Linux-Advocacy Digest #223, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 17:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Shared library hell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Gary Hallock")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (donc)
Linux books ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Shared library hell
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:40:40 GMT
Linux doesn't cope with this at all.
How many times have you tried to rpm a package only to be told you
need a certain version of some library?
That's all fine and dandy if you are down level, but why does it
complain when you have a later version?
Linux is a mess....
flatfish
On Sat, 05 May 2001 19:43:00 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So linux does not suffer from shared library hell?
>
>Symbolic linking gets round this problem, I'm told.
>
>However, say I have libqt.so.2.2.4 and libqt.so.2.3.0. Both would be
>symbolically linked as libqt.so.2 - so unless an application links directly
>to each individual version, it may get the wrong version.
>
>You would think that libqt.so.2.2.4 is older than libqt.so.2.3.0 - however,
>there's a difference. One was built with an _older_ version of gcc - 2.3.0!
>This fact alone is enough to break some applications - they might work with
>2.3.0 but they fail due to the incompatability with gcc.
>
>So how does Linux cope with this?
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:42:54 +0000
In article <svYI6.4511$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anti-aliased fonts are available for Linux. As well as 100dpi fonts. Yet
> distros such as SuSE 7.1 and Mandrake 7.2 don't offer these features. I
> can't help wondering why, if it's an obvious feature that is going to
> be missed.
>
Redhat 7.1 has anti-aliased and 100dpi fonts. I haven't checked Mandrake
8.0.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 22:47:59 +0100
> COM is not an extension to OOP. There's no such thing as "extending"
> OOP. Either it is, or it isn't.
>
> For instance, COM is perfectly useable from C without a single object in
> sight. Component based programming and Object based programming are
> related, but not even close to being the same thing.
You also don't seem to fully understand Object Orientation. It is
perfectly possible to write object orietated code in C (take for example
the Xt toolikt and derivitaves), it's just that C doesn't provide handy
things like classes built in that C++ provides.
So claiming that COM is usable from C says nothing about its
objectorientatedness.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: donc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:31:58 GMT
Oh sure. And everybody knows that NCSA Mosaic was inspired by IE. Why,
if it weren't for Microsoft's innovation there wouldn't even an
internet today. But perhaps their biggest contributions have been in
the areas of reliability and openess.
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places
>> (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of
>living
>> off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things which
>> are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they stifle
>> innovation. They never have come up with an original idea.
>
>Bullshit, and a big one.
>
>To name a few of the top of my head:
>COM
>COM+
>MTS
>IE (No other browser can come even close, Mozilla can't render yahoo.com
>properly, and crash when you try to send a bug report)
>
>
>Just to note:
>COM was copied by many applications. Mozilla's XPCOM, Bonobo & RNA are few
>examples.
>MTS was copied by Sun, IBM, BEA and 25 other vendors, in EJB.
>No one has been successful in copying IE so far, sadly.
>COM+ is also uncopied to my knowledge.
>
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux books
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 22:50:32 +0100
Hello Advocates.
A friend of mine has asked me for reccomendations (etc) for books on
Linux. I've never really bothered with books much, so I thought I'd ask
you guys what you found the best.
Thanks
-Ed
PS To the wintrolls, I'm really not interested in what you have to say
about windows, this is about Linux only.
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 13:48:55 -0700
Rich Teer wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
> > Multimate was Ashton-Tate's (dBase) word processor, IIRC. MS's office
> > suite was Word, Excel (more directly from Visicalc than derivative of
> > multiplan, which could do a lot of stuff that Excel still can't), and
> > whatever the shoved in with it (PowerPoint was bought, Access was
> > replaced internally with FoxPro, which they bought, and then there's
> > always MS Publisher, which they bought, as well.)
>
> In other words, MS spells innovate like this: B U Y.
>
That was pretty much the way it was then.
Most of MS compilers then were very buggy and could not even meet the
minimal standards.
Especially their fortran compiler... it was a total waste of money.
(1980)
> --
> Rich Teer
>
> President,
> Rite Online Inc.
>
> Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
> URL: http://www.rite-online.net
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:09 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> >> Usually, Daniel, it is conventional for a troll to get further into his
> >> message before saying something this incredibly stupid.
> >
> >Oh, like hell it is! :D
>
> Yes, it is. Check out the trolls who have been around for a while.
> You're just not going to last if you can't pull it off.
Oh yea? Did Robert McElwaine need to pull his punches?
I think not!
> >Any troll who isn't frothing at the mouth in *sentence one*
> >should hang his scaly head in *shame* and slink back under
> >his bridge!
>
> As should you.
What, I'm not frothy enough for you?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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....
Oh, don't worry Max. You don't sound bog-standard.
Not at all. :D
> 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.
'Cept it's true. It *is* weird for an app writen for Windows 3
to show old-fashioned flat controls. Why would they do that?
> You expect me to be surprised that Word for Windows 1.0 used Windows 2
> controls in early builds?
I'd be surprised at *that*; Windows uses dynamic linking;
I'd expect Word to get the current standard controls
regardless of what it was built with. Like Excel did.
But apparently Word rolled its own controls for
some reason. Perhaps in order to 'fake' MDI on a
Windows 2 platform. But if they were targetting
Windows 3, why not just use the built in
implementation?
On the other hand, perhaps Word needed a special
'compatibility' mode, and Microsoft provided it.
I can't say, but it's certainly weird.
In any case, the article claims that Word
is available immediately. I don't think it's
showing "early builds" of it.
> 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 don't know, Max. I don't think you've
demonstrated that I have "no experience at all";
what makes you think that's so?
[snip]
> >How would you explain the strange appearance
> >of Word 2 when run on Windows 3, then?
>
> Your gullibility and lack of intelligence.
I think my explaination is better.
> Let the spanking continue!
A glutton for punishment, you are.
I like that. It's kinky. :D
[snip]
> >> 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.
I didn't realize you considered yourself an
authority on the subject.
I don't see any reason to treat you as such. I think
I'll take my evidence over your say-so.
And smirk: :D
[snip]
> >Am I?
>
> Yes.
Oh. Glad we cleared that up!
> You're also a troll, to interrupt me for sniping so often making
> that point.
I didn't mean to interrupt. I snip to keep the
message sizes under control, that's all.
> Now you just look like an idiot, for having been SO
> mistaken, so frequently!
Are you sure about that part?
[snip]
> >> 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
It isn't conventional wisdom, but I like it anyway. :D
[snip]
> >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.
So you are saying that when Windows Millenium access
your disk, it thunks down into real mode like it did
in Windows 3.0? It lets DOS do it?
Is that what you are saying?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You forgot the smiley, moron.
> >
> >No, that time I was serious. I really can't
> >play the piano worth a damn.
>
> You forgot the smiley again, moron.
Damn, you're hard to please. When
I put smilies in, you complain. When
I don't put them in, you complain.
Perhaps I should be thankful you
are being so consistent. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> [...]
> >That would appear to make you, Rick, and Aaron Kulkis the
> >"reasonable men" of whom there are lots. Right?
>
> You still seem to be under the impression you can annoy me with personal
> insults. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
You consider "reasonable" a personal insult? Wow. :/
> (No offense, Rick; I'm sure you understand. Daniel's quite the troll,
> isn't he?)
Damn right I am! :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:13 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >They still offered an unbundled verison, just
> >in case, until 1995.
>
> No, there were no "bundled version" or "unbundled versions". They
> forced the bundle on every OEM they could. Their internal
> communications confirm that this was a very strict strategy, that no DOS
> at all will be sold through OEMs without Windows.
Saying this doesn't make it so. Until 1995, Microsoft
sold a version of Windows separate from DOS.
[snip]
> >Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural
> >powers you attribute to them.
>
> There's nothing supernatural about monopoly power, Danieltroll.
C'mon. You've practical got Bill Gates shooting lightning
out of his fingers here.
[snip]
> >> What can I say? They just weren't.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> Because they did not extend DOS, maybe?
Didn't they? They sure added features
that programs written to them could use.
What's a DOS extensions if not that?
[snip]
> >> Repeating criminal behavior is somehow to be admired in your brain-dead
> >> world? You are laughable.
> >
> >No, no, persistance!
>
> No, no, laughable! Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
:D
[snip]
> >So I'm a passive-agressive troll with a passive agressive
> >insecurity, then?
>
> You're just a troll.
No "passive agressive" then? Pity, I was so looking
forward to being swarmed by dames.
[snip]
> >> 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
>
> No, you're just posting trolls to usenet, buddy. LOL!
I'm glad you're here to tell me these things. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:14 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> [...]
> >Like Alice, I try to believe six impossible things before
> >breakfast. :D
>
> Sorry, Daniel, I've lost interest in spanking you for the moment. Troll
> again in a few weeks, if you need the attention so desperately.
Don't worry about me. I'll always have Rick! :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
> >
> >But no credible source says that.
>
> No credible sources deny that.
They don't deny that Bill Gates is
a pudding-headed alien from Vega 9,
either.
[snip]
> >> 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.
>
> Really? They sure tried hard enough to force people to pay for them....
They made do without, once they had hte excuse
of DoJ opposition. Hell, they probably made
more money that way. They weren't the ones
who had to pay for all the paperwork those
licenses were supposed to avoid.
> >I know, it didn't work. But they no doubt
> >thought it would work.
>
> You're the only one I've ever heard of being vapid enough to think it
> didn't work, Daniel. Not the only one dishonest enough to claim it
> didn't work, though. So are you vapid, or simply dishonest?
Are you now saying that Microsoft *did not* get
sued by the DoJ after the consent decree?
Or are you saying they were *not* trying to
avoid that?
[snip]
> >> 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.
>
> Are you vapid, or merely dishonest?
A combination of both: I'm disvapid! :D
> >But really, you can't expect MS not to compete
> >just because the DoJ doesn't like competition.
>
> Are you vapid, or merely dishonest?
Well, I disagree with you. What would you say
that makes me?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:17 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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
> >You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
> >has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
> >product for sale.
>
> I am sure of the fact that Microsoft has been convicted on three counts
> of violations of the Sherman Act.
Well, that's not quite the same thing. Consider that the
conviction might be overturned soon. If it is, will that
changes the facts of whether MS broke the letter of
the law?
> >It's odd. Does it not occur to you that perhaps the law
> >might not so good?
>
> Yes, it certainly does. I would never advocate applying a law which I
> had not considered ethically, nor would I support a conviction in which
> the violation had not been considered ethically.
Yet you seem to feel that *I* should do that very thing;
I should condemn Microsoft for breaking a law without
any consideration of whethre that law is defensible.
> Microsoft did not
> "compete hard", no matter how many times you try to slip it in as an
> assumption, Daniel. My replies to you are not evidence your trolling is
> finding success, but just entertaining chances for me to prove how lame
> you are. I will grow bored soon, you can be sure, but I will always be
> around to spank you should you continue to behave as dishonestly as you
> have.
Glad to know you're still a fan! :D
> Yes, it has occurred to me that the law might not be so good, and I
> considered the matter quite definitely, and found this not to be the
> case.
Care to share your reasoning? I don't find it
defensible; it looks to me like the Sherman act
amounts to giving the DoJ carte blanche to destroy
companies that don't make their campaign contributions
on time.
In other words, I think it's a bad law that invites abuse.
I think the MS case is an example of such an abuse;
though hardly the only one.
> You seem quite fixated on pretending Microsoft's anti-competitive
> activities are both legal and acceptable, even typical, as if no other
> company is interested in or capable of producing a better product for
> sale.
Well, that's not so- other companies have tried to do so. Microsoft
beefs up their own offerings when this happens. That part of
the reason why some MS products *are* so good.
> It's odd. Has it actually never occurred to you that perhaps breaking
> the law might not be so good?
It has been suggested to me, but I think it amounts to
an abdication of moral responsibility to pretend that the
law decides right from wrong.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:20 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >Microsoft at this point decided they had had
> >enough of IBM and informed them that they
> >no longer wished to collaborate. They wanted
> >to pursue Windows instead.
>
> This is where your telling goes awry, I think. MS kept the industry
> supporting OS/2, sometimes quite forcefully (or at least forcefully
> excluding them from developing on Windows, insisting that OS/2, not
> Windows, was "the replacement for DOS".)
MS did not exclude anyone from developing on
Windows. They *encouraged* it.
They did not keep the industry from suppoting OS/2;
for a while they were in fact advocating that very thing,
but the industry was not listening.
After the divorce, they changed their tune.
> >They knew a good thing when they saw one, and
> >they weren't about to go down with OS/2, no
> >matter what they'd said about it in the past.
>
> OS/2 was a clearly superior product, but lacked the necessary feature to
> gain "market acceptance".
... DOS compatibility. :D
But actually, OS/2 wasn't so clearly superior at the time.
That was around the time of OS/2 1.3, whose services
(GUI, printing, etc) were about the same as Windows 3-
but it used quite a bit more memory, too.
OS/2 2.0 would put on a better showing, but it
was still vapor then.
> Microsoft had a monopoly in DOS, and OS/2
> wasn't DOS. Windows could be DOS (but yet pretend not to be DOS, even
> to the point of not being DOS, but being a VMS-like thing specially
> created to not be DOS, without being anything else other than whatever
> OS Windows needs.)
Now *that* the most tortured rationalization I've
seen all day!
> >At this time IBM and MS had their intellectual
> >properties rather tangled up, but they sorted them
> >out, assigning bits to each company.
> >
> >One gets the feeling IBMs lawyers were asleep
> >at the switch on this one. You're not going
> >to believe how they split this stuff up.
>
> Lawyers aren't businessmen, goofball. Businessmen, not lawyers,
> negotiate deals; lawyers just right them down.
Okay, IBM's *businessmen* were asleep at the
switch then.
> One gets the feeling IBM
> was still under the impression they could out-compete the
> anti-competitive. They should have known better, of course, still
> climbing out from under several consent decrees themselves. But of
> course, in the end, that explains the "asleep at the switch" angle: they
> were perfectly aware of what was going on, and in retrospect have done
> an admirable job of living through it.
I don't follow. An "living through it" is an "admirable job"
somehow?
They got creamed, Max.
[snip]
> >MS got the OS/2 3.0 code they had been working
> >on lock, stock and barrel. It would become
> >Windows NT in a few years time.
>
> Perhaps you're confabulating their use of SMB from LanManager for NT
> networking. OS/2 3.0 code is "Warp", and MS never had anything to do
> with that.
No, it's just confusing because of the way the names got tangled.
This is before the project that would be called "OS/2 Warp"
started. Microsoft was working on what was *then* supposed
to be the next major revision of OS/2, and it was a far more
ambitious project that Warp was.
Naturally, once that went off to become NT, IBM started
a new project to product the next OS/2 revision, and
also a next-generaction OS project of their own, called
"Workplace OS".
These never used any of the code that had
been written for Microsoft's OS/2 3.0 project.
> >IBM and Microsoft then went at each other
> >great guns. But that's another story.
>
> No, IBM competed and Microsoft continued to illegally monopolize.
> That's pretty much the end of the story.
Well, you prefer not to look at what happened back then,
because it doesn't conform to your rather manichean
preconceptions.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:21 GMT
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> Sun's Sunview desktop environment was an excellent user environment.
> It would run on a Sun 3/50 with 4MB ram and was very fast. Then they
> developed OpenWindows which was again an excellent desktop including
> drag and drop. Being based on X remote displaying of X clients was
> available. It was slow and needed a fast workstation Sun 3/80 (fast at
> the time) and at least 8MB ram to be usable. Sun started to develop
> NeWS (display postscript) at this time but made the mistake of keeping
> it proprietary and it just never got off the launch pad. A great shame
> as it was reputedly far superior to X.
These efforts at providing a user interface toolkit
and graphics engine were not adequate. And I do not
think they reveal an intention on Suns part to go into
the desktop area; the limited tools Sun did provide
were appropriate for the applications then being
run on Suns.
> Then there was NeXT. Again a great Unix desktop system.
Very unlike other Unixes. Was it even offically
a Unix?
I admit I overlooked it, but I don't think it's
representative of Unix in general.
> Too expensive was its main drawback. All of
> these desktop environments were far superior to anything Microsoft had
> to offer.
How were they better?
> To say that Unix was never meant to do what Windows does is
> just rubbish.
Barring NeXT, it's true. I think you may not appreciate
the things Windows does for a desktop app developer.
Even NeXT had some downsides. Display postscript
worked real well with PostScript printers, but all
other printer suffered: they either had to just print
a big bitmap or not print at all.
NeXT had some nice interoperability
features, but it could not match OLE.
> Unix lost the desktop for other reasons one being the
> cost. This is where Linux and the BSD's come in. Cost isn't a problem
> anymore. The huge strides in X based GUI's over the past couple of
> years has been truly amazing.
It shows how far behind they were. They are getting
a great deal better, but not enough so yet.
When and if they *do* get the widget set problem
licked, they've got plenty more to deal with.
I *strongly* suggest that printing *must* be
addressed as soon as possible. I honestly see
very little movement on that front.
> The next couple of years are going to be
> fascinating. It is clear that Linux and the BSD's are going to
> continue dominating the Internet server market.
They have an enviable position, indeed.
> The desktop is going to be the great battleground.
> Microsoft are right to be seriously worried.
MS is worried about their server offerings, and they
should be.
But the desktop is not again going to be
a great battleground until somebody offers
a product competitive with Windows
for producing desktop apps.
Unix is not that, yet.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
