Linux-Advocacy Digest #196, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Terry Porter)
IBM Linux mainframe to displace NT, Sun, HP boxes at Venezuelan bank ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source ("Adam Warner")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source ("Adam Warner")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (John Jensen)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (GreyCloud)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source ("Adam Warner")
Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 May 2001 22:41:40 GMT
On Fri, 4 May 2001 17:14:05 +0200,
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>> >
>> > Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
>> > case for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least
>> > for the majority of posters here.
>> >
>> Any damn fool can bash linux or its proponents.
>> But to put up a compelling cas for the use of wintendo would be a more
>> challenging task, at least for Mikkel.
>
> Wow, that response was really something!
What did you expect, given the nature of your post.
A non Linux advocate, posts in COLA, and critisises the Linux advocates
for not doing this or that... you get back what you give in COLA, better get
used to it, if you plan on posting here.
> A masterpiece in logical deduction
> and original thinking. (or perhaps more like "oh yeah, well, eeehr, ....
> same to you, motherf*****!)
This kind of response will not get you anywhere on COLA, unless being
torn to shreads is your aim.
>
> Did it ever for a minute occur to you, Peter, that I would not care to put
> forward a compelling case for Windows?
Put up or shut up, that my motto.
> (that's actually the name for the
> platform, only immature morons use silly nicknames). Advocating Linux is not
> the same as bashing Windows.
Perhaps not, but if it makes Peter happy to call Windows "Wintendo", then I
think its doing *some* good :)
After all COLA is a place for Linux Advocated to blow off some steam, cause
lets face it, some of the poor blighters have to actually "use" Windows
in their day job. Theyre stressed and frazzeled after trying to get Windows
to do something usefull, and need some stress relief when they get home,
hence the existence of COLA.
Peter belongs here on COLA, what are you doing here Mikkel ?
>
> I was merely looking for the Linux advocates to advocate the use of Linux.
Lex Luthor, merley wanted to kill Superman, and he couldnt even do that
'one little thing'.
> Can you do that?
Can you advocate Windows, on the relevant NG ?
>
> Mikkel
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: IBM Linux mainframe to displace NT, Sun, HP boxes at Venezuelan bank
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 18:44:55 +0000
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/05/03/010503hnibmbank.xml?p=br&s=10
"IBM ON THURSDAY scored a win in its crusade to establish
Linux on mainframes, announcing a deal with one of
Venezuela's largest banks."
"As part of a multiphase transition, Big Blue has signed a
deal with Banco Mercantile, the assets of which total $3
billion, to migrate the functions now carried out by 30
Windows NT servers onto one of its mainframes running
Linux. The Windows NT servers were acting largely as Web
servers, firewalls, and Internet domain servers."
"In phase two, the bank plans to move functions now being
carried out by Unix-based Sun Microsystems and
Hewlett-Packard servers over to the mainframes."
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 May 2001 22:48:56 GMT
On Fri, 04 May 2001 20:35:04 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Mikkel Elmholdt" wrote:
>
>> A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup reveals that the
>> majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
>> official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of Linux.
>
> It may be non-scientific, but it hits the nail squarely on the head.
It pats the Ubertroll squarley on his little Wintroll head.
"good little Wintroll"
>
>> It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
>> arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on
> your
>> opponents weaknesses. Is that the case here? If it is, then I find it
> rather
>> lame.
>
> Yes, it is very lame. I've been saying it in here since late 96,
You've said a lot since 96, when you came in here. whining and moaning
about how 'hard' Linux was for *you*.
> and I'm
> still called a 'wintroll'
If the name fits... Wintroll
> because I think the state of linux advocacy sucks.
No you dont, you think Linux sucks, and unfortunately for you
it does, given your inability for independent thought.
> (cola mainly, but most elsewhere as well.)
>
>> Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
> case
>> for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for the
>> majority of posters here.
>
> There are a few good folks here who do try to make a good case. I read their
> posts and don't usually respond because I usually agree with them.
The Wintrolls you mean ?
> Most of
> the 'regulars' (easy to spot, look for the words 'luser', 'loseDos',
> 'winbloze', and so on ... ) --fit the third word in your above paragraph
> rather succinctly.
Oh how the pot calls the kettle black, isnt advocacy wonderfull :)
Ubertroll neglects to mention the Wintrollslang for Linux,
"Linonuts", "open sores' etc.
Ubertroll you're so full of it, even Sir Isac Newton smells
better than you (sorry linus).
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[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 23:22:58 +0200
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> It's just as unreasonable to expect Apache to perform
> well on Windows 95. Windows 95 has many of the
> necessary APIs as hand-me-downs from NT, but
> their implementation is often not so great.
>
Totally agree.
While in theory Win95 / Win98 have baiscally the same API than NT4, in
practice not very much of that claim is true.
For example: Nearly all of the Character-routines dealing with Unicode
are either missing or severly limited on the 9X-series.
A lot of File-IO is different.
These things lead to programs which cannot use those features, because
otherwise the vastly bigger market of 9X is left out.
Peter
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[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 23:30:08 +0200
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> Maybe, I couldn't say. Very odd that it would
> use controls that look like Windows 2 controls.
>
No, not odd at all.
It did not subclass to 3DControls, thats all.
Peter
--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 04 May 2001 18:59:02 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > >> "Risk getting anal"? They didn't have any ability to extend the DOS
> > >> monopoly until Win3, no.
> > >
> > >They waited for several years after *that* before
> > >bolting Windows and DOS together.
> >
> > They bundled it immediately.
>
> They still offered an unbundled verison, just
> in case, until 1995.
>
> > >Clearly they were taking no chances.
> >
> > We've been through this before. There's nothing "chancy" about
> > anti-competitive strategies unless you don't have monopoly power.
>
> Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural
> powers you attribute to them.
>
No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
> They did face risks. They do even now. They
> would *need* magic to avoid this.
>
> > >> The first two versions weren't just crap: they
> > >> weren't DOS extensions.
> > >
> > >How do you figure?
> >
> > What can I say? They just weren't.
>
> Why not?
>
> [snip]
> > >But they do keep trying. Persistance, that's what
> > >you've gotta love about Microsoft. :D
> >
> > Repeating criminal behavior is somehow to be admired in your brain-dead
> > world? You are laughable.
>
> No, no, persistance!
>
Yeah, persistant criminal behavior.
> > >By the way, what sort of smilie do you prefer? :) ? :> ? ^v^ ?
> >
> > None, thanks. It shows your passive-aggressive insecurity, and makes
> > you look even more pathetic.
>
> So I'm a passive-agressive troll with a passive agressive
> insecurity, then?
>
> Well, at least me and my insecurity *match*! That's
> gotta be worth something!
>
> [snip]
> > >> No, they'd sell DOS, and try desperately to get someone to buy Windows.
> > >
> > >I don't think they were really desparate, do you?
> >
> > I don't think you're interested in an intelligent conversation. Or
> > perhaps you are just incapable of one.
>
> Of course not! I'm talking to you, aren't I? :D
Yup... not capable.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 10:59:20 +1200
"David Mohring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The most scathing commentary on Microsoft executive Craig
> Mundie speech, comes not from the Open Source "zealots"
> but from Ken Wasch, president of the Software & Information
> Industry Association (SIIA), who represent a fair sized
> chunk of the software industry (
> http://www.siia.net/glance/members.asp )
>
> Quoting http://www.siia.net/sharedcontent/press/2001/5-3-01.html
Thanks for the link David,
Great to see you posting here :-)
Does anyone have information about the membership of the SIAA? I can't seem
to find that information on the site.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 04 May 2001 19:04:21 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> > >I hope that even you can admit that any
> > >law that consigns us all to DOS forevermore
> > >is a bad law. :D
> >
> > That's pathetically moronic, Daniel. I can't believe you put your name
> > to such silly comments. Do you think we'll believe you're being
> > light-hearted, and somehow forget you're trying to excuse criminal
> > behavior?
>
> You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
> has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
> product for sale.
>
What "better product" would that be? BTW, why do you thnk they signed
that first consent decree?
> It's odd. Does it not occur to you that perhaps the law
> might not so good?
Tell that to Stac, Digital Research, Vobis, Go Computing, Intuit, the
FTC, the DOJ, and the several States Attorneys General.
maybe you are right. Maybe it isnt ough enough. Micro$oft keeps slipping
through.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 04 May 2001 19:09:56 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > You say that, but you don't say they excluded anyone- nobody
> > > is saying that.
> > >
> >
> > Those licenses exluded other OS's from being installed instead of
> > Windows.
>
> Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
>
> But no credible source says that.
>
The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
> [snip]
> > > The recent farce was about bundling a browser with the OS.
> >
> > The last action, which ended in a Consent Decree supposedly stopped
> > per-processor licenses because of their predatory nature.
>
> Microsoft was not convicted of anything that time.
>
> They just cut a deal.
>
To avoid going to trial and being convicted. Its like plea bargaining.
> [snip]
> > > You mean not realise this, but the point of signing a consent
> > > decree is often to avoid the whole "GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!"
> > > thing.
> > >
> >
> > No kidding? Thats whay they signed? To avoid a guilty verdict?
>
> To avoid a lengly lawsuit. It's not like they needed
> those licenses, anyway.
>
To avoid being convicted. 'Those licenses" constituted the majority of
vendors.
> I know, it didn't work. But they no doubt
> thought it would work.
>
> [snip]
> > > Yes, but of putting too many features in their OS, not of
> > > restraint of trade as you seem to understand the concept.
> >
> > No. The guilty verdict showed that the "features" added to the OS were
> > predatory and anti-competitive in nature.
>
> Okay, putting in features that the Department of
> Justice had not approved.
>
No, putting in "features" to illegally drive competitors from the
marketplace.
> But really, you can't expect MS not to compete
> just because the DoJ doesn't like competition.
They have NEVER competed on a level playing field.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 04 May 2001 19:11:39 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >I don't see how. If they misjudge the market, some
> > >other vendor will get those sales.
> > >
> > >It's not like every vendor signed up to those
> > >per-processor OEM licenses. Some obviously
> > >saw things differently than Compaq.
> >
> > Please name the top 20 OEM that does not have a ppl.
>
> Oh, I don't think there was one- Compaq was, in my
> humble opinion, *right* about this. A top 20 OEM that
> tried to foist lesser operating systems on their customers
> would not be top-20 for very long!
>
They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
> > >> By the way, signing contract to EXCLUDE other vendors is illegal.
> > >
> > >Nobody is claiming MS did this, you know. Even
> > >you have not, not that I've seen.
> >
> > I'm afraid you're wrong; we just aren't foolish enough to expect that MS
> > did it directly. Not that we can be sure, given the thickness of the
> > NDAs.
>
> Then I suggest you are being sloppy with your accusations; you
> know full well that MS never excluded anyone. At their *worst*
> they want you to sell *their* product, whatever else you may sell.
Excluding OS and app competitors is what per-processor and per-system
licensing is all about.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 04 May 2001 19:13:50 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Then you might want to eplain why Windows ran on top of DOS.
> > >
> > > Because users had lots of DOS apps and they
> > > wouldn't switch if it means giving them up.
> >
> > SO, Windows DID run on DOS.
>
> Oh yes. Most certainly. Even Windows 3 was
> an orthodox DOS program, when in real
> mode.
>
> [snip]
> > > Being a "better DOS than MS-DOS" is damning it with
> > > faint praise. MS-DOS was *terrible*; DR-DOS was
> > > only slightly less terrible.
> >
> > Note: no response. I will ask again:
> > Since Windows ran on top of DOS. And DR-DOS was a better DOS than
> > MS-DOS, how can you support your point? (See above point)
>
> I have already supported it; I do so by poitned
> to important features that Windows has and DR-DOS
> has not.
>
Ther you go AGAIN. WAS not IS. What did Windows/DOS have that
Windows/DR-DOS did not?
> Your commentary seems irrelevant to the point
> I was making.
>
> [snip]
> > > Yes, those guys couldn't say "no" when Bill wanted
> > > Windows apps. In the days of Windows 1 and 2, that
> > > was important.
> >
> > They also had inside info. Thats waht landed M$ in trouble.
>
> They may have done, for all the good it did them. But
> it isn't what landed MS in trouble, as far as I can
> see.
>
Thats becasue you refuse to see.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:28:01 -0700
Chronos Tachyon wrote:
>
> On Thu 03 May 2001 11:44, GreyCloud wrote:
>
> [Snip]
> >> You can read more about Scientology (always great for laughs!) at
> >> Operation
> >> Clambake, <http://www.xenu.net/>. The name comes from the fact that
> >> Hubbard claimed that humans were descended from clams.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Chronos Tachyon
> >> Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
> >> Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
> >> [Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
> >
> > Yes, CULT! That's L. Ron Hubbard. Anytime a group wants money for its
> > support as a religion is a cult!
>
> My big issue with the CoS is their "fair game" policy: according to the
> Church, it is "ethical" to use any means necessary (including libel,
> slander, destruction of property, and in extreme cases muder) to silence a
> former Scientologist or a vocal enemy of Scientology. The other big issue
> I have with them is that they claim their "scriptures" are copyrighted, and
> sue the hell out of anyone who tries to distribute them; although they are
> almost certainly in the legal right here, what kind of religion copyrights
> its scriptures?
>
> --
> Chronos Tachyon
> Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
> Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
> [Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
That's why I call it a cult and not a religion.
I feel that religious truths are free for the asking.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:25:16 +1200
> Does anyone have information about the membership of the SIAA? I can't
seem
> to find that information on the site.
Found it:
http://www.siia.net/glance/members.asp
Wow that's a diverse group of companies.
Corel "the company that is actually completely free to do what it wants"
Corporation is a member.
So is ID Software.
And the Association of Shareware Professionals
And Macromedia
Sony Computer Entertainment
GNU/Linux Companies
Sun Microsystems
Zone Labs is in there (re their firewall software)
And an awful lot of knowledge-based companies (e.g. Reuters, Dow Jones,
etc.)
Doesn't look like Microsoft is a member though ;-)
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 4 May 2001 23:48:18 GMT
Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I must admit I don't see why there's so much commotion over this.
: Mundie says Microsoft won't survive by publishing its source under GPL
: (and equally BSD or any other "free" license). So, what else is new?
I agree. I'm not sure if the earlier drafts took bigger swings at Linux,
but this was very boring.
BTW, even if there were no GPL, and it was only BSD vs. Microsoft, I think
open source would still win. I think this is true even if Microsoft had
access to all the same source.
Microsoft simply cannot be as adaptable as an open source mix. They
can't be as responsive to their customer base as an open source project.
Microsoft is hobbled by its own agenda(*) ... and Microsoft can be
stubborn. They can refuse to give customers a feature they desire.
There is no second-source for Microsoft software.
Open source OSes don't have that luxury. If an OS publisher refuses to
serve a significant user population, a fork will arise to serve them.
It is a saftey valve that keeps publishers on their toes (so far).
John
* - Dave Winer was talking about a "strategy tax" on www.scripting.com
The idea is that a company must limit its innovations to support its core
strategy.
--
33° 47' 37N 117° 54' 53W
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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, 04 May 2001 23:39:28 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > > This is why you are an idiot who is not sufficiently
> > > > > knowledgeable to make a meaningful contribution to
> > > > > this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Well, you see, I'm a very shy person. I don't
> > > > want to stand out from the crowd.
> > >
> > > Try getting a university education in Computer Science,
> > > Electrical Engineering, or Computer Systems Engineering.
> >
> > Got one already. A BSCS from Rensselaer Polytechnic.
>
> You must be a minority, then. Nobody as stupid as you could graduate
> with a BSCS unless you are a member of some political "victim" group.
>
Atleast he finishes what he started, unlike some people.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:38:55 -0700
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 3 May 2001 14:46:51 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Do you have ANY IT experience?
> >> >
> >> >Matthew Gardiner
> >>
> >> You would be amazed if I told you where I was in 1979, but I won't. I
> >> will say that I was 19yo so at least you have a clue as to how long I
> >> have been involved in I/T.
> >>
> >> flatfish
> >
> > Hell, you're still wet behind the ears!
> >
> Hey! Can it, old man! I was merely 7 at that time. :)
> <low mournful voice>I resent that</low mournful voice>
>
> 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
LOL!!!
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 18:31:23 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
I guess that explains why Borlands new flagship Linux development tool is
$999.
BTW, MS also ships development environments with totally new platforms,
until the commercial product can catch up.
For instance, they shipped a Win32 compiler for the Alpha for quite some
time.
> 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.
Something that so few people will ever do as to make it all but
insignificant.
> 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).
There are plenty of free products, such as GCC available for Win32. Nobody
needs to resort to piracy.
You should really stop exagerating your points.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SIIA Responds to Microsoft Statement on Open Source
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 11:38:40 +1200
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "David Mohring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The most scathing commentary on Microsoft executive Craig
> > Mundie speech, comes not from the Open Source "zealots"
> > but from Ken Wasch, president of the Software & Information
> > Industry Association (SIIA), who represent a fair sized
> > chunk of the software industry (
> > http://www.siia.net/glance/members.asp )
> Does anyone have information about the membership of the SIAA? I can't
seem
> to find that information on the site.
Ooops. Thanks for posting the membership link as well :-)
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 May 2001 23:13:57 GMT
On Fri, 4 May 2001 11:07:42 +0200,
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9ctgi2$7fa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
><snip>
>
>> That article made me sick! How greedy and rapacious can a company be.
>
> This kind of attitude never stops to amaze me. Why is it that some people
> (you included) obviously regard making (lots of) money as close to a
> cardinal sin? Microsoft is not doing anything that their competitors would
> not love to do, if they had been just as good at producing marketing bull.
> But then every religion needs a Satan, and MS is obviously filling that role
> in the Church of the Holy Penguin ....
Your thinly discuised loathing for Linux, doesn't endear your argument to me.
>
>> Don't you just love the statement "this viral aspect". Like MS just wants
> to
>> Grab as much as they can for FREE have all the benefits and NOT allow
> anyone
>> else access to their code. If GPL has so many *significant* drawbacks
> (they
>> go on to equate OSS with the recent .com bubble) why in the hell is MS
> even
>> worrying about it.
>
> If MS is so destined to fail in the face of OSS/GPL as you assume, then why
> i.t.h. are you bothering to comment on whatever Mundie's saying?
Because it offends him?
> And the
> "viral GPL" remark is actually a term used by the OSS community, and is thus
> not a MS FUD invention.
The OSS comunity is *not* the Free Software community.
>
>> Unhealthy forking? Well how about letting the community decide. The
> biggest
>> problem that MS has is that users are forking AWAY from Windows.
>
> That's not really what's meant by "forking". But you probably don't care (or
> know the difference) ....
Mikkel, you're rude and a waste of bandwidth on COLA, why not go and be a good
Wintroll on the Mac Advocacy groups ?
Or is it that Linux is too much of a threat to your beloved MS products ?
>
> Mikkel
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
