Linux-Advocacy Digest #231, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Roy Culley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
where's the linux performance? ("Jonathan Martindell")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 01:10:34 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <dJZI6.6119$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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.
Sun started off producing workstations not servers. It was about the
time they produced OpenWindows that the server market really took
off. Sun basically gave up the desktop (apart from workstations used
by system developers) and concentrated on the server market. It was
when BG announced that NT was going to be a better Unix than Unix that
the battle with Microsoft started. This was a direct assault on Sun's,
and the other major Unix server companies (HP and IBM to name but 2),
server business. Microsoft lost that battle and W2K was too little too
late. Now Sun are again going for the desktop with their sunblade and
by adopting gnome as the destop GUI. Interesting times ahead.
>
>> 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.
You're right of course. NeXT was a serious attempt to put Unix on the
desktop. Sadly it was just too expensive / ahead of its time.
[snip]
> I *strongly* suggest that printing *must* be
> addressed as soon as possible. I honestly see
> very little movement on that front.
I don't understand this printing problem that Unix supposedly
has. Unix apps normally produce postscript. Unix lpr uses filters to
see what the data type to be printed is. If you don't have a
postscript printer the filter will use ghostscript to convert it to
pcl or whatever. I now have a Lexmark z52 which has its own Linux
driver. To me it is totally transparent. Before I had an
HP850C. Again printing was totally transparent. Where is the problem?
>
>> 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.
And it is the Internet server market which is the biggest threat to
Microsoft's .net strategy.
>> 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.
The main apps required by businesses are word processing,
spreadsheets, PIM's, presentations, etc. These are all available under
the various unix's today. The problem is not that you can only do
these things with Microsoft OS and applications but the deep
infiltration of Microsoft into companies IT infrastructure. The
inertia to change is enormous. The slow adoption of W2K shows that
company's are not willing to fork out for new licences and upgrade
hardware just because Microsoft says so. When the CFO's are presented
with the cost of staying on the Microsoft bandwagon compared to
cheaper alternatives the tide will change. Even if company's don't
want to move away from Microsoft why upgrade when NT4 serves them
well. This is Microsoft's great fear. They rely on the constant
upgrade cycle. The business community has had enough. And now OSS is
offering cheaper, higher quality business applications. As import and
export filters improve between Microsoft proprietory formats the
reliance on Microsoft products will diminish.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:58:29 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
> > > has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
> > >
> >
> > What "better product" would that be?
>
> That'd be Windows.
>
Windows is produced to be ..."good enough" - to some people. To the rest
of us, it is crap.
> > BTW, why do you thnk they signed
> > that first consent decree?
>
> They thought they could avoid being sued.
>
> Wrongly, as it turned out.
>
The consent decree did aoid them from getting sued. The second actions
was because Microsft kept up their criminal behavior.
> > > 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.
>
> I think the DoJ and the attorneys general, at least, *need* to be
> told that they are out of line, yes.
>
They are NOT out of line. You just keep stick your head in the sand.
> > maybe you are right. Maybe it isnt ough enough. Micro$oft keeps slipping
> > through.
>
> Fortunately.
>
> This country isn't quite as corrupt as it looks, sometimes.
We arent talking about the country. You keep trying to sidestep. we are
taking about Micro$oft and its unethical, immoral and illegal beghavior.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 19:57:18 -0400
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > That's Bill's primary purpose in life.
>
> Then I'd suggest that you quit drinking kerosene, wannabe.
So says the man who thinks that the difference between "strategic airlift"
and "tactical airlift" is the airframe doing it, and not the mission itself.
And you claim to be a commissioned officer?
Bwwwwwwwwahahahahha..
Cadidiot is more like it.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Jonathan Martindell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: where's the linux performance?
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 20:00:05 -0400
Hi all,
I'm just a beginning Linux user. I've recently tried Linux-Mandrake 7.2 and
then Linux-Mandrake 8.0 and also Caldera OpenLinux 2.4. I've been very
disappointed in the performance of all of these. My machine, I think,
should be more than adaquate: 708MHz celeron fcppga cpu, 256 meg rams, 10
gig partition for linux (20 for windows 2000) on Ultra66. I've tried
running KDE, Gnome, and Icevm. Programs like KMail take over 10 seconds to
load. StarOffice takes a really long time too. When I'm using win2000 I
never have this problem. Even on comparable software. Forte for Java and
StarOffice both load many, many times faster in windows vs linux. Do you
think that my linux isn't configured for maximum performance? I've spent
some time looking through websites and have noticed an increase when I use
the hdparm tool but nothing extrodinary. If this is the extent of the linux
performance than I don't think I'll be sticking with it. However, if it
just requires more work than setting up windows and you ultimately get
greater performance than I will definitely stick with it. I enjoy tinkering
with computers in that way. What do all of you think of this? Do you know
of any websites that show the results of linux benchmarks? Any help would
be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Sincerely,
Jonathan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 06 May 2001 00:00:07 GMT
On Sat, 05 May 2001 11:22:22 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
>> > It is? I've just demonstrated in another post that it takes far less
>> > steps in Word to write and print a letter.
And I pointed out that your wrong, it only takes less steps than Word
if you initiate Lyx from a Xterm
If Lyx is initiated from a icon, menu, or automatically via
filetype, then the number of steps are the same.
I also pointed out that Lyx can be run remotely, something
Word cannot be, without 3rd party apps.
>>
>> So ease-of-use equates to how many times you have to click?
>
> No in the number of extra steps you need to do to make it work.
>
> --
> Pete
--
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: 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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:10:36 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "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.)
> > > >
> > > > Now, search through that testimony and tell us what the cost
> difference
> > > > was between per copy licenses and per processor licenses. Check the
> > > > testimony of Microsoft's competitors and tell us what they said about
> > > > why they "chose" per processor licenses.
> > > >
> > > > Also tell us how a per processor license would allow any other OS to
> be
> > > > shipped without paying for the second OS, if that second OS is allowed
> > > > to be shipped at all.
> > > >
> > > > ---------
> > > >
> > > > "Kempin offered to undercut DRI's price ($13) with a per processor
> > > > license. His price for Vobis selling half of its shipments with MS-DOS
> > > > would be $18. Twice as much.
> > > > When Lieven protested that he wanted to kepp selling DR-DOS in
> addition
> > > > to Windpws, Kempin told him that he would have to pay a higher price
> for
> > > > just DOS than for a DOS/Windows combination. He threatened that that
> if
> > > > lieven did not take s per processor license, with DOS at $9 a copy and
> > > > windows at $15 a copy, then his price for Windows alone would be $35.
> > > > (Under oath, Lieven would later say that that threat was the reason he
> > > > agreed to the deal).
> > > > The Microsoft File. Page 73.
> > >
> > > The Microsoft File! Come on....I'd rather hear the National Enquirer's
> take
> > > on Microsoft dealings.
> > > Lieven took the deal because he (*and everyone) knew there was scant
> demand
> > > for DR DOS
> >
> > If there was scant demand for DR-DOS, why did Lieven want to continue to
> > give customers a choice?
>
> He was perfectly free to continue giving his customers the choice. Why
> would Microsoft care? The demand wasn't there for DR DOS anyway and it would
> have no effect on MS sales.
>
In 1991 Vobis was the largest computer manufacturer in Germany, possibly
Europe. 100% of the computers it shipped had DR-DOS. How is that scant
demand?
> >And why did Micro$oft add features to keep up
> > with DR-DOS?
>
> It wasn't meant to keep up with DR DOS. There is still scant demand for a
> command line operating system, even to this day believe it or not.
> Microsoft added a GUI, and desired to only support DOS/Windows combinations.
> That is their right.
>
I believe you will find (if you look around) that Micro$oft lowered it
prices in 1988 to counter the presence of DR-DOS. Once DR-DOS was dead,
prices rose again. IIRCm DOS 5 included compression, becasue DR-DOS
included it. Now, what do you call that?
> > > There was no "threat" by Kempin.
> >
> > Then why did Lieven testify that there was?
>
> I don't know. To harm Microsoft maybe. Maybe by adding the one little word
> "threat" he hoped it would have an adverse effect on Microsoft and thus
> benefit his own pocketbook
Of course, he couldnt be telling the truth, could he? That would burst
your little bubble.
.
> Probably the same reason the CEO of Real testified to congress the Windows
> broke Real Player when he knew full well it was a netscape bug, and MS
> provided proof that Real was already informed of that and MS had gone the
> extra mile by having already show them the fix. And that they had in fact
> already fixed the problem but chose to use an older version for their
> demonstration before congress.
> Vilification of your competitor in court is all too easy, and an advantage
> to your business. As a side note - Given the fact that Caldera had the
> lawsuit papers drawn up and filed the instant that they bought DR DOS tells
> me that the aquisition was some type of perverted "litigation investment".
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
