Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Yet another IIS security bug ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons ("Mike")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: where's the linux performance? ("Mike")
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons ("Flacco")
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech on
OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good)) ("Steve Sheldon")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Steve Sheldon")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 12:54:18 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Brad Silverberg:"What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable
> and
> > > > when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and
> buy
> > > > MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to
> > > > buy for in the office."
> > >
> > > They didn't actually do it, though. Windows 3.x ran on DR-DOS.
> > >
> > They did do it. The AARD code was active in the betas.
>
> C'mon. Even you don't take this line of "argument"
> seriously, do you?
>
> > > Silverberg does not say otherwise, but if he did I would
> > > point out that his saying it doesn't make it so.
> >
> > So, he's lying. A Microsft exec is lying about how to kill off the
> > competiton. Whats ti going to take with you.
>
> He's *lying*? He's your exhibit A!
>
> > You are a waste of time.
>
> Got me there, though. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > They didn't do this either. Even the bug didn't prevent
> > > you from running on DR-DOS.
> >
> > it wasnt a bug you idiot. It was puposely placed code. The evidence is
> > in the Micorsoft memso. Oh, I forgot. you say the Microsoft execs were
> > lying.
>
> If it were deliberately placed, it would have *worked*; DR-DOS
> would not have run.
>
> [snip]
> > > > What other OS vendor participated in forced bundling ?
> > >
> > > IBM. IBM forced you to take their interner browser
> > > with OS/2. The rapscallions.
> > >
> > > But that's not what I meant. Microsoft would
> > > bundle weak programs with strong ones;
> > > that's the idea behind an "office suite". Office
> > > didn't depend on Windows for sales, but
> > > PowerPoint sure depended on Word.
> > >
> > > The other companies did this too, of course.
> >
> > What compaies and apps were those?
>
> You know, like Lotus SmartSuite. I think there
> was also a "WordPerfect Office", too.
>
> They still do it.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 12:58:41 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Brad Silverberg:"What the guy is upposed to do is feel uncomfortable
> and
> > > > when he has bugs, suspect the problem is DR-DOS and then go out and
> buy
> > > > MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other machines he has to
> > > > buy for in the office."
> > >
> > > They didn't actually do it, though. Windows 3.x ran on DR-DOS.
> > >
> > They did do it. The AARD code was active in the betas.
>
> C'mon. Even you don't take this line of "argument"
> seriously, do you?
>
Once again. what is it going to take with you? Internal memos have been
posted. Quotes from M$ execs have been posted. All describing a way to
sabotage DR-DOS. The code was active in the betas. It threw up bogus
error messages. The messages were meant to scare of beta testers, as
stated in the memos. But -YOU- dont believe it.
> > > Silverberg does not say otherwise, but if he did I would
> > > point out that his saying it doesn't make it so.
> >
> > So, he's lying. A Microsft exec is lying about how to kill off the
> > competiton. Whats ti going to take with you.
>
> He's *lying*? He's your exhibit A!
>
> > You are a waste of time.
>
> Got me there, though. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > They didn't do this either. Even the bug didn't prevent
> > > you from running on DR-DOS.
> >
> > it wasnt a bug you idiot. It was puposely placed code. The evidence is
> > in the Micorsoft memso. Oh, I forgot. you say the Microsoft execs were
> > lying.
>
> If it were deliberately placed, it would have *worked*; DR-DOS
> would not have run.
>
It DID work you idiot. The error messages came up. As they were meant
to. Uncertainty about Dr_DOS was planted. AS it was meant to. As stated
in the quotes.
> [snip]
> > > > What other OS vendor participated in forced bundling ?
> > >
> > > IBM. IBM forced you to take their interner browser
> > > with OS/2. The rapscallions.
> > >
> > > But that's not what I meant. Microsoft would
> > > bundle weak programs with strong ones;
> > > that's the idea behind an "office suite". Office
> > > didn't depend on Windows for sales, but
> > > PowerPoint sure depended on Word.
> > >
> > > The other companies did this too, of course.
> >
> > What compaies and apps were those?
>
> You know, like Lotus SmartSuite. I think there
> was also a "WordPerfect Office", too.
>
> They still do it.
Are seriously saying an Office suite is thae same as Micorosoft forcing
vendors to take apps and/or OS/app combos?
You are definitely an idiot.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:58:38 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
In article <Nu3J6.9819$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Les
Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> 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,
>
> Remember you are probably coming in at about sp6 or so. Any
> assumptions about instability before that would have been for good
> reasons.
>
>> 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).
>
> I hate to defend them, but what's wrong with alt-tab?
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Nope,
We're SP4 all the way. What does make a difference is that we have a very
high quality IT staff (What'd you expect? We're a bank!), and I have the
nagging feeling that we are running a custom install, because even for NT
Workstation 4.0, it is *very* bare-bones.
In the matter of window focus: I know I can use alt-tab to switch to a
new window, but that is an extra keypress for someone who is by now used
to OS/2's and IceWM's way of just handing focus to the next window on
close, instead of to the desktop. That just seems cleaner and more
logical to me. Note also that I mentioned this as one example of
braindead UI design. NT has more weird little glitches that are extremely
irritating, especially Microsoft's insistence on doing everything with
the mouse. As you realized, I just hate taking my hands from the keyboard
when I'm typing (from what I've heard, a Mac would reduce me to a
gibbering wreck).
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:00:17 GMT
"David Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I dont see how you can say the GPL keeps us from using the code in useful
> ways, they simply ask us to share our coding efforts. This prevents
> reinventing the wheel every time something needs updated and the original
> author cant/wont work on it.
>
> just my $0.02 worth
That is not all they ask. They also demand that the 'work as a whole' be
covered by the GPL which is impossible if the work contains any other
code with existing different restrictions. That is, even if you are
willing
to apply the GPL restrictions to your own work, if the whole program
must contain another protected component controlled by someone else
(for example, GIF writing code, or some encryption algorithms, or
client access to a proprietary database, or proprietary networking code)
then it is impossible to use any GPL code at all, and you are forced to
reinvent these wheels. The LGPL is much more reasonable in that it
places no claims on other people's work when used as part of a larger
program. To understand the issue, you must understand that the
difference between the GPL and LGPL is precisely the attempt to control
other people's work.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:06:51 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you jumped
> in trolling on. The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
> that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
> current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
> has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge.
More accurately, their unreasonable threat stands until disproven in
court. The fact that no one has taken on the challenge says more about
the value of the covered works than the validity of the threat.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:10:26 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d34vt$sfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
> > does.
> > >
> > > You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
> > > unless the function is documented?
> >
> > He means that the program must be expected to break when you upgrade
> > the library to the next version if you use anything beyond what is
> > documented. If you link statically that might not be a problem.
>
> Not the library is expected to break if what is uses have been changed or
> remove.
> Otherwise, it can go on happily with any number of updates.
It becomes a matter of luck, rather than intent or agreement between
parties that it works at all. This is precisely like a business deal
where someone relies on behavior not specified in a contract. If
you are lucky the other party may continue to do what you expected.
If they don't, you are out of luck.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:12:32 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:01:10
> >Oh, then they program in Basic, then.
>
> No, they aren't as limited as you are.
>
> [...]
> >I've *no* idea whaat you were trying to say here, can you make it
clearer?
>
> I could, but I'm afraid it would be a waste of time. Your "platonic
> object" for API is too concrete in your mind; you have no way of
> understanding it correctly.
A program interface is as concrete as a business contract and serves
the same purpose.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:17:27 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Need I go on?
>
Spare us. You're arguing that you have 20-20 hindsight, but you aren't
offering much proof. The real reasons for success and failure in business
are almost always complex. Decisions that seemed right at one point in time
may seem terrible in hindsight. The real test of a business is how they
learn from those mistakes and move forward.
Good CEOs know that the fundamental rules are pretty simple. You have to
find a market where you can compete effectively, and you have to offer more
value to the customer than your competitors. Companies rise and fall largely
based on their ability to do that.
So, companies like SGI fall, while others rise to take their place. You
complain about the CEO of SGI, but you don't consider the companies that
have grown at SGI's expense.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:24:53 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> 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.
>
> Since your's was a fantasy representation of my thinking, and mine is my
> thinking, to say its not quite the same thing is to point out how stupid
> you are. Is that what you're trying to do? Prove how stupid you are?
I am trying to discover whether you really
don't understand the differences between facts and
laws.
> >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?
>
> They didn't break the letter of the law: they broke the law. If there
> conviction is overturned it will mean there conviction is overturned;
> whether they broke the law then resolves to whether they are
> reconvicted, or the Supreme Court's decision, depending on what happens
> next.
And this passage suggests you don't. Whether they broke
the law "resolves to" whether they are convicted?
> If you're going to suspend your reason until you're sure of
> everything, you'll be dead before you stop being stupid. So much for
> the "pretend philosophy" to try to weasel around the discussion. Are
> you trying to say that Microsoft is innocent, or not guilty? Please
> explain, with something other than stupid trolling, or stop making an
> ass of yourself.
I think Microsoft is guilty of not making
the right campaign contributions to the right
people, and I am sure they won't do it again.
[snip]
> >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.
>
> No, you should GET ON WITH IT. Consider, already, you moron. You're
> using their products, you've paid them money, you own their stock. Its
> time to consider whether you're an unethical piece of shit or not. Just
> because you're afraid you know the result already, and it doesn't make
> you look good, you're going to have to have the courage to face it, or
> you're going to remain a pathetic immature moron until you die.
I've considered it too; I think the law is wrong, both
in that it invites abuse, and in that it is a ill-considered
law even on those occasions when it is applied as intended.
[snip]
> >Glad to know you're still a fan! :D
>
> You don't fool me. I recognize a cry for help when I see it.
:D
[snip]
> >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.
>
> Why? Is that because you're entirely ignorant of a century of
> precedent, perhaps?
The Sherman Act leaves crucial terms undefined, and
the legal precendent seems to say that this means things like
'markets' are whatever the prosecution wants them to be.
That is why it invites abuse.
> >In other words, I think it's a bad law that invites abuse.
>
> Why? Is this conviction merely based on the fact that it was used to
> convict a company you have stock in of violations of federal law?
> Didn't you realize you should suspect such an assumption?
I have yet to hear of an use of the Sherman Act of
which I approve.
It's not just Microsoft.
> >I think the MS case is an example of such an abuse;
> >though hardly the only one.
>
> Please, feel free to branch out into other cases you may be familiar
> with. I'm shivering in anticipation.
I can't think of a case I like. Even the original Standard Oil
case strikes me as a case of protecting competitiors from
competition, rather than doing anything for consumers.
The United Shoe Machinery case another one I consider
objectionable. As with the Microsoft case, USM offered
what its clients needed, but on terms that its *competitors*
did not like. Again, benefit to consumers seems to not have
been much of an issue; the operative question was whether
USMs competitors could get a bigger marketshare.
Though I am inclined to think the relatively mild remedy
used in that case was not really effective, and that USMs
decline some years later had to do with stiffer foreign
competition. Still, it's hard to sort the causes out in
a case like this, I'm sure you'll agree.
[snip]
> >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.
>
> They're putrid; don't make excuses for the fact that they're not simply
> disfunctional. I don't agree with the 'negative competition' theory,
> and have never heard it advanced by any competent opponent of
> anti-trust.
I've never even heard of that theory.
> You're begging the question, by presuming that the reason
> for MS's market share is the quality of their product; a baseless
> assumption given the circumstances of an anti-trust examination.
I'm pointing out that their some of their products are
in fact really very good.
That doesn't mean they succeeded because of this, but
it opens up the possibility, don't you think?
> This
> isn't any presumption of guilt; merely the blindness of justice. You
> cannot prove any 'superiority' of MS software on technical grounds
> alone, since any software feature can be duplicated by other software.
Can be, but hasn't been. The theoretical possibility that
Microsoft's competitors could catch up is undeniable...
but it is also not important.
> Therefore you're stuck with the plain facts as advocated by the balance
> of technically competent observers: Microsoft's software is utter crap,
> and most of the alternatives they squashed anti-competitively were
> clearly technically superior by both scientific and market measures.
"Technically superior" is a crock. Applied to operating systems
it has come to mean ".. better as a server platform"; a specific
set of attributes is implied. More stable, more scalable, and so on.
"Technically superior" is all about ignoring what the market
demands, and providing what what technical people want
demand instead.
It's a receipe for failure.
> From there, you may defend their actions, but the presumption of
> innocence is not sufficient to deny their own actions, which also
> clearly demonstrate an intent to monopolize and avoid competing on the
> merits of their product.
You say it over and over, but you just can't get around
the quality of Microsoft's products.
[snip]
> >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.
>
> You know, if you didn't revel in being a troll so much, you might
> eventually be capable of maintaining a useful discussion.
Maybe. :D
> If you deny
> both the law and the correctness of obeying the law, you're just an
> annoying unethical little criminal. Not a rebel, just a moron.
You have a very longwinded way of saying "you're wrong".
But I don't really give you much credit; I think that
you only support the law with the blind vigour you
do because you perceive that it is able to hurt Microsoft.
> It is not an abdication of moral responsibility to obey the law, because
> obeying the law, and recognizing that breaking the law is to be avoided,
> is not "pretending that the law decides right from wrong". It is merely
> recognizing that you are not God, for Christ's sake.
I don't see what God has to do with it. Obeying the law may
well be fine thing, but only if the law is not wrong. We cannot
judge the law only by reference to itself.
> Now you should decide right now whether you're going to be a delusional
> idiot, or a rational human being. Delusional idiots troll, rational
> human beings ask questions. Feel free to practice, but it is your
> responsibility to accept without defensiveness whatever flames you
> generate.
Ask questions? Of you? Like, seriously?
You're kidding, aren't you?
You don't think I consider you an authority on
anything, do you?
You don't think I consider you judgement worth
listening to, do 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: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:25:01 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
> >
> > They gave their customers what they wanted; that is what
> > it takes to be a top-20 OEM.
>
> No, they didnt. You are plainly not worth any more time. You ignore
> evidence, including quotes from M$ executive.
If you've got a quote from an MS excutive who says that
the customers did not want Windows, I'd like to see it.
And no, I won't shell out for The Microsoft File. I don't
need a new source of zealotry; I've got you. :D
[snip]
> > No. It's about selling Microsoft product.
>
> No, its about Micro$ofts criminal, unethical, immoral behavior.
> If you agree with their methods, you can much of a peron, either.
I agree with their methods. I'm no Peron; I'm not even
slightly Argentine. And I can't sing.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: where's the linux performance?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:25:04 GMT
"Jonathan Martindell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d242m$n03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 can't speak to KMail or Forte, but StarOffice under Windows, even with
competent hardware (600MHz PIII, 256Meg, W2k) takes well over 20 seconds to
start the first time, while Word takes 8 seconds. The second time around
(with lots of stuff remaining in cache) it's less than five seconds for both
programs.
I haven't run StarOffice under Linux or Solaris, but my understanding from
the folks here is that it generally loads much faster under Linux. I'm sure
some people here are less than objective, but it seems unlikely that
everyone who's said Star is faster under Linux is wrong, and even less
likely that Linux could possibly be "many many times" slower to load
StarOffice that W2k.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech
on OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 12:26:42 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Because LoseDOS is a sinking ship.
What the hell is LoseDOS and why is it sinking?
Is this the name of Ellison's new Yacht?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:25:16 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >The horrible memory model was the biggest
> >thing. Only DOS and clones thereof had it;
> >Windows could not succeed until it busted out
> >of it.
>
> Now THAT could only possibly be the work of someone who is BOTH a troll
> AND a sock puppet!
I'm glad we've got that straghtened out!
But I am not sure why you think it such an difficult
comment. It *is* true that Windows did nto succeed
until Windows 3.0, isn't it? It *is* true that Windows 3.0
did bust out of the 640k barrier, isn't it?
> Give up, Rick; save your sanity. Daniel doesn't have enough self-esteem
> to mind being pathetically dishonest; he no doubt takes a great deal of
> immature pride in his ability to resist all reason and frustrate more
> intelligent people.
I would if I could, but in all honesty, I don't seem to be able to do
those things. I have to settle for resisting that stuff you put out,
and frustrating you. :D
But I'm working on it.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:26:49 GMT
What's New Zealand like?
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS speech
on OSS/GPL ( /. hates it so it's good))
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 12:30:56 -0500
"Bill Vermillion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Jsut this past week one of trade mags had an article about that,
> and how vendors such as Lotus and Novell are no longer
> participitating in BSA because it is so MS oriented/prejudiced.
It's kind of funny because Microsoft left the SIIA because they were
prejudiced towards them.
Different clubs for different folks.
The SPA division of SIIA is one of the main anti-piracy groups out there.
------------------------------
From: "Steve Sheldon" <[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: Sun, 6 May 2001 12:36:23 -0500
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> This is that crux of what you should attempt to deny:
>
> 1. Microsoft's code has not had extensive community peer review because an
> aspect of their development policy is keeping their source code secret
(i.e.
> security through obscurity).
Your far better off assigning a select small group of peers doing a review
as is done at Microsoft than just throwing your code up on ftp and hoping
someone looks at it.
I would have thought by now we'd all just accepted the peer review myth of
linux is just that... a myth.
> 2. By sharing the code with an increasing number of "select" customers
there
> in an increased risk that the code will get into undesirable hands (also
> increasing the probability that more vulnerabilities will be
found/exploited
> in the future).
Who is undesirable?
> 3. If the code does get into undesirable hands, customers (or their
> agents/contractors/etc.) will not have the power to fix those
> vulnerabilities themselves.
Now wait a minute. You can't believe the myth of peer review and then claim
that it doesn't work in your second and third points.
Make up your mind.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
