Linux-Advocacy Digest #198, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 22:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Glenn C. Everhart")
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (Terry Porter)
Re: Linus responds... (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Glenn C. Everhart")
Re: Primary and secondary missions ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech (Dave Martel)
Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? (Dave Martel)
Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested... (Roy Culley)
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? (Dave Martel)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Yet another IIS security bug ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Chris Lee)
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Glenn C. Everhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:12:24 -0500
The pdp10 (and probably the earlier pdp6) had 8 bit bytes
(as an option). Actually on that machine a byte was defined as
a contiguous group of bits within a word (word was 36 bits).
Thus 8 bit bytes could be done...or many other sizes. However
the IBM 360 came out about the same time as the pdp10 (1964 I
believe) and at that point people started moving to 8 bit
units rather than submultiples of 36 bits.
Jerry Coffin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > AT&T (multi-platform OS,
>
> MULTICS predates UNIX. Though AT&T was one of the contributors to
> MULTICS, they didn't originate it. IBM had a number of multi-
> platform OSes prior to MULTICS anyway.
>
> > Texas Instruments (first IC chip)
>
> And contrary to your statement below, the first microcontroller as
> well.
>
> > Intel (first Microprocessor)
> > MIT (share your code with your friend (original "hacker")/Open Source culture)
>
> Nonsense. Ward Christen (an IBM employee) was giving XMODEM away
> when RMS was still just an obnoxious, pretentious loudmouth. Oh wait
> -- RMS is an obnoxious pretentious loudmouth to this day...
>
> > MOSTEK (microcontroller)
>
> Not so. This originated at TI, largely by a guy named Gary Boone.
> It was argued for years (in court) but MOSTEK wasn't in the running
> in any case -- the choice was between TI and a guy who had a patent
> on a computer system, that he later rewrote to include wording saying
> the system would be built on a single chip. The courts noted that
> there was no indication that he'd even contemplated that part until
> after TI did it, so they ruled that TI had rights to it.
>
> > DEC (standardization of the 8-bit byte as the standard base memory unit)
>
> What DEC computer used 8-bit bytes before the IBM 360 series did?
>
> > US DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) TCP/IP
>
> DARPA itself mostly provided funding. The people they funded are the
> ones to blame for this particular mess.
>
> --
> Later,
> Jerry.
>
> The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 05 May 2001 01:20:18 GMT
On Fri, 04 May 2001 11:19:26 -0700,
Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Flatfish is a girl.
>>
>> You think so?
>
> Just a hunch. Flatfish does write well. Also, in one posting, Flatfish
> admits being a girl.
Sadly you can't believe ...
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
In the past, this troll has also mentioned a Wife
and Children.
Flatfish is the persibling of misinformation, not only
with regard to Linux, but also about his identity
> --
> Michael Vester
> A credible Linux advocate
--
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: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus responds...
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 18:39:38 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Paolo Ciambotti quoth:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
> Don't overlook the financial considerations in the decision making
> process. For established, successful businesses with cash to burn,
> a
> high-dollar proprietary solution may make perfect sense.
Not if that high-priced proprietary solution simply isn't as good as
the open course alternatives. Without even bringing Redmond into the
equation, I can give you a half dozen examples where a $10,000 per
seat license application development environment is inferior to an
open source alternative.
> For a
> small startup, or a cash-strapped home user, or a non-profit
> organization, or an underfunded local government agency with an
> entirely different set of requirements, open source may be a better
> fit.
The benefits of open source go far beyond the price of the
application. There is a reason, for example, that Lotus replaced its
proprietary mta with sendmail, and a reason why has IBM replaced its
proprietary http servers with apache.
> For some of us, the initial acquisition cost matters a great deal,
> especially if you're not in business to make money.
>
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: "Glenn C. Everhart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:27:28 -0500
Michael Lyle wrote:
>
> In article <7vzF6.438$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeffrey Boulier
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Jan Vorbrueggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >- at least two of them still exist today,
> >
> > Which two? I'm guessing that SNA is one, but what would be the other
> > popular proprietary network protocol?
>
> Wow. I would never claim that SNA was superior to TCP/IP, or even NCP.
> If I recall correctly, SNA was a strict tree topology, with no peer to
> peer communication possible. A graph (as used by TCP/IP and its
> ancestors) seems much more robust, scalable and manageable than a tree
> for communications. I never read much about the specifics of DECnet,
> so I can't comment, but I certainly felt that it was proprietary and
> far too complex.
DECnet has been an open protocol from its inception; specs were
published and the idea behind it was to provide an open, peer to
peer, network as an alternative to SNA. That there was no free
reference implementation is unfortunate but does not make the
protocol proprietary.
DECnet has some interesting features: needs no ARP, has link
level access passwords. The file copy has an end to end CRC
(which saved the company I worked for a few times; memory problems
in routers were shown up by it). It supports a distributed file
system and has done so since the late 70s at least. The major
problem with Phase IV was that its addresses were too short;
you had only 16 bits for node address (broken into 64 areas
of 1024 addresses each). The USG insistence that it would deep-six
TCP/IP and force a move to OSI caused DECnet phase IV to be
started maybe 1985 (or even earlier) as an OSI implementation
but it wasn't finished for something like 10 years as it became
clear to everyone that tcp/ip was not going away anytime soon.
DECnet has its issues, but back when LANs were getting bridged,
DECnet did not on the whole cause broadcast storms and ran
half decently.
DECnet access to X is also interesting in that the username
as well as the machine name gets carried with the connection
request. This is a step in the right direction. Imagine how
much more difficult it might be to forge IP connections if
a forger needed also to guess a username and password for
most services..or if both ends of a connection had to know
each others' transmit and receive passwords. Of course, the notion
that a machine needs an authenticated user before it can do
much of anything has been partly lost...but that is part of
a far reaching problem with the wintel infrastructure...
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Primary and secondary missions
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 01:30:16 GMT
"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The problem with the right wing Republicans who post to the
> alt.fan.rush-limbaugh (who insist they THEY represent modern
> "conservatism") are ignorant bigots.
The same thing applies to extreme radicals and environmentalists on the
Democrat side of the fence. A party is generally herolded by those who you'd
rather keep sedated and quiet.
>
> Why else would anyone make a bigot like Rush Limbaugh their
> hero and mentor?
I've no clue as to the thread leading up to that comment. I only accidentaly
stumbled across this particular, and I might add cross-posted, bit of
nonsense. I generally try to avoid the political posts here and leave them
to the Grassy Knoll Gang and Alien Conspiracy Idiots. In this case, your
over-generalization of people was glaring enough to warrant a response.
>
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Ray Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9cq63h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > The problem with right-wing Republicans is that they're stupid
> > > bigots.
> >
> > Wow. My Black conservative neighbor will be shocked to hear this.
> >
> > PS: Don't be a sheep. Turn off your TV. Don't believe everything you
are
> > told. Think for yourself.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 21:38:49 -0400
On Sat, 5 May 2001, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Austin Ziegler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> On Fri, 4 May 2001, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>> "WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
>>>>> does.
>>>> An API, is an API, is an API! It's always nice to have a documented
>>>> API, but whether an API is documented or not is absolutely exclusive
>>>> of whether the API is complete or not.
>>> A bunch of function declaration is not an API.
>>> You need to know *what* those function does for it to be an API.
>>> Sure, you can use a function declaration in your program, but I
>>> doubt that incorporating std::vector<char>
>>> XDdasSR433(int,double,std::string); into your code is going to be
>>> very helpful.
>> Actually, I have to disagree with you. Else there wouldn't have been
>> dozens of "Undocument Windows API" books in the last decade...
> Do they give you the info you need to work with those API?
>
> Here is a list of APIs, WTF do they do?
> If you don't know, you can't use them, even if you have their declaration
> and lib.
> If you have the documentation, you *can* use them.
>
> I think about an API an interface, not a bunch of useless function
> declaration. I can't interface with something I know nothing about, it may
> crash, corrupt data, etc.
The books were written because people started hacking against the APIs.
They would poke it and see what happened. Thus, the things that MS had
not documented for public use were now being described for use by whomever
wanted to.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:29:34 -0600
On Fri, 04 May 2001 20:39:20 GMT, "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > They do sound a little desperate, don't they?
>> >
>>
>> Yeah. Desperate to shutdown GPL and *real* open source. Not the quasi open
>> source MS is talking about.
>>
>> That article made me sick! How greedy and rapacious can a company be.
>>
>> 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.
>
>Facts speak louder than the usual cola BS via its 'experts'. Someone who
>knows a tad more about what the GPL and Open source are, said this:
>
>"Open source is clearly a public benefit. However, software licensed under
>the GNU General Public License, or GPL, is not truly open source. (The GPL
>violates the non-discrimination clause of the Open Software Definition --
>that's Clause 6 at opensource.org/docs/definition.html
Typical Microsoft misinformation. "Clause 6" is one of the conditions
necessary to receive the "OSI Certified Mark" and has nothing to do
with a generally-accepted definition of open source. Opensource.org
themselves admit this and further state that there are many
definitions of open source besides their own. Their site refers
frequently to the GPL as an open source license and to linux as an
open source operating system.
>-- because it allows use of code by end users but not by programmers.
More lies. Programmers are not by any means *prohibited* from using
GPL'd code. As with any commercial library there are conditions
imposed on the use of that code. If they don't like the conditions
then they're free to use someone else's code or even roll their own.
BTW Microsoft has been stirring up a lot of FUD lately over the
possibility that someone may have to open up their source if they
"accidentally" include a few lines of GPL'd code. Well, how is that
any worse than what happens to a company that accidentally uses
algorithms "belonging" to MS or some other large corporation?
If GPL is a virus, what do you call a system that allows large
corporations to lock up growing numbers of essential algorithms and
programming concepts so that nobody else can use them?
>In
>fact, it is intended, specifically, to prevent programmers from being
>rewarded for their labors.)"
Good, then maybe you or Mundie can tell me what percentage of
open-source programmers aren't getting paid for their open source
work? I asked that question here last week and got some interesting
personal anecdotes but no actual numbers.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:32:47 -0600
<http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18746.html>
AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
By: John Lettice
Posted: 04/05/2001 at 12:13 GMT
"AOL is considering what amounts to all out war on Microsoft and
Windows XP, according to a document obtained by Betanews, which has
been getting its hands on some corkers of late. If genuine the
document is an AOL internal strategy memo listing "response scenarios"
to XP. Practically all of them are seriously hardball, and at their
most extreme they'd add up to recruiting an OEM coalition to topple
Microsoft from the desktop while destabilising the XP rollout."
I hope it's true. This could be a lot of fun!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested...
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 02:38:17 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <v_CI6.22359$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
And how long before a fix was available once found? Also, Microsoft
must be reasonably confident with BIND since their own DNS has been
farmed out to a company that uses Linux/BIND following their recent
DNS embarrassment.
> Fact is, bugs exist. MS has fixed the problem in Windows 2000, which is
> what all their new OS's are based on.
So you are saying that Microsoft have already stopped supporting NT4.
Shouldn't they inform the millions of NT4 users to 'upgrade' to W2K
immediately because their NT4 IP is basically insecure?
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:41:07 -0600
On Fri, 4 May 2001 18:31:23 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"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.
They're also saying they're going to release a free version of kylix
for non-profit software development. Nyaaaaah! :-P
Personally I think kylix is overrated for raw software development.
It'll help the porting of Delphi applications from Windows to linux,
but because of its powerful GUI scripting languages linux doesn't need
RAD tools the way Windows does. Slackware comes with all the languages
and tools I need - and they're not as obtuse as Borland's C++ Builder
was when I was using it under Windows.
>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.
So where's the free development environment for Windows 98? It's still
in beta, you know.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 01:57:05 GMT
"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3af18b76$0$37328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:zySH6.6169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Just from the commercial side of things, I don't see XP taking off for
> quite
> > a while. So many of these shops have just now upgraded to W2K. I think
MS
> > would have been better served to have given W2K a miss and just waited
> until
> > XP was done. The whole thing is more than a little strange when you
> consider
> > their past marketing efforts. It just doesn't make sense.
>
> Imagine this:
> XP is the achievement of a single code base. One set of drivers, you do
not
> need to maintaine different drivers for W9x and ME and W2K. There is only
> one set of updates. Only one GUI to learn. One way to do things. It's the
> termination of a KNOWN ugly line of code. It's the end of ANYTHING
remotely
> to do with DOS (other than emulation for backwards compatibility).
And this has to support thousands of legacy apps for years to come. Jon,
this is the new generation's version of MS-DOS legacy support. Their
terminating one ugly line of code is certaily no guarantee that it won't be
replaced by a new ugly line. After ages of mucking around in MFC and WTL,
I've seen that they have a staggering propensity to write ugly code. As far
as the end of MS-DOS, good riddance. I'll certainly have to say that.
Outside of certain embedded applications, I have absolutely no use for it.
Even those applications are better served with Linux. Particularly when a
networked link to the outside world is needed.
> XP is a godsend for tech support. No longer having to ask: what version of
> windows are you running? and then having to fork your knowledgebase and
> script based on that.
>
> I don't see XP as a wait for it or think about it upgrade, I see XP as a
> must have upgrade. Give me a shop running W2K servers and W2K/XP desktops
> and I'll show you one that has cut tech support by half just from
> eliminating support for old crap.
Another pipe dream. Folks will be running the "Old Crap" for years to come.
It has taken how long to finally kill off an OS that was little more than a
single tasking shell to the system BIOS? And how much more popular and
entrenched is the Windows 95/98 line in comparison? NT, I expect to see
running in some shops when I become a grandfather.
Better be patient enough to wait another 15 years for its' elimination.
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:01:42 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mart van de
Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
We're not a bank, but do have a department with bank-like functions,
including running cashier counters. Typical AS/400 shop, *very*
conservative, despises all things Microsoft, would pave my path with rose
petals if I just gave them back their 3151 terminals.
I'll look into the IceWM idea. Thanks for the input.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:00:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom> It shines on the really large documents, too. Did a 1500 page
> Tom> one a while back. (Word2000 choked miserably on it. Tables
> Tom> screwed up and headers mangled after every repagnation. Even
> Tom> WordPerfect8 for Linux did a better job than Word.)
>
> You still haven't mentioned LaTeX fragments generated by programs ---
> useful for generating tables and length lists which have to be updated
> from time to time against their source. Results generated by
> simlation programs can also be easily formatted as LaTeX fragments to
> be included in the similation reports.
I've heard of its' uses in that area but have never had occasion to explore
them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: 5 May 2001 02:02:11 GMT
In article <6VsI6.22316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>
>"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www2.usermagnet.com/cox/index.html
>>
>> 'nuff said.
>
>Not really. I think Alan made a critical error in mentioning the internet.
>The Internet was funded by the government, and all of it's development and
>code was made available as either public domain or business friendly
>licensing (such as the BSDL).
>
>In fact, most of the Internet pioneers only did so because they could make
>money off selling their proprietary implemenations (DEC, Sun, IBM, etc..).
>If the original Internet code had been released GPL, we'd probably all be
>running DECNET or something similar today.
>
>I think Alan is also making a critical mistake mentioning major FUD items
>like the NSAKEY debacle. He's also making a critical mistake referring to
>the Halloween memo as "their" Halloween memo, as if it were an intentially
>published document expressing corporate opinion, versus the work of a
single
>author as a memo to his bosses.
>
>And he's CERTAINLY making a critical error when over exagerates the forking
>of Windows (claiming that 98 and ME are seperate forks, rather than simply
>next versions) and claiming that NT, 2000 and the different editions are
>seperate forks as well. If that were the case, then there are literally
>thousands of Linux forks, maybe millions. There are three forks in
Windows.
>3.x/9x based systems, NT based systems, and CE based systems. 3.x/9x based
>OS's are going away this year, REDUCING the amount of forking in Windows
>(this is something MS has been working to do for quite some time).
3.x/9x based OS's are going away this year.
In your dreams. 3.x/9x based OS's aren't going anywhere, in fact they pretty
much are *going* to be the *LAST* Microsoft OS a huge number of people are
going to be running on their various machines. For instance I'm NEVER going
to install a version of XP on any machine I own now or in the future. I have
an OEM cdrom containing WIN98 and I'll install windows from that if I need a
Windows partition.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 02:05:25 GMT
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18746.html>
>
> AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
> By: John Lettice
> Posted: 04/05/2001 at 12:13 GMT
>
> "AOL is considering what amounts to all out war on Microsoft and
> Windows XP, according to a document obtained by Betanews, which has
> been getting its hands on some corkers of late. If genuine the
> document is an AOL internal strategy memo listing "response scenarios"
> to XP. Practically all of them are seriously hardball, and at their
> most extreme they'd add up to recruiting an OEM coalition to topple
> Microsoft from the desktop while destabilising the XP rollout."
>
> I hope it's true. This could be a lot of fun!
I don't think I could muster support for AOL even under those circumstances.
<g>
With any luck at all, this is just another "Register Exclusive". The
National Enquirer for the Nerd Set.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
