Linux-Advocacy Digest #190, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... (Chad Everett)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: Yet another IIS security bug ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (chrisv)
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Linus responds... (mm@nowhere)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Craig Kelley)
Re: WinTrolls and advocates are the ones who are geeks! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 20:10:08 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I'm not really the one to ask, but it has to do with the scheduler in
> the kernel.....
<more snip>
Linux Journal ran a few specials on Embedded Linux recently. As I
understood it real time is a very simple concept: it is a way of running
processes in such a way that they *can't* be interrupted. It would not be
very nice if a mission critical data-gathering process could be bumped
off by the kernel in the midst of receiving a data stream (say the core
temperature from a nuclear reactor).
It sounds easy as a concept to me, but I can just see that this would be
extremely hard to implement, especially in the context of a
general-purpose operating system, and a multiprocessing one to boot.
However it seems that developers in this area just love Linux and the
BSD's because of their easy customizability.
Any real engineers feel free to flame for my inaccuracies now (I probably
deserve it).
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 4 May 2001 12:49:35 -0500
On Fri, 04 May 2001 23:37:54 +1000, Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>jtnews wrote:
>>
>> If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested,
>> then why do problems like this still exist
>> in Windows?
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5815298.html?tag=lh
>>
>> From CNET:
>>
>> Flaw found in common Internet standard
>> By Robert Lemos
>> Special to CNET News.com
>> May 3, 2001, 2:30 p.m. PT
>>
>> The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) warned companies this week of
>security problems
>> caused by a fundamental flaw in the way PCs and servers talk to each other
>across the Internet.
>> ..
>> ..
>> ..
>>
>> According to the analysis completed by BindView, operating systems such as the
>Linux 2.2 kernel and the
>> most recent version of OpenBSD create strong ISNs, while operating systems
>such as Windows 95,
>> Windows 98, older versions of Windows NT, AIX and HPUX have relatively weak
>procedures for generating
>> ISNs.
>>
>> The latter operating systems could be exploited by an attack using the new
>vulnerability.
>
>This is not very new news and as you can see affects more than just M$
>products. The problem as I remember it is that the fault lies with not
>generating random enough ISNs, so the next one can be predicted.
>
>IanP
Except that strong IP sequence numbers have been implemented in Linux,
BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, etc. because problems with weak sequence
numbers have been acknowledge for a long time now.
Microsoft has known about this problem in Windows NT 4 for a long time
because they've been told about it a for a long time. They have yet to
issue any kind of SP or hotfix to correct for weak sequence numbers in
any Windows versions except 2000.
SO the original question remains......
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 18:25:09 GMT
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, and as a clue, you should realize that most people who define
>themselves as homosexual or heterosexual are in actuality bisexual
>with a preference for one sex over the other. That preference may
>be quite strong, but it isn't absolute. One need simply look at
>the increased incidence of homosexual contact in enforced, single
>sex environments to discover that.
>
>It is bisexuality, not homo or hetero sexuality, that is survival
>oriented and should be considered "normal". Any objective, factual
>study will show that most so-called hetero and homo sexuals will
>actually engage in sexual behavior with both sexes, albeit with a
>preference for one sex over the other.
Hey, someone who has figured this out (and is willing to admit it).
How refreshing.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 20:26:22 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Paolo
Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Only because they were previously and are still heavily into IBM's "big
>> iron". While I do not denigrate OS/2 on its merits (its vastly
>> superior to MS crapware), I think its only fair to point out that the
>> bulk of its popularity is in "true blue" shops, who buy it based on the
>> fact the IBM makes it, rather than any actual competitive merits.
>
> But if the purchases *were* made on competitive merit, OS/2 would likely
> win by a landslide. Why? The client requirements are very narrow,
> heavily tied into IBM as you've noted, and the banking industry needs an
> impenetrable, highly available, dependable client. As much as I favour
> Linux, if I worked at a bank I'd have to vote for OS/2 in any
> competetive bid situation.
>
> Yeah, you *can* sink a screw with a hammer, but it's just wrong.
For the record: I work for a bank. To be exact, I work for the ING Group.
While I cannot speak for the server side of things, it is true that on
the desktops we (at least my division) were an OS/2 shop for a long time.
We're now slowly switching to NT. Despite being pleasantly surprised at
its stability, it is still a pain because of certain assumptions in UI
design, which are just plain brain dead (like switching focus to the
desktop when you close a window. I am a touch typist, so I consistently use
alt-F4, only to have to use the mouse to refocus on a new window).
Server side we seem to run some IBM big iron running DB2.
That's why I like to run IceWM on Linux, as it is very close in look and
feel to OS/2, which *does* handle window focus in a reasonable
manner. It is also Gnome-compliant, thus killing 2 birds with one stone.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: chrisv <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 18:37:25 GMT
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The vast majority of human beings are bisexual, with most of them
>having a preference for one sex or the other. The decision to label
>yourself homo or hetero sexual is actually more a cultural thing, as
>this culture seems to force peopleto "polarize"; in effect, choose
>one label or the other.
>
><snip>
>
>In short, sexual preference is more shades of gray, than pure
>black or white, and I believe the discussions of homosexuality
>re: evolution place the wrong weights on the wrong things.
Of course, the vast majority of men are far to "macho" to admit that
they've ever had any homosexual feelings, or that they ever
experimented when they were younger, etc.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 13:50:43 -0500
Well, if Open Source software is so thoroughly tested, how come programs
like BIND have had the same bugs for 10+ years without being found?
Fact is, bugs exist. MS has fixed the problem in Windows 2000, which is
what all their new OS's are based on.
"jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested,
> then why do problems like this still exist
> in Windows?
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-5815298.html?tag=lh
>
> From CNET:
>
> Flaw found in common Internet standard
> By Robert Lemos
> Special to CNET News.com
> May 3, 2001, 2:30 p.m. PT
>
> The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) warned companies this
week of security problems
> caused by a fundamental flaw in the way PCs and servers talk to each
other across the Internet.
> ..
> ..
> ..
>
> According to the analysis completed by BindView, operating systems such as
the Linux 2.2 kernel and the
> most recent version of OpenBSD create strong ISNs, while operating
systems such as Windows 95,
> Windows 98, older versions of Windows NT, AIX and HPUX have
relatively weak procedures for generating
> ISNs.
>
> The latter operating systems could be exploited by an attack using
the new vulnerability.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:03:23 GMT
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Clue for the clueless.
>> >
>> >Homosexuality is a defect,
>>
>> Says who?
>
>Says reality.
In other words, you're just sharing your personal prejudices with us
and are confused that not everyone else thinks the way you think.
>> > as it interferes with the organism's ability
>> >to successfully reproduce
>>
>> You assume that that makes homosexuality a defect. An assumption
>> without any supporting evidence.
>
>Homosexuality obviously is a defect.
"Obviously being a Jew is a defect".
> Only a very small percentage of
>the population are truly homosexual, indicating that homosexuality has
>a low survival rate.
Only a very small percentage of the population has red hair.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:11:53 -0400
Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Clue for the clueless.
> >> >
> >> >Homosexuality is a defect,
> >>
> >> Says who?
> >
> >Says reality.
>
> In other words, you're just sharing your personal prejudices with us
> and are confused that not everyone else thinks the way you think.
>
> >> > as it interferes with the organism's ability
> >> >to successfully reproduce
> >>
> >> You assume that that makes homosexuality a defect. An assumption
> >> without any supporting evidence.
> >
> >Homosexuality obviously is a defect.
>
> "Obviously being a Jew is a defect".
Racist pig.
>
> > Only a very small percentage of
> >the population are truly homosexual, indicating that homosexuality has
> >a low survival rate.
>
> Only a very small percentage of the population has red hair.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
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.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 21:49:22 +0200
"Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ctt5e$2l39$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > Maybe because they
> saw that the future belongs to OSS?
> <snip>
> > >The sad fact is, that free software was never meant to be
> commercialized...
> > >it was meant to be shared. Companies basing their existence on a free
> product,
> > >in the hopes that they will draw revenue from support contracts simply
> > >doesn't work in the long run. That is what I and others said a while
ago.
> That is
> > >what we are seeing now. I have a feeling that there are going to be a
> lot more
> > >dusty has-been cubicles being repossessed/liquidated in the next year
or
> > >two.
> >
> > Fortunately the future of the OSS movement doesn't depend on the
> > survival of those companies.
>
> Well, that really depends on the intended end-users. Up till now the
> products of the *real* OSS movement (i.e. non-commercial development) has
> not really been intended for the typical Windows user (i.e.
> not-too-technical people). Some of the major advances in Linux
> user-friendliness has come as a result of companies trying to found a
> commercial business on OSS (examples are Eazel, RedHat, Caldera, etc.). I
> would say that OSS *needs* a viable commercial model in order to win the
> rest of the world over, and not just capture the hearts and minds of the
> geeks.
I agree, one of my *most* hated tasks is creating UI, be it GUI or CLI, if I
program for fun, it's unlikely that I'll invest a lot of time in the UI of
the application.
I've a friend who fell exactly the opposite, he dwells into UI with
overwheling joy. We do good work together.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 21:53:51 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
> [...]
> >There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY different
> >ways to do it.
>
> Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
> work.
No, if it implement the API, it will work.
That is the *defination* of implementation.
There are countless ways to implement almost any API you can think of. Some
of them are better than others in memory footprint, speed, etc, but *all* of
them will work.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 21:54:02 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
> >>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
> >>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
> >
> >You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>
> No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
> who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
> so.
Extensive mean that they read Visual Basic for Dummies and created their own
Hello World program *without* looking in the book?
*No one* with any reasonable programming experiance would say this.
An API is a contract between a library and the application.
The application knows that when it does X, then library would do Y, because
it's spesified in the contract.
That contract hide as much as possible from the user's of the library,
because the point is to give the library as much freedom as possible in
implementing itself.
If you code against the API, and your code doesn't work correctly, either
you, or the library, broke the contract.
And that is quite rare.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 21:56:59 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 01:22:52
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >No, if I want to know what an API is, I don't go to the documentation.
> >I go the the API's documentation.
>
> Is it only in English that these statements are incomprehensible?
It's English.
> >What is an API documentation?
> >API can be divided into two parts:
> >Functions declaration.
> >Text that describe what those functions does.
> >
> >You would need to be more spesific about the documentation part,
> >documentation of what?
>
> Yes, that was my point.
That documentation is part of the API.
An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function does.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 22:06:40 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9DzI6.4281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Oh yes. Most of the stuff DOS does, you'd
> > > use DOS for.
> >
> > So does Windows. Remove "Command.com" from a Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.1,
3.11,
> > 95, or 98 system, and tell us what happens.
>
> Command.com is a shell. It's like /bin/sh in Unix. This
> doesn't mean Unix "runs on" /bin/sh.
>
> Windows still uses DOS for a few things- for instance,
> I believe it still thunks down into DOS to access the
> current date/time.
>
> So when you say Windows "runs on" DOS, there is
> some truth to that. It may not "run on" very *much*
> DOS, but even a little DOS is still pure real mode pain.
>
> But the big things- file system access, memory management,
> keyboard access, device access- those are all in Windows
> now.
>
> We're not *quite* out of the woods, but we are close.
I am, and have been for the last couple of years. :)
NT doesn't have any Dos in it, thankfully.
BTW, the one OS that is worse than Dos is Bos.
Its functionality was sending keyboard letters to the screen.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 22:14:20 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hOzI6.4294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It does not have structured storage.
What is structed storage?
> It has a standard help engine, but that engine is 'man'.
> Need I say more?
Yes, but I'll let GNU guys tell you this:
"The GNU project regards man pages as obsolete and should not let them take
time away from other things."
Qoute: man gcc
> The way the doublecrossed IBM was classic.
Do you have any details about it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:30:59 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> > as it interferes with the organism's ability
>> >> >to successfully reproduce
>> >>
>> >> You assume that that makes homosexuality a defect. An assumption
>> >> without any supporting evidence.
>> >
>> >Homosexuality obviously is a defect.
>>
>> "Obviously being a Jew is a defect".
>
>Racist pig.
Being a homophobic pig is no different from being a racist or sexist pig.
THAT is the point which you don't get. 60 years ago the Nazis
considered being a Jew and being a homosexual to be a "defect".
They proceeded to get rid of the defective.
Now you argue that homosexuals are defective.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: mm@nowhere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus responds...
Date: 4 May 2001 11:46:05 -0700
I think both Linus and the MS dude, are both missing the real point.
This is not about IPR or freedom of thought or free source code or the
discovery of the electron, or any of that.
The final test is this: Which OS/platform is the one that the masses
find better and easier and help the people do their work?
If you consider the computer a tool, which tool people find better for them?
The answers to the above questions which should be debated, not if
the code should be free or not. If free code means I'll get a better OS,
then free code is better. If closed code will mean I'll get a better OS, then
closed code is better.
As a user, I only care about which system is better for me, and which will
help me do my job better.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: 04 May 2001 13:40:23 -0600
"mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't think "open" is the right word at all.
>
> If you don't believe me, just try to get a copy.
>
> One of Microsoft's goals is to confuse the issues for people
> who don't know enough to judge for themselves.
Exactly.
Not only that, but the cost for entry into Windows development is too
high now as well. It used to be that companies could charge $1000 (or
more) from their developers, but those days are gone now; I just
recieved my copy of MacOS X and it includes all the developer tools on
a separate CD *with* the OS.
Microsoft will bundle *some* software with Windows when it is
convenient (Word, Explorer, Media Player, etc.), but not their
development software -- even though they claim that their new goal is
"openness". One cannot look into the scheduler for Windows 2000
without some serious red tape being cut; OTOH, one *can* grab up
Darwin, BSD or Linux and tweak the hell out of the scheduler to their
heart's content.
Which one is really open?
Back when I started in computing (early 80s) -- every system came with
development tools, and it was exciting to play around with them even
if no big projects resulted. It's sad that today's kids have to
resort to piracy in order to program (notice: I didn't say "develop"
-- these aren't professional developers); it's great that Apple
finally "got it" again after all these years. It's great that open
systems are becomming more and more popular with the next generation
of computors (ie, the folks that will be running the show 10-20 years
from now).
Meanwhile, Microsoft sends VPs out to give meaningless speeches.
(some Microsoft developers "get it" -- too bad the company as a whole
doesn't)
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WinTrolls and advocates are the ones who are geeks!
Date: 04 May 2001 13:45:42 -0600
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> s/geek/dork/g
Exactly what I was going to say.
Being a 'geek' is a *good* thing.
[snippage]
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 22:28:22 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> They started doing *that* in Windows 3.1.
>
> Originally it was for performance, of course, but
> there is another reason: They need to move
> driver developers to a new API too, so they
> can transition to the NT codebase. NT must
> have drivers, not just apps.
>
> Hence all this "Windows Driver Model" stuff.
As a note WDM (Windows Driver Model) is quite new, it appeared in Win98, and
supported by WinMe, Win2K, WinXP, etc...
NT4 use it's own driver, and 95,98,ME can use VXD too. (95 only accept VXD,
though).
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 22:33:34 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:p7jI6.3490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
> > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> Microsoft doesn't have competitors, only victims and those who are
not
> > >> yet victims. At the time you suggest GEM was a 'real competitor', it
> > >> classified as the latter. Now it is the former.
> > >
> > >I think you are letting your, um, ideology show too much.
> >
> > I don't have an ideology; just my reason.
>
> Indeed.
>
> I think you'd be well advised to keep you, uh,
> "reason" under wraps. It does not enhance your
> credibility much.
>
> > And I think my reason is
> > showing you to be a passive-aggressive troll who has an agenda of
> > apologizing for a criminal monopoly. Doh!
>
> I may say this isn't the first time I've been called
> a "passive agressive" troll.
>
> What the heck does it mean? Is it a bad thing?
>
> The "passive agressive" part, I mean. I know
> all about trolling. :D
Damn it, you just make this group *much* more attractive.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
