Linux-Advocacy Digest #304, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rob Barris)
Re: Cut&Paste with TS (was: Windows is a virus) ("Steve Cox")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
All your MS license are belong to us ("Flacco")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Where can I find a Linux Badge? (Ivory Bones)
Re: All your MS license are belong to us ("mmnnoo")
Andrew Leonard: "Microsoft: Free-software licenses are the devil's work!" ("Adam
Warner")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Richard
J. Donovan)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Richard
J. Donovan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rob Barris <[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: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:22:14 GMT
In article <11FJ6.9669$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In Windows, when you pull down a menu
> Windows creates a window (with no
> title bar or other decorations) to contain
> it. Drawing can proceed as normal in other
> windows. No problem.
>
> This is how everyone does it. Everyone but
> the Mac, that is.
I'm sure you meant to write "MacOS versions 1.0 - 9.1" here.
Rob
------------------------------
From: "Steve Cox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Cut&Paste with TS (was: Windows is a virus)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:40:15 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rob S. Wolfram"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [late flup]
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Really? How easy is it to copy and paste graphic images? Say, between
>>Konqerer and the GIMP?
>>
>>How easy is it to copy tables from Aplix and paste them into Star
>>Office?
>
> Genuine curiosity: is it possible to cut&paste between windows of two
> different remote machines using Terminal Services? (I have never used TS
> before.) I use this functionality in X all the time.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
Don't think it can be done with TS but if you fork out the thousands to
bolt Citrix metaframe on top then you can.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:39:08 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:18 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > That's not very suprising; you are replacing GhostScript's
> > PostScript renderer with Adobe's there. :D
>
> Well, Ok, maybe StarOffice is a better example. It seems to print the
> same on both.
The differences tend to be real small. They are a problem
if you use blindly use screen metrics to layout printer
content- *sometimes* you'll get things like characters
touching each other. Sometimes you won't though. You
need errors to add up rather than cancelling out
for it to happen.
[snip]
> > Hmmm. You are saying that GhostScript will
> > not render the page as a bitmap, if it can find
> > a translation to higher level PCL?
>
> I'm saying I don't know for sure but that there's no reason it couldn't
> do that if there are equivalent constructs in the two languages. It can
> certainly render and download fonts _once_ rather than making each page
> into a huge bitmap.
PS is rather a more featureful sort of thing than PCL; what
you could do is analyse the PS and then only render it as a bitmap
if there's something there you can't translate.
This is really quite nontrivial to do. It would require some
hooks pretty deep in GhostScript to work.
The docs for GhostScript that I've seen seem to suggest that
it only emits raster files. It's not impossible to do
what you suggest, but it may be too hard to bother
with.
[snip]
> > This may mean that you get different wordbreaks
> > when you change printers, even a different
> > pagecount.
>
> That's what I meant by not "printing properly". Elsewhere in this
> forum we have people arguing that web sites ought to render "the way
> the designer intended". I'm pretty sure most people expect that of
> documents.
For some tasks, you'd be right.
But you must consider that one of the most popular
uses of desktop computers is plain jane word processing.
Not fancy layout, not desktop publishing, just plain
'ole word processing.
For this, people don't expect matching output on
every printer. They expect a word processor to handle
the (simple!) formatting as automaticly as possible.
> > It certainly isn't always a wise thing to do, but for
> > garden variety word processing it's a plus.
>
> For garden variety word processing, printing huge bitmaps is fine too.
It's slow. Really, just downloading *fonts* is noticably
slower, never mind sending whole pages as bitmaps.
I'm incluined to see it the other way: when you want
exacting page layout, bitmaps are better because they
leave less up to the printer. With boring WP type stuff,
it's more important to get the stuff out quickly, so long
as you don't mangle it too much.
Windows lets applications do it either way. If you are
Adobe Acrobat, you can render everything to a bitmap
just so, then print that. If you are Word, you can let the
printer have its wicked way.
> > > Sure it can. The script "ps2ascii" uses GS to extract the ascii text
> > > from a ps file.
> >
> > I don't think that's quite the same thing. :D
>
> You didn't say it had to be the same, you said that it couldn't do it at
> all. 8->
Yeah, yeah. :/
What I find on the web suggests that ps2ascii isn't
terribly good at its job; it gets confused when faced
with complex PS layout type stuff. No?
> > And there's no way for an application printing
> > to such a printer to discover that it can't use
> > any graphics.
>
> That's true. The user surely knows though. Anyway, it is just the same
> problem that we started with, that the printer can't talk back.
Yes, it is the same problem.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:41:07 GMT
"Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <11FJ6.9669$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In Windows, when you pull down a menu
> > Windows creates a window (with no
> > title bar or other decorations) to contain
> > it. Drawing can proceed as normal in other
> > windows. No problem.
> >
> > This is how everyone does it. Everyone but
> > the Mac, that is.
>
> I'm sure you meant to write "MacOS versions 1.0 - 9.1" here.
I haven't yet been able to find out how MacOS X does it,
but it may well correct this stuff.
In any case I'm not yet sure that 9.1 will be the last
revision that uses the real QuickDraw, rather
than thunking it through to Quartz.
Recall how much fun MS has had trying to kill
DOS.
I look forward to watching Apple, um, enjoy
the same passtime. Don't you? :D
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:53:46 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >Homosexuality obviously is a defect.
>> >>
>> >> "Obviously being a Jew is a defect".
>> >
>> >Racist pig.
>>
>> Being a homophobic pig is no different from being a racist or sexist pig.
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>"-phobic" to be in fear of
>
>Since I don't *fear* gays, the accusation doesn't fly.
Uh huh. That's why you're so hostile towards them.
>> THAT is the point which you don't get. 60 years ago the Nazis
>> considered being a Jew and being a homosexual to be a "defect".
>> They proceeded to get rid of the defective.
>>
>> Now you argue that homosexuals are defective.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:54:56 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You write like someone who was abused as a child.
You write like someone who's lost an argument and doesn't have the
good grace to concede nor the brains to withdraw.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[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: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:56:48 GMT
I think that you would be hard pressed to cite any such e-mail that
described a requirement for any illegal contract negotiation. Microsoft has
been very rigorous in following the Consent Agreement in all actions
subsequent to signing the Consent Agreement. You want to attribute evil
activities to Microsoft out of some bias against them, but there is simply
no grounds for upholding any such charge. The DOJ pored through millions of
lines of e-mail and presented the most incriminating of the lot.
Unfortunately it would appear that they lost sight of their case in their
zest to make the Microsoft executives look uncooperative. As if there is
any expectation that they should be. But the DOJ failed to make a case for
Netscape actually being any threat to Microsoft and failed to show how
Microsoft's actions could be declared in support of maintenance of any
monopoly that might have existed after review of that finding and it looks
like their entire case will disappear at the DC Circuit level.
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 14:30:54 GMT;
> >Do you have any authentication for that letter? That condition would be
an
> >explicit violation of the Consent Agreement and would be of extreme
interest
> >to the DOJ, at least the previous administration DOJ. I suspect that the
> >story is bogus since there was such an extensive search made by the DOJ
for
> >any such agreements or documents from Microsoft to the extent of
subpoenaing
> >contracts from most of the OEMs over the objection of Microsoft but by
order
> >of the Jackson court.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Yes, the court record is replete with examples of
> such behavior. They don't only have documents similar to the ones from
> The Microsoft Files, (the contracts simply show what was done, not what
> MS [or the OEM] refused to do, so they aren't incriminating in this way)
> but internal emails from Microsoft which precisely explain the
> anti-competitive intent behind such letters.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: All your MS license are belong to us
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:14:50 GMT
Another predictable move by Microsoft -
No more perpetual use clause in corporate licensing agreements:
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2716400,00.html
MS representative responds with equally predictable MS double-speak:
"We're continually looking at how we do volume licensing and product
support to benefit our customers," said a Microsoft spokeswoman. She
declined to comment further on any pending changes.
Reason #15409348 to avoid commercial vendors wherever possible and MS in
particular.
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[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: Mon, 07 May 2001 22:49:05 GMT
Are you serious? Nothing regarding contracts that existed prior to the
Consent Agreement is evidence of anything. It is widely acknowledged that
Microsoft had numerous exclusionary contracts with OEMs prior to that
agreement, but nothing was illegal in doing so until the Agreement was
reached. You might as well accuse Abraham Lincoln of being a tax cheat
because he never paid his Federal Income Tax.
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billwg wrote:
> >
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > How do you know it is not presented in evidence? Do you have a catlog
of
> > > evidence and if so, have you searched it?
> > >
> > The transcripts for the DOJ actions are on the DOJ website, at
> > http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm. They are also on the
Microsoft
> > site in their PressPass area. I've read most of it and I've never seen
any
> > reference to any such contract or offering.
>
> Is this for the trial? The cited letter would have been in reference to
> DOS and W3.1. It would have been collevted as evidence byt the FTC or
> DOJ during the last action which resulted in the consent decree stopping
> product tying and per-processor licenses.
>
> --
> Rick
>
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[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: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:15:28 GMT
Well the facts of the matter were that Stac did indeed settle with
Microsoft. The details of the agreement were published for a couple of
years as addenda in the Stac annual report. There should still be a copy
available on Yahoo.
As to the case itself, it wasn't the noble struggle you paint. You can read
about it in Dr. Dobbs at
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1994/9455/9455c/9455c.htm. It describes, in
part:
"First of all, one of Stac's two patents (#4,701,745, often referred to as
the "Ferranti" patent) was not developed internally, but purchased by Stac
about the time the suit was launched. (According to Stac president Gary
Clow, negotiations had nonetheless been underway for a long time.) The
actual inventor of that patent, John Waterworth, has been out of the picture
for seven years. For its part, Microsoft purchased a similar
data-compression patent. In both instances, the legal battle involved pieces
of paper long since removed from the hands of the actual inventors."
But don't take my word for it, read it yourself.
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[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: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:06:40 GMT
Oh I am sure that a monopoly can be made to exist in some way, shape, or
form, but I don't see how such a thing really applies to Microsoft. But
that's another topic entirely. What is at issue here is the leveraging of
Windows with DOS. That, I contend, is 180 out from the conventional
interpretation of the Microsoft "tying" issues and not in evidence in either
the Contempt Hearings or the Antitrust Violation cases.
The usual charge is that Microsoft FUDded the world into using only pure
MS-DOS or PC-DOS with Windows through such strategies as the Christmas Beta
scare and some whispering campaign regarding future compatibility.
Microsoft also incented OEMs to buy the package by essentially giving away
DOS when it was bundled with Windows. DOS was only about $5 per system
anyway when subject to the per processor discounting in effect prior to the
Consent Agreement signing. The OEMs wanted Windows and would toe the line
on DOS to get it.
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 11:56:29 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
> >> >
> >> >Saying this doesn't make it so. Until 1995, Microsoft
> >> >sold a version of Windows separate from DOS.
> >>
> >> The question is not whether they sold it (had it available). The
> >> question is how much people bought it. People weren't buying it, so MS
> >> forced it on them: this is documented by Microsoft's internal
documents.
> >> Arguing against it just makes you look stupid.
> >>
> >This doesn't seem to gibe with the Caldera case theory for one thing.
Their
> >assertion was that Microsoft used Windows to leverage MS-DOS, not
vice-versa
> >as you seem to be saying.
>
> The teleology is not what is important; only the resultant
> anti-competitive effect. What leads you to believe that MS could not
> both leverage DOS with Windows, and leverage Windows with DOS? You're
> not one of those guys who denies the existence of the very concept of
> monopolization, are you?
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
------------------------------
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 19:18:49 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Steve Sheldon wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > billwg wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you have any authentication for that letter? That condition
> would be
> > > an
> > > > > explicit violation of the Consent Agreement and would be of extreme
> > > interest
> > > > > to the DOJ, at least the previous administration DOJ.
> > > >
> > > > Clue for the Clueless--the DOJ investigation PRECEEDS the Klintoon
> years.
> > >
> > > Ok, you are aware that President Clinton took office in January of 1993,
> > > right?
> >
> > yes.
> >
> > The DOJ investigations started during the first Bush administration.
>
> In the summer of 1993, the DOJ began an extensive investigation of Microsoft
> 's business practices. That investigation followed on the heels of a very
> similar investigation conducted over the three preceding years by the
> Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC"). The FTC investigation ended with no
> enforcement action being taken.
The case was handed over to the DOJ.
--
Rick
------------------------------
Subject: Where can I find a Linux Badge?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ivory Bones)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 23:58:31 GMT
Using the CD's on a book cover, I managed to install RedHat 7.0 on an old
486. Then I got a deal on a Pentium class machine built from parts, and
Installed the same CD's on it.
Well of course all you people out in Linuxland know that I have discovered
a really nice OS and will soon be leaving Bill's land behind.
I live in the Florida panhandle. There are three major bookstores in town,
and all have Linux sections. There's got to be some other local users and
it would be nice to chat with them, and maybe form a local user's group.
A badge advertising Linux would be a nice way to get started. I searched
the web and came up with a coffee mug which won't work, but the idea is
right.
Anyone know where to find a badge?
Don
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: All your MS license are belong to us
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:00:09 GMT
Wow, software licenses that 'wears out' so you have to replace them.
In other words, the subscription model under a different name, and with
longer rental periods. I wonder if anybody will fall for it this time?
In article <K%FJ6.345$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Flacco"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2716400,00.html
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Andrew Leonard: "Microsoft: Free-software licenses are the devil's work!"
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 12:02:04 +1200
http://www.salon.com/tech/col/leon/2001/05/03/microsoft_gpl/index.html
Just three quotations:
"One could be tempted to chalk up the latest speech by Mundie as another
example of unintentional free-software marketing. But the speech is also a
clear indication of where Microsoft sees the fight for the future of the
software industry taking place. And contrary to Mundie's spin, this is not
about Microsoft's position being threatened by free software. It is,
instead, all about Microsoft's desire to move into territory that has
historically been dominated by free software -- in other words, the Net."
...
".NET is about creating an infrastructure on top of the Internet that is
wholly owned by Microsoft. It's about moving into a new territory and
establishing the kind of controlling beachhead that Microsoft already enjoys
in the world of productivity apps because of its dominance of desktop
operating systems. Once Microsoft begins to extend that beachhead, it will
be able to make a lot of money by charging for the use of it."
...
"Meanwhile, Microsoft's plaintive wail over the future of innovation is just
a smoke screen. What Microsoft really wants are new markets to dominate,
whether they be overseas or on the Net. And apparently the company sees the
GPL as standing in the way. But each attempt to demonize the GPL as the
enemy of Microsoft-style capitalism risks making the free-software movement
stronger instead."
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Richard J. Donovan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:07:18 GMT
>
> At least it isn't in the Windows 2000 world, where a GUI means a lot more
> than a way to open up multiple xterm windows and cut and paste text between
> them, like X11 represents.
>
Don't you mean, cut and past between xterm windows on multiple desktops?
... such as X11 represents?
------------------------------
From: Richard J. Donovan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 00:07:19 GMT
>
> At least it isn't in the Windows 2000 world, where a GUI means a lot more
> than a way to open up multiple xterm windows and cut and paste text between
> them, like X11 represents.
>
Don't you mean, cut and past between xterm windows on multiple desktops?
... such as X11 represents?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
