Linux-Advocacy Digest #456, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Gary
Hallock")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Economist and Open-Source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:10 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>> >> Or, more honestly, it's the best tool to build apps for that desktop,
>> >> because it dominates (criminally) that desktop. Nobody ever accused
>you
>> >> of being honest, though, eh, Daniel? :-*
>> >
>> >The amazing thing isn't really that you believe that.
>> >
>> >The amazing thing is that you can't wrap your
>> >brain around the notion of anyone disagreeing
>> >with you.
>>
>> What in the world gave you that impression?
>
>That would be: "Nobody ever accused you of
>being honest"
>
>You seem to think that I can't *really* believe
>what I say, so I must be lying.
I suppose it might seem that way to you, sure. I don't mistake lack of
lying for being honest, though. Whether you believe what you say is not
a subject I'm willing to discuss as an entire category. I'm not
planning on second-guessing you, but simply double-checking your
statements indicates you are being dishonest, routinely. Perhaps it is
meant to be light-hearted, but I've already pointed out that there's
little humor in criminal activity, so your supposed merriment is
obviously just trolling.
>> Just because people
>> disagreeing with me are often in error does not mean I have any trouble
>> with the concept of their disagreement. Post to Usenet and believe
>> no-one can disagree with me? The cognitive dissonance of the very idea
>> makes my head hurt.
>
>Mine too.
>
>> Hell, *I* disagree with me all the time! What's the problem?
>
>Really? I've never seen you do that. :/
I don't do it out loud, for god's sake. They'd have never let me out of
the hospital if I still did that! :-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:11 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >I don't find any of these criteria particularly
>> >satisfying.
>>
>> Welcome to the fascinating world of abstraction. Ever read Plato,
>> Daniel? That's what you're trying, known as the Socratic or Platonic
>> method; through this means it is possible to "prove" that nothing
>> "exists". Ever heard the term "post-modern bullshit"? That's what
>> you've got there.
>
>No, it isn't. Saying "T Max Devlin is wrong, again" isn't
>the same as saying "Everyone is wrong, nothing is true".
What does an induction assumption mixed with a category error have to do
with the empirically proven uselessness of the platonic method for
defining abstractions?
>> Words don't "meet criteria", they "have meaning", or they do not. The
>> term API does not have sufficient meaning when applied to what is more
>> properly referred to as a routine.
>
>You say this but you give me no reason to believe
>it. I'm asking you to tell me how int 21h is *different*
>from those things you do consider APIs.
I'm telling you that this isn't at all an issue. "It's a piece of shit"
should suffice, if all you need is some DIFFERENCE between it and an API
to solve your little conceptual glitch. You can call it anything you
want; it's just rhetoric. There are libraries on the other side of an
API, since the term was coined, because that is what it means, and BIOS
can be 'considered to be like a library', but that isn't what it is,
now, is it? The question is not why isn't it an API; the question is
why would it be an API, and being "like an API" isn't good enough.
There isn't anything other than a rhetorical reason to refer to it as an
API. The answer is that it is not an API, so you can call it a duck or
a tree or an API but it doesn't change what the thing is, and therefore
can't change what it is not.
The question isn't why you don't understand the point; my own rhetoric
is hopelessly convoluted and abstract, even fanciful. The question is
why you would bother to question the point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:11 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
[...]
>It may be that you called them all "subroutines", but nevertheless
>even in the Bad Old Days there was a difference; things like
>int 21h had to be kept stable over multiple software
>releases, lest applications break.
Can't have that, or how else would you build a monopoly?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:12 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 18:46:17
[...]
>> It has to be what people familiar with the term mean when they say
>> "API".
>
>I'm trying to get a fix on what *you* think it is.
An API is the minimal amount of data necessary to know how to use a
library in programming software.
Also; the specification of this in a formal encoding language,
documentation in natural language concerning that specification and its
use, and/or a label used to denote a general class of problems possible
while using the library.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:14 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> What's the most *common* media player? Not the most popular, not the
>> most widely used, even, certainly not the best or the most competitive,
>> but the most common?
>
>Dude, you've a *really* strange defination of common, you know.
>By that standard, the most common ftp client is ftp.exe, the one bundled
>with windows.
Is it?
>And the most common word proccesor is WordPad.
>And the most common database* is flat textfiles.
>And the most common text editor is edit.com
>
>I *could* go on, you know.
I know, and you would do so, too, for quite a while, before you bothered
to realize how ludicrous and unreasoning your point is.
>Most widely used is what most people would call the most common media
>player. That would be a close contest with RealPlayer, QuickTime & WinAmp.
Do you think this would be the case if any of these weren't always
give-aways?
>* For your defination of database, not mine.
Sure, sure. If I were half as clueless as you sound, I might be almost
as clueless as you think I am.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:13 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>> >You sure about that?
>> >
>> >For what you say to be true, the "most common applications"
>> >must be confined to wordprocessors and spreadsheets.
>>
>> "Confined to?" No; it would include browsers and email clients and
>> presentation graphics programs, databases...
>
>You sure about that? If you admit those things, your
>argument becomes rather weaker.
If this were true, why do you think it would make a difference to me?
>MS is not as
>dominant in those areas as in word processors and
>spreadsheets.
This is true, yet it is not obvious how it could possibly weaken my
argument, considering my argument remains entirely and exactly correct
regardless. I don't recall claiming they owned the planet, or were the
only producer in all markets, or that they 'dominated' every single
application market. I merely pointed out that the most common
applications are all Microsoft products.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:15 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> What's the most *common* media player? Not the most popular, not the
>> most widely used, even, certainly not the best or the most competitive,
>> but the most common?
>
>God only knows what definition of "common" you have devised but using the
>standard english definition:
>There isn't a single most common media player. [...]
I knew these guys would pop up as soon as I mentioned media players.
Studiously pretending this is the root of the argument, they're quickly
trying to rush past the fact that all the most common applications are
ALL Microsoft products, starting with the monopoly OS and its relatives,
right through ALL common office suite programs, web browsing (of course)
but also email. This fact remains undisputed, for obvious reason (it is
entirely falsifiable, and quite evidently not false). By pointing out
that media players might qualify as 'common' because MS force-bundles
them, we are forced to admit that the small percentage of computer users
(yes, deal with it) that use media players often use WinAmp or
RealPlayer or even Quicktime.
Nevertheless, whatever media player MS bolts into their OS (the newest
full production version) is most probably the most commonly *used* media
player, as well. This despite the fact that those who use media players
commonly usually choose something other than monopoly crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:16 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Here are a couple of Win2K servers that stayed up for a long time.
>> >
>> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=partnering3.microsoft.com
>> > 244
>> >
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=download.windowsbeta.microsoft.com
>> > 216
>> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=msdnisv.microsoft.com
>> > 189
>> >
>http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=corporate.windowsupdate.microsoft.c
>> > om
>> > 189
>> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=esl.one.microsoft.com
>> > 184
>> They are all clusters. Now, get, one, lone server loaded with Win2k
>> Server, and then see the uptime.
>
>Clusters actually tend to show LOWER uptimes because it averages the uptimes
>of all the machines in the cluster. Netcraft doesn't simply check if the
>server is up every so often, it actually determines the machines actual
>uptime from the machines packet signature.
BZZZZZ Somebody check Google. We already spanked Erik's bottom a nice
cherry red on this point before.
All of these long uptimes are because the systems are clusters; the
numbers sited are for cluster uptime. Erik's contention about
"averaging" are complete horse-shit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:50:47 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 20:11:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Sit down. Write a program that uses a GPL library which you've never
>seen and don't have. (This is the issue, I know; you think the
>developer should have end-user rights of fair use, particularly with
>open code.) Using only the API specification, and no prior testing save
>a stub library, create the program. Distribute it under a non-GPL
>license. Wait for the FSF thugs to threaten to take you to court. (So
>far just like the RIPEM guys, right? Except they begged the question by
>using the library itself, not only the API and a stub.)
This is an asinine line of argument. No one has money to throw around
just to teach you copyright law. Even winning a law suit is an
expensive way to indulge a hobby.
>
>So you're right, you don't have to agree to the contract. You have to
>do more. You have to break the contract, according to the FSF, and
>prove them wrong in court. Should be so pitifully trivial, for all the
You can't break a contract that hasn't been formed.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:09:09 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Now you've prejudged me. What a surprise.
>>
>>You don't _seriously_ believe I don't _know_ how DirectX sucks do you?
>>[...]
>
> One way or the other, you've just made a fool of yourself, Pete. Take a
> break.
Now how have I done that T Max? I never said DirectX does _not_ suck. I
merely asked you why it _does_ suck, which you didn't do at first.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:10:19 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>But I don't know you from Adam, do I? All you said was "DirectX sucks" but
>>you offered no explanation as to why. In another post you finally put
>>forth some reasons why it sucks - and guess what, I agree with you,
>>partly.
>
> Perhaps your memory is even worse than mine. Are you unaware that we've
> been dancing in COLA for well over two years, now, Pete? Your posturing
> is obvious and bogus. Just so you know.
Two years!
ROFL!
I've been on COLA less than six months.
Boy your memory is seriously broken!!!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:11:06 GMT
On Sat 12 May 2001 03:10, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[Snip]
> You misunderstand the theoretical concept of "true" random numbers. We
> already knew this would happen back when pseudo-random numbers (rather
> than merely 'apparently random numbers', I guess) began to be possible
> on the PC platform. The random numbers you're getting are
> pseudo-random; they look random for almost every practical purpose when
> all you really need is an *arbitrary* number. A *truly* random number
> is not so easily come by.
>
For reasons I explained earlier in this thread, both radioactive decay and
thermal noise are both *truly* random according to Quantum Mechanics.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:12:29 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>I'm not trying, I'm succeeding. I call you a hypocrit because you'rev
>>still using a Windows application. Surely if you believe Windows is crap,
>>you'd drop it in favour of a Linux equivalent?
>
> Now *that* is what they mean when they say "not very quick on the
> uptake."
Brilliant. Throw something in that makes absolutely no sense and completely
ignore what's being said to you.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:13:42 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Besides, the Great Shaitan, I mean Microsoft, has decreed [...]
>
> Don't you mean "I mean requested their customers to..."?
No, I mean decreed. Not fitting into your square hole am I?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:27:02 -0500
"Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > COM was a great boon for developers, able to share compiled bits of code
> > written in different languages, and allowing apps to communicate with
each
> > other easily. On linux, CORBA has barely taken off in the ActiveX
emulation
> > project (Gnome) 5 years behind microsoft. On the microsoft platform,
COM
> > and ActiveX are being tossed into the legacy bin as the common language
> > runtime is being rolled out. The common language runtime (and MSIL
> > instruction set) is a huge boon for developers and users and an open
> > standard (ECMA). COM, CORBA, and ActiveX are all junk compared to the
> > common language runtime. The user experience and developer experience
will
> > be so much better with the common language runtime (part of .net on the
> > windows platform).
>
> Linux developers aren't stupid enough to try to copy COM. At least I
> hope not.
Funny you should say that. Mozilla heavily uses a COM clone they call XPCOM
(cross platform COM i guess), and IIRC Bonobo is also based on COM's design
as well.
> > Does anyone know of any efforts to support the common language runtime
on
> > linux? That would make the platform so much better and development of
new
> > stuff much quicker.
>
> I did find a couple of sites that I don't think were jokes on the
> subject. Mostly Linux seems to be leaning toward CORBA-SOM-DSOM.
> Especially as IBM is putting lots of money into the arena.
Is SOM/DSOM available for Linux?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:14:53 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> What a fucking surprise. Doh!
>
> Why don't you guys take it to comp.suck.bills.dick.windows.advocacy and
> quite trolling with some senseless crap about 'WDM' that nobody here
> gives a damn about?
Why, are we leaving the resident twoll (i.e. you) out in the cold are we?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 17:14:01 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <9djsjs$c22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A> It doesn't takes weeks to do GUI. B> A good GUI allows you to do the
> same.
>
Really? You have a GUI that can provide all the functionality of Unix
commands and pipes? Where is this magical GUI?
Gary
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:17:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>What does "less than steller" mean? Details! Details!
>
> Blue screens.
Really? I spend a lot of time trying to track that sort of thing down.
>>Ah yes, latency. Another area where DirectX sucks.
>
> We are getting 2ms which is better than ASIO can manage and way better
> than MME.
Eh? I thought ASIO was lower latency that DirectX. What's MME?
>>> The drivers are stable under Win2k but so-so under Win98SE/ME.
>>
>>How are they so-so? Details!
>
> Many people reporting blue screens, lockups and stuttering audio.
>
> They run very smooth under Win2k for the most part.
Blue screens and lockups? Not seen those (that doesn't mean they don't
exist).
Stuttering audio - ah well...
Perhaps we should take this offline out of this audio group, otherwise
people like T Max might feel they're being ignored.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:20:40 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>OK, why are you using a Windows application (which you despise?) instead
>>>>of a Linux equivalent (which you think is wonderful?).
>>>
>>> It's more convenient to use Windows than to avoid Windows, and I already
>>> paid for it (and Agent) long ago. That doesn't make it reliable or
>>> stable.
>>
>>But if Windows is _so_ bad, why use it at all? If you think it's "monopoly
>>crapware" surely you cannot even touch it?
>>
>>Either that, or you're a hypocrit.
>
> Or maybe you just don't seem to have the foggiest clue what is meant by
> "monopoly crapware". You seem to easily ignore the 'm' word, and its
> rather obvious that it answers your question.
>
> So I guess you're just being lame.
You trying to fit me into a square hole again? You still trying to fit me
into your dogma again?
I don't see the connection between my understanding what monopoly crapware
means and why you insist on using it, despite calling it "monopoly
crapware". I think the answer is very simple. You're a hypocrit, plain and
simple. You don't like it when someone calls you on it, so you try to
deflect it by wittering on about the meaning of "monopoly crapware". Shame
on you!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:37:40 -0500
"Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dhndf$8j0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chris Sherlock wrote:
> > >
> > > I like the bit down the bottom of the article:
> > >
> > > To advocates of the open-source approach, this looks very much
> > > like one-way sharing. Customers can look at the source code of
> > > Windows, tell Microsoft about bugs and suggest improvements,
> > > thus saving the firm a lot of money-but they still have to pay for
> > > the next version.
> > >
> > > How very true.
> > >
> > > Chris
> >
> > When has Microsoft ever included some of my recomendations? or am I one
> > of Microsoft's droans? I subscribe to the Linux kernel mailing list, and
> > at least the development process is as transparent as possible. How do I
> > know Microsoft isn't holding back some bug fixes because they want to
> > sell more of their next product? at least when I get an error, I email
> > the mailing list, developers receive the information, and the problem is
> > isolated and solved, unlike the Microsoft way which requires you to have
> > a huge wobb of cash just to get them to listen to you.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
>
> I think that it is perhaps a little too easy to "daemonize" companies like
> Microsoft regarding why it takes so long to get bugfixes. One very likely
> explanation is simply inefficieness (not that this will make it better
> :-) ). When you mail the Linux kernel list, you will undoubtably hit some
of
> the developers directly. Large commercial SW shops like MS tends to
"shield"
> the developers behind a layer of "customer service" people. This is in a
way
> a good idea, but introduces the risk that a bug report will not "hit" the
> right developer right away. I have seen this occur in a couple of
companies
> I've worked with.
Not to mention that MS has a legal liability as well, despite the fact that
they disclaim liability, they are still subject to laws in certain places
that do not allow them to disclaim it completely.
They have to regression test each patch thoroughly before releasing it.
With Linux, someone will hack a quick fix together and release it, not
caring a bit about testing it. Then, as the developers have time, they
create a decent fix, which happens in about the same timeframe that MS
takes.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 16:40:48 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sun has weekly bug fixes, big fixes, small fixes, they are all released,
> regardless of whether these bug fixes are important, what is even
> better, everyone can access these fixes at no extra cost. Maybe instead
> of Microsoft releasing a service pack, they should release weekly bug
> fixes for issues customers have addressed to Microsoft.
I think MS's issue is that they prefer to have as few hot fixes in the field
as possible, so that they have better control over support. When someone
calls in, they can ask what SP is applied and have a good idea of the state
of the machine. If you could apply hundreds of fixes then the current
revision level of the customer is anyones guess. Also, some fixes will
require that other, previous fixes be applied. The dependancy issues could
be staggering if they simply put fixes up willy nilly.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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, 12 May 2001 16:45:59 -0500
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just to be annoying:
>
> Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
> record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
> looking any better.
You do realize that most other software also has probably just as many
security bugs, but since they aren't the target of constant probing, they
aren't discovered. Also, companies like Sun and HP are constantly releasing
patches to security bugs that they themselves have found before hackers
exposed them.
Hell, each new Linux kernel tends to have at least one security related bug
fix, and sometimes more, not to mention the various buffer overflow
exploits.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
