lot of resources to testing.
But they are trying really hard to emulate Unix, aren't they? Or should
I say "simulate"?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:23:46 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 26 Apr
2001 13:46:15 -0400;
>
>"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9c7imi$ce7e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > True. Still, Microsoft has only started to realize the value of
>> > the UNIX style, and their software still is amazingly buggy for
>> > a company that supposedly devotes a lot of resources to testing.
>> >
>>
>> Yes - but MS's definition of testing is selling a product and seeing how
>> many users have problems - then fixing those problems and selling the
>users
>> aother untested 'upgrade' and repeating the process.
>
>Sure it is. That's why just about the only company I hear of nowadays that
>is releasing test beta versions of their software is...you guessed
>it....Microsoft.
What do you think an untested upgrade is, but a "test beta version".
Most companies just release either beta versions, or test versions
(alpha, I guess).
>If I'm not mistaken, every major build of Whistler is being
>continualy released, as well as major builds of office software, Visual
>Studio.net, Exchange.....
>Developers are included in Microsoft software every step of the way.
>
>http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/resources/subdwnld.asp
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. "Continually released". Sounds almost as if it isn't
monopoly crapware, doesn't it?
>File this under "Another anti-MS FUD attempt, debunked"
Yea, right. You wish.
--
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
******************************
