Linux-Advocacy Digest #210, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 12:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source (Chad Everett)
Re: This post has something to offend just about everyone (Chad Everett)
Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET? (dw133)
Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie (Ian Pulsford)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Jerry Coffin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Karel Jansens)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. (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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Article: Linus Torvalds Replies to Mundie's Attack on Open Source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 May 2001 08:41:09 -0500
On Sat, 05 May 2001 12:36:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The article not only isn't funny, it doesn't address MS's position on the
>topic.
>
It was very funny.
>I don't agree with MS, btw. I understand their concerns, but I don't condone
>any actions to undermine either the GPL or opensource. Two distinctly
>different things, though this is lost on many LinZealots, who would rather
>take any news story on MS, spin it to fit their needs, then direct us all to
>read the article with the spin as 'directions' on how to interpret it.
>
You're comments aren't very funny, and they don't at all address MS's position
on the topic.
>Too bad the reading comprehension of most zealots, including LinZealots, is
>near nil.
>
Please enlighten us on how to comprehend Mundie's comments "correctly".
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
><http://web.siliconvalley.com/content/sv/2001/05/03/opinion/dgillmor/weblog/
>torvalds.htm>
>>
>> "I'd rather listen to Newton than to Mundie. He may have been dead for
>> almost three hundred years, but despite that he stinks up the room
>> less."
>>
>> He he!
>>
>> That's just the wrap-up. The rest is a little nicer.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.snuh
Subject: Re: This post has something to offend just about everyone
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 5 May 2001 08:41:44 -0500
On Sat, 5 May 2001 14:31:08 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>cbelway wrote:
>> I love the title of this thread-by the way, where are the linux billionaires?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>WELL?
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
I am a Linux billionaire.
------------------------------
From: dw133 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Article: AOL in cahoots with Compaq, HP to derail WinXP, .NET?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:23:56 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> And replace it with what? The AOL desktop?
Please don't say that, the thought sends shivers down my spine.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 00:27:05 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> Many (all?) TCP/IP stacks were developed to be BSD-compliant. The
> internet wasn't developed on UNIX, but UNIX made it what it is today
> (you're splitting hairs). Any way you look at it, Microsoft would
> have done everything *worse* than it is now (see SMB, ntrpc, ActiveX
> -- all communication technologies specifically designed to make people
> dependent on Windows).
>
Doesn't matter M$ wasn't in the networking game at that stage anyway and
now it lags with ipv6 implementation too. Recent Unixes have it built
in, Windows 2000 and NT have 'developer' add-ons. That'll be fun, as
the internet migrates to ipv6, watching M$ catch up.
IanP
------------------------------
From: Jerry Coffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 08:32:41 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
[ ... ]
> > 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.
>
> The 360 was released in 1964, but the PDP-8 wasn't released until
> 1965, so even if some people did decide to use 8-bit characters on
> the PDP-8, IBM was doing it first.
I'm not sure what I was thinking there -- you talked about the PDP-
10, and I replied about the PDP-8. In any case, I'm pretty sure the
PDP-10 didn't predate the PDP-8, so the same basic idea applies...
--
Later,
Jerry.
The Universe is a figment of its own imagination.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 10:39:15 -0400
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
> >
> > That line of shit was debunked ages ago, IN COURT! No vendor has ever
been
> > prevented from selling other OS's installed. Even the DOJ's witnesses
affirm
> > that fact.
>
> This is just untrue.
Microsoft offered three principal types of operating system license
agreements: per copy, per system and per processor. A per copy license
obligated an OEM to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped with a
copy of MS-DOS installed on the computer; a per system license obligated an
OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on computers that
bore a particular model designation to pay Microsoft a royalty on every
computer shipped that bore that designation; and a per processor license
obligated an OEM that wished to install a Microsoft operating system on
computers that contained a particular microprocessor, e.g., an Intel
80386SX, to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer shipped that contained
that microprocessor. (See Kempin Dep. (Exh. 1) at 13-14;
OEMs were not required to use a particular license type, but rather could
choose among the various options. (See, e.g., Gates 10/27/97 Dep. (Exh. 2)
at 45-46; McLauchlan Dep. (Exh. 3) at 31; Lin DOJ Decl. (Exh. 4) at C005866;
Waitt DOJ Decl. (Exh. 5) at C005868.) No OEM was obligated under any of
Microsoft's licenses to install MS-DOS or Windows, nor was any OEM
prohibited from installing DR DOS or any other competing product. (Lum Dep.
(Exh. 6) at 89-90; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 110; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 30.)
> > At the hieght of per processor licence aggreements only about half of
the
> > OEM's opted for that type of licence, of that half, about 25 OEM's still
> > shipped other os's on the same proccessor with full agreement of
Microsoft.
> > MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what they want.
> > It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
>
> What an inane paragraph. You are either delusional or in the pay of
> Microsoft. I fancy the former.
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
Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a royalty
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.)
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 18:22:48 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Mart van de Wege wrote:
>
> >> Windows _asks_ you before you change the time. Did you blindy accept it
> >> or did you bother to _read_ what it was about to do?
> >>
> > No it bloody well doesn't Pete (at least 9x doesn't). Trust me, I had
> > *exactly* the same experience when I was still dual-booting.
>
> Funny, mine did.
>
When Windows 9x "adapts" for daylight saving time, it changes the CMOS
clock, which is a very braindead thing to do (or a sure sign of a lazy
programmer's work). Windows does not ask for confirmation to do this,
and the default in the settings is to automatically change the time.
What kind of hack did you put in Windows to make it ask for
confirmation?
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:32 GMT
I'm afraid this calls for a little top-posting.
Your response was not convincing, Erik, it wasn't cogent and provided
not even a metaphoric refutation of the disastrous work MS is doing
trying to foist .NET on developers and the public. Bugs in random
redhat software are hardly surprising; bugs happen. Chris's compilation
was not a random set of bugs; it was an illustration of serious design
flaws and conclusive proof of the vaporware nature of the promises about
.NET. In comparison, there are no promises about redhat software: just
the software, at rather nicely affordable rates.
Guffaw.
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 4 May 2001
19:00:54 -0500;
>4-19-2001
>http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
>
>"A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
>discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
>through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
>arbitrary holes in the firewall."
>
>4-25-2001
>http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
>
>"kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange authentication
>information and delete it shortly after. This can be abused by a local
>user to gain access to the X server and can result in a compromise of the
>account kdesu accesses."
>
>4-25-2001
>http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
>
>"If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux 7.1
>(they were created during updates if the user requested it), they were
>world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap file(s),
>possibly including passwords."
>
>4-20-2001
>
>http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-053.html
>
>"Previous gftp versions had a problem with format strings allowing malicious
>ftp servers to potentially execute code on the gftp user's system. "
>
>What exactly is your point?
>
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60173,00.html
>>
>> (May 03, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today renewed
>> its offensive against open-source software
>> development, a move that the software vendor
>> said was made in response to repeated queries
>> from corporate users about how it's
>> responding to the open-source movement.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60163,00.html
>>
>> (May 03, 2001) Microsoft Corp. has sparked a
>> new controversy by sending a letter to some
>> PC makers offering them rewards in return for
>> identifying corporate users who ask that computers
>> be shipped "naked," without Windows installed.
>>
>> Users making such requests may have "misunderstood"
>> their Windows licensing agreements, Microsoft claimed
>> in the letter, which was issued last week to
>> thousands of companies that assemble PCs to sell
>> directly to businesses. The assembly companies,
>> known as system builders, were offered prizes
>> such as software packages, watches and cooking
>> grills if they identified customers seeking
>> Windows-less machines.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60115,00.html
>>
>> (May 01, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today disclosed
>> that an "extremely serious" flaw in an
>> extension included in Windows 2000 could
>> allow a malicious hacker to gain complete control
>> of any computer running the Internet
>> Information Services (IIS) 5.0 software
>> built into that operating system.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59982,00.html
>>
>> (April 26, 2001) A Microsoft Corp. technical
>> support server that accidentally lacked
>> antivirus software caused 26 of
>> the company's largest support clients to be
>> left vulnerable to the FunLove computer
>> virus late last week.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59697,00.html
>>
>> (April 17, 2001) Microsoft Corp. yesterday
>> warned users that a flaw in its new firewall
>> and Web caching software -- billed as the
>> company's first product aimed purely at IT
>> security -- could lead to denial-of-service
>> attacks blocking all Web traffic from passing
>> through corporate firewalls.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59121,00.html
>>
>> (March 30, 2001) Microsoft Corp. is warning
>> users about a security hole in Internet
>> Explorer that could be used to force the Web
>> browser to automatically open HTML e-mail
>> attachments, potentially enabling attacks in which
>> malicious hackers could delete data from
>> PCs or cause other types of damage.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO59065,00.html
>>
>> (March 29, 2001) Microsoft Corp. today said
>> it has completed a promised software update
>> for all of its Windows operating system releases
>> dating back to 1995 as part of an effort to
>> combat a pair of fraudulent digital
>> certificates that were mistakenly issued
>> by VeriSign Inc.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO58036,00.html
>>
>> (February 23, 2001) Microsoft Corp. has
>> identified another security hole in its
>> Outlook e-mail software and said a fix
>> is available for the glitch.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Although almost omnipresent on the desktop, Microsoft
>> seems to be thrashing just as much as their operating
>> systems.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> --
>> Free the Software!
>
--
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,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:33 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 05 May 2001 02:14:18
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:1yHI6.22397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 4-19-2001
>> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-052.html
>>
>> "A vulnerability in iptables "RELATED" connection tracking has been
>> discovered. When using iptables to allow FTP "RELATED" connections
>> through the firewall, carefully constructed PORT commands can open
>> arbitrary holes in the firewall."
>>
>> 4-25-2001
>> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-059.html
>>
>> "kdesu created a world-readable temporary file to exchange authentication
>> information and delete it shortly after. This can be abused by a local
>> user to gain access to the X server and can result in a compromise of the
>> account kdesu accesses."
>>
>> 4-25-2001
>> http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHSA-2001-058.html
>>
>> "If any swap files were created during installation of Red Hat Linux 7.1
>> (they were created during updates if the user requested it), they were
>> world-readable, meaning every user could read data in the swap file(s),
>> possibly including passwords."
>
>
>After reading Adam Warner's diatribe in "What about customer security?"
>and how he said that Microsoft's code was crap, then reading this little
>tid-bit, the Linux code must look like a 3rd grader wrote it!
The concise and wise opinion of a true expert, obviously. Thank you for
setting the matter straight, Mr. Myers.
>Geez... even "M$" is smart enough not to allow anyone to read the page file.
Again, it is very nice to have someone with some technical competence
cut to the heart of the matter like this, Chad. We greatly appreciate
it, you can be sure.
Thanks for your help. Hope it times.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:34 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 04 May 2001 01:13:36 GMT;
>> [...]
>> >You're and idiot. Learn to read. [...]
>>
>> Learn to take flame-wars to email. You're boring the shit out of me,
>> here.
>>
>
>That's Bill's primary purpose in life.
Apparently it's yours, as well. Snooze.
--
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, 05 May 2001 15:13:37 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
[...]
>> Which part did you miss? Word 1 was available for Win3.0.
>
>Maybe, I couldn't say. Very odd that it would
>use controls that look like Windows 2 controls.
I know it makes me sound like a bog-standard poster, but then again,
you're a bog-standard troll, so....
It might seem odd if you were clueless about such things. You really
shouldn't spout bullshit if you're trying to pull off the 'innocent'
act; innocent people don't make incredibly stupid claims without some
reason. Since the only POSSIBLE 'reason' you could have to be that
stupid is you're a sock puppet or an even more stupid troll, that's sort
of a lose-lose situation, I'm afraid.
You expect me to be surprised that Word for Windows 1.0 used Windows 2
controls in early builds? Apparently, you've had NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL
with any Microsoft software, as incredible as that sounds. Add that to
your 'innocent' act, and your stupid trolling, and we come to the
fundamental lack of clue you possess: utter and preposterously
purposeful ignorance.
>> >I find this fact difficult to explain if, indeed,
>> >it never ran on Windows 2.
>>
>> You're laughable.
>
>How would you explain the strange appearance
>of Word 2 when run on Windows 3, then?
Your gullibility and lack of intelligence.
Let the spanking continue!
>> >I really think you are mistaken about this.
>>
>> I am really sure I am not. Is that enough for you?
>
>No. I've tendered some evidence. I'd like you to
>do as much, if you can.
>
>> Believe me, I paid
>> a lot of attention to every new version of every major wordprocessor at
>> the time; it was part of my job. I'm not infallible, of course, but
>> you're the first person to claim otherwise.
>
>I'm surely not claiming you are infallible! :D
You're claiming I was not familiar with every new version of every major
wordprocessor at the time. If you didn't manage to annoy me with
another 'smirking' smiley, I might believe for a moment you were
innocently confused, and not simply baselessly challenging my integrity.
>> Based on a screenshot in a
>> PC magazine? No, you're simply mistaken.
>
>Am I?
Yes. You're also a troll, to interrupt me for sniping so often making
that point. Now you just look like an idiot, for having been SO
mistaken, so frequently!
>> >> (Those weren't "cut-down" versions at all, BTW, they
>> >> were just the regular Win2 or Win286/386 (mostly the latter) that were
>> >> bundled with apps. It was called "run time", but it was simply
>> >> Windows.
>> >
>> >Well, that's what Windows was at the beginning.
>>
>> And at the end, too.
>
>I agree. Microsoft is in the development tools business;
>they just have a funny way to collect royalties.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA. Is that what you call illegally monopolizing PC
operating systems? What a fucking moron you are. :-D
>> The technical relationship between Windows ME and
>> DOS is essentially identical to the relationship between Win386 and DOS,
>> a decade ago.
>
>Sort of. There have been changes, of course, but I suppose one could
>say this and be mostly right.
No, no changes at all. The relationship is precisely and completely
technically the same. They've maybe tried to obscure it a bit, here and
there, but that's not "changes", that's just fraud.
--
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, 05 May 2001 15:13:38 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"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]...
>> >Well, sorta. Even Windows 1 did provide
>> >its own memory manager of sorts.
>>
>> No, it didn't. It attempted to provide task-switching. That isn't
>> "memory management".
>
>That too. But, you see, the GlobalAlloc and LocalAlloc APIs
>date from Windows 1, and that version would try to manage
>LIM memory for you in its way.
No, not "that too". Guffaw!
Try to scare up some documentation of this "API" claim, without the
obvious tap-dancing that such phrases as "in its way" indicate.
>It certainly is memory management. It wasn't terribly good,
>but it was memory management.
FOR ITSELF! Windows 1 didn't have any applications, nor any "hooks"
into DOS that any other application didn't have. It was an application;
it task-switched out of memory to pretend it was a "shell", a la the old
'side-kick' desktop scenario, trying to rip off the Mac interface
without any of its capabilities. It had a couple "desk accessories"
(calculator, notepad; the usual suspects, but this was their ancestral
implementation), but 'Windows' itself was just a launch pad. It got
switched out entirely when running an app, and had NO memory management
"services" for any other program besides the TSR accessories that MS
bundled with it. In Windows 2, IIRC, they tried to get the accessories
to run as TSRs even when you weren't on the desktop, but that didn't
work very well at all. They fixed up some of that with protected mode,
but it wasn't until 'enhanced mode' in Win386 that there was any "memory
management" to speak of.
Even then, it is still only the 'memory management' within Windows. Its
just now [almost] everything is in Windows. Windows runs full time as
an application on DOS, though, in Win98 ME as much as Win1.0.
>> >As you go down that list of OS, Windows
>> >subsumes more and more of DOS's functions.
>> >There's not a lot left in Windows 98.
>>
>> Or, rather, every version MS pretends that more of it is Windows and
>> less of it is DOS, because they want Windows to be thought of as the OS.
>
>You are saying that Microsoft's claims are not true?
Of course.
>That the things
>they say are done in 32-bit protected mode are really done in real
>mode DOS?
No.
[...]
>> When you're in over your head, the trick is to stop digging.
>
>It doesn't look like a hole. Today we have the best desktop
>software we have *ever* had. And it keeps getting better.
>
>If this is being in a hole, I say lets break out the shovels!
Boy, did YOU miss the point! ROTFLMAO!
--
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, 05 May 2001 15:13:39 GMT
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001 17:08:34 -0400;
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > > Considering that DR-DOS was never meant to be a GUI, but, in fact,
>> > > > a platform which could, among other things RUN windows on it...
>> > >
>> > > DR-DOS, like MS-DOS, was a lousy platform for
>> > > something like Windows, never mind desktop
>> > > applications.
>> >
>> > Then you might want to eplain why Windows ran on top of DOS.
Correction: does. Or on top of a VMS-like thing, with NT-XP.
>> Because users had lots of DOS apps and they
>> wouldn't switch if it means giving them up.
>
>SO, Windows DID run on DOS.
>
>> Running Windows on top of DOS means
>> MS can say: "Of course all your DOS apps
>> will work. Just exit Windows, and you are
>> back in good old DOS just like always!"
>>
>> That was mandatory, and Windows just had
>> to live with the consequence of it.
>>
>> [snip]
>> > > That is emphatically true of DR-DOS.
>> >
>> > Since Windows ran on top of DOS. And DR-DOS was a better DOS than
>> > MS-DOS, how can you support your point?
>>
>> 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)
>> It's not for nothing that MS has spend the last
>> fifteen years trying to kill DOS.
>>
>> [snip]
>> > > But it was developers who made Windows
>> > > king by writing the best apps for it. DOS
>> > > apps couldn't compete; they didn't have the
>> > > tools to match the quality that Windows apps
>> > > could put out.
>> >
>> > Microsoft developers.
>>
>> 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.
Not a lot. There was a small amount of commentary troubled over
Microsoft's putative lack of chinese walls. What really landed them in
trouble was not the FUD or the OS/2 or DR-DOS strategies, but the
per-processor licensing, and then eventually the forced bundling of
Windows3 with DOS.
--
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
******************************
