Linux-Advocacy Digest #469, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers (Tim Smith)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm ("JS PL")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Pascal Haakmat)
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft ("Tom Wilson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers
Date: 12 May 2001 21:51:12 -0700
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Dave Martel forwarded:
>ASUS, the Taiwanese components maker, has released its much-criticised
>video card drivers that allow online game players to cheat.
>
>The drivers, which allow players to see through walls, were first
>announced in July last year and were immediately condemned by players
>and gaming organisations.
That's quite stupid on Asus's part. Suppose a couple major game
companies respond by making their games check for Asus cards, and refuse
to run if an Asus card is being used. Asus is gonna feel really stupid
when people stop buying their cards for gaming, since gaming is the
major reason the mass market buys new video cards.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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 20:12:20 +0200
"Clark Safford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > "Clark Safford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
>
> [time to snip a bit]
>
> > I think that those are things that the users need, now, in some cases,
they
> > do push an application that they already has.
> > I consider it ok, it's not an application that they sold before, after
all.
> > So it's not as if they are cutting prices, beside, it is good for the
> > consumer.
> > Because people *won't* use this application if it's not better then the
> > competition, if it's just as good or worse, then they'll just get the
> > application they used before.
> > See NS3 vs IE3 (about equal quality), only when IE4 was clearly superior
to
> > NS4 (especially the buggy beta verison) people start to move to it in
> > droves.
>
> I believe that NS lost quite a bit of market share at a time that they
were
> still considered the browser of choice. MS made most of it's gains during
that
> time by making ISP's offers they couldn't refuse. That's one of the
reasons
> they wound up in court.
Not as far as I know, IIRC, they were in court for integrating IE, and
refusing to allow OEM to install NS.
> > > > Because today, it's pretty much an essencial need to have a browser,
so
> > yes,
> > > > I think that it's a logical extention of the OS.
> > >
> > > I guess it is if you want to surf the net. Surfing your computer
could be
> > done
> > > in other ways.
> >
> > KDE & GNOME does it the same way that MS does.
> > How come with them it's okay but MS it isn't?
>
> Because both of those aren't an integral part of the OS. Both could be
> replaced tomorrow by MS's GUI if MS decided to bring the Windows
experience to
> linux.
That is not what I'm talking about, I'm asking why you seem to object
browsing the net & the computer using the same tool?
> > > > There *is* a theoretical way you can possibly do this, replace IE
with
> > > > something else that implements the same interface.
> > > > However, this require either:
> > > > A> Major amount of hacking, including doing several stuff that has
red,
> > > > huge, blinking, bleeding, screeming No! on them.
> > > > B> *Major* redesign of the system. Including almost certainly great
loss
> > of
> > > > efficency.
> > >
> > > Or design an OS that does what OS's do and leave out all those things
that
> > > 'enhance the Windows experience'.
> >
> > You mean like networking? GUI? browser? email? news reader? word
proccessor?
> > What you seem to want is a kernel plus Win32 on it.
>
> That would be great!!! And if I don't like Win32, I can replace it with
> Norton32, right?
Okay, full stop!
You want to pay for something like that, then pay *again* for GUI, *again*
for networking, *again* for a browser, etc?
Sorry, if you wanted *that*, you are late by about... 8 years or so.
Before 95 & NT, you bought DOS, which you seem to consider a viable OS for
today's needs.
Then you bought Win3.X, which provide GUI, (And *integrated multi tasking
and memory management*, the shameless bastard!).
And then you bought Trumpet Winsock.
And then you bought Netscape.
And while I believe that you could get Win32 for free, I'm sure that MS
would've made exception in your case and would sell it to you.
Now, *you* might want to go back to those days, I don't.
Norton32? What is that? Win32 is an API, if Norton decide to release an API
that does what Win32 does, it's very nice of them, I wish them all the luck,
now they need to develop for it.
Bad move.
If you are talking about another implementation of Win32, then you got bug
compatability problems, not to mention the sheer *size* of Win32.
> > I don't know any user who would buy it.
>
> Maybe none would, but, at least some developer with a better mousetrap
would
> have the chance to try.
See the procedure above.
Do you think that it can work today?
> > Just as I don't know any user who would buy a Cd of Linux's kernel.
>
> I'll bet some do;-)
No, nobody would buy a cd that only install the linux's kernel.
Because there isn't much you can do anything with a kernel.
> > Or could you define "OS that does what OS' do" more clearly?
>
> hardware <-- OS <-- applications. No browser. No email. Hell, no GUI.
Edlin
> can stay.
Sorry, that is kernel & probably Win32 or Posix or similar API layer on top
of it.
Not an OS.
> Everything else is easily replaceable. All system calls are clearly
> defined. No surprises for third-party developers.
There *isn't* anything else there to be surprised at. It's a kernel.
You don't *do* anything with a kernel.
> No hidden API's for getting
> around lousy design.
Okay, let's say we accept the insanity that you propuse.
Would the GUI provider would work with the networking provider, and would
the browser built for another GUI on another networking work?
I can gurantee you that it won't.
And it most certainly wouldn't work *efficently*.
> OS source code freely available (kinda sounds like
> linux).
Okay, let's start and say that you don't know much about system design,
apperantly.
You seem to be suggesting is that we should build an OS like a lego set.
This is a nice idea, actually, in theory, not in reality.
And just for a start, this isn't even *close* to how Linux does it.
Here is the reality trip:
For a start, you need someone to regulate the whole bussiness, someone to
say:
Components of type X would implement Y interface.
You either give it to a standatising organization, which is a bad idea,
because then it would take *ages* to something get through, or let a single
company/person do the desicions for you.
Please check Sun's control of Java as an example of the latter, and how long
it takes to get something approved in C or C++ as an example to the former.
I believe that the later is better, it means that you can actually get
something to work.
Since implementing something outside the standard must be absolutely
forbidden (see Sun vs. MS on Java case) because that can cause
interportability problems, you get a evloving in a pretty disrginazed
manner, if it evolve at all, platform. You can't do more than beta test a
feature until it's approved.
Also check Sun's WORA for what happen when you break bug compatabily.
Just to get you to know about the *general* idea.
About GUI*:
Now, what you end up with, is nothing like what you wanted, where you can
pull out the GUI, enter another one, and all your applications will work
with it, because either you standartise the GUI (like Java did), which
cancel the whole point of wanting to change GUI, or you get an API that
tries to do be end-all-be-all for every GUI, not possible, not practicle.
Because what you will end up with won't be truly different GUI, you would,
at best, get a different set of widgets on the same GUI.
Now, networking, how are you going to implement it?
Like Java did? When you can't extend it?
Like other OS did? When you can easily extend it? (IPv6 being the most
obvious example, you can't do that in Java withing the current (1.3)
standard)
If extendable, how do you allow for other platforms? A browser can't be
allowed to ship with a library that has IPv6 in it, because other browsers
doesn't, and they won't be able to run the browser plug-ins that relies on
IPv6.
Just a couple of points to show you how ridicilous that proposition is in
reality.
And we haven't even touched economics yet, you know.
[*] GUI is much more than what you see, it's also an event notification
system, a set of common controls, a set of common behaviour, etc.
> MS can provide the OS for a small fee and sell windows as an
> application (kinda sounds like Windows 95).
No, 95 has a TCP/IP, had GUI, had a browser.
> If somebody else develops a better
> GUI sitting on MS's OS, they win the GUI war.
No, they won't.
See KDE vs GNOME battle, you still have to have KDE to run KDE applications,
and vice versa, and they will look like KDE application if run on GNOME.
Kind of beat the whole point of better GUI, doesn't it?
> > > > Not to mention that it also require something that implements the
whole
> > of
> > > > what IE does, to my knowledge, nothing else does it.
> > >
> > > Why would anyone bother trying to improve on MS's design? It's not as
if
> > > they'd make any money from their efforts.
> >
> > It's not as if the people who develop linux makes any money from their
> > efforts, why would anyone bother trying to improve Linux?
>
> I have no idea why they do what they do,. but I love them for it.
>
> > BTW, all the things that MS does, Apple did, and more.
>
> And if Apple owned 95% of PC market today, they'd be in court and this
thread
> would be 'Justice Department LOVES Apple!'
Apple owns 100% of the Macintosh-compatible market.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 05:17:00 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dkulo$11g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:KLmL6.12534$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Cutting to the chase:
> > > IIS5: 8001
> > > Tux2: 7500
> >
> > Hehehe,
> >
> > 2000 Server: 500$
> > Linux: 2$ (for the CD you copy it on)
>
> Hehehe, you can't count.
> 2000 Server: 3,999$
> Linux: 0$ (why burn when you can install from FTP?)
Not for me thanks... I'll buy SuSE. 1 DVD beats 6 CD's any day and who wants
to take the time to download that mess and burn CDs just to save 69.99?
Besides, you get docs, stickers and a really stupid looking penguin tie clip
to boot! (I didn't even notice mine as it fell out of the box and I later
stepped on it barefooted. Damned thing!)
As for 2000 server, we got the timed version with MSDN. Never did install it
and don't plan to. No reason to. Not even remotely interested.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:20:13 -0400
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Question, why is it everytime a company is bought towards the DOJ, its
> >always the governments fault, reality stick please! why would a
> >government wish to unnecessarily ruin a cash cow? Microsoft broke the
>
> What makes you think they are a cash cow for anybody but themselves
> and the ones they have deluded into supporting their illegal
> activities ?
>
> They have paid no Federal Taxes for the last six years.
If they don't pay federal taxes then I'm sure that they are not lawfully
obligated to pay. Are you suggesting that they just make up a dollar amount
off the top of their head, and send it in just for the fun of it? Or are you
a simply a little bit jealous?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pascal Haakmat)
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: Sun, 13 May 2001 05:20:10 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > > What OS besides Windows ha an "-integrated-" browser?
>> >
>> > KDE? GNOME?
>> > Not an OS, but same principal.
>>
>> KDE and GNOME are not OSs.
>>
>> Konqueror is indeed a file manager/browser, but it is not "integrated"
>> into the OS. It is just another application.
>
>IE isn't integrated into the OS, it's just another application.
>It *is*, however, integrated into the shell, same as Konqueror.
It doesn't matter -- the integration (at least the technical aspects) isn't
the issue.
What is reprehensible (and perhaps unlawful), in MS's case, is that by
integrating IE into their OS and subsequently threatening to penalize OEM's
who favored a different arrangement, they used their OS monopoly as a big
stick to wield over the distribution channel.
All this talk about the free market and the harmful effects of intervention
and prohibition is all fine and dandy, and it even contributes some
powerful realism to the discussion, up to a point.
But such braggadacio ("the end result is all that counts") rarely, if ever,
acknowledges the fact that a fear of Microsoft is one of the most powerful
inhibiting forces in the software industry today.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 05:23:04 GMT
"mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:4loL6.70699$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't think COM has done all that much for Windows. Do you like it
> when you follow a hyperlink in IE and a Word-like-thing takes form within
> your browser, except it's not all of word, just a component? I hate
> that. I'd rather just keep separate applications separate.
>
> What else does COM give us? Ah, yes, the flexibility to use "any"
> implementation that adheres to the interface, except that there is
> only ever one available, and switching them around under a running
> program is a useless capability.
Actually, its' a quite nice feature that allows a program to access new
additions to an object if they exist without breaking the interface and
rendering applications using the older versions useless. QueryInterface is a
nice touch...
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:25:27 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gNoL6.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> As for 2000 server, we got the timed version with MSDN. Never did install
it
> and don't plan to. No reason to. Not even remotely interested.
Spec used DC, cost millions and doesn't come with MSDN, my mistake, I
thought it was AD.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 05:40:42 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dl5sf$60p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:gNoL6.75$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > As for 2000 server, we got the timed version with MSDN. Never did
install
> it
> > and don't plan to. No reason to. Not even remotely interested.
>
> Spec used DC, cost millions and doesn't come with MSDN, my mistake, I
> thought it was AD.
I take the SpecWeb thing with a grain of salt - Just as I did when MS was on
the losing end of the test. All benchmarks, to me, are suspect and little
more than trivial flame war fodder. The only thing that matters is how the
stuff performs in the "real world". Is it secure? Is it fast? Is it
reliable? Is it cost effective? Are their licensing issues? Will the company
be around five years from now? How will they respond to the eventual
problems that arise? Is the current equipment up to the task of running it?
Are my IT guys too clueless to run it? Those sorts of things are all that
matter, really. The rest of it is just meaningless posturing.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: ASUS releases games cheat drivers
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 05:45:23 GMT
"Tim Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dave Martel forwarded:
> >ASUS, the Taiwanese components maker, has released its much-criticised
> >video card drivers that allow online game players to cheat.
> >
> >The drivers, which allow players to see through walls, were first
> >announced in July last year and were immediately condemned by players
> >and gaming organisations.
>
> That's quite stupid on Asus's part. Suppose a couple major game
> companies respond by making their games check for Asus cards, and refuse
> to run if an Asus card is being used. Asus is gonna feel really stupid
> when people stop buying their cards for gaming, since gaming is the
> major reason the mass market buys new video cards.
Though I'm not an online gamer, I have to agree that from an ethical point
of view, ASUS really put their foot in it. The industry and the users have
every right to be upset about it and I'm surprised that ASUS didn't forsee
such a reaction.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 05:51:12 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>Least Talented Wintroll?
>
> Pete Goodwin. He reminds me of what would happen should the
> PGA invite the professional bowlers out for a golf day.
>
> He just doesn't know how to be a good asshole.
Ah, diddums. Feeling a bit sore are we?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Announcing COLA's first annual Troll Pagent!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 05:55:15 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:khpL6.2107$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> >>Least Talented Wintroll?
> >
> > Pete Goodwin. He reminds me of what would happen should the
> > PGA invite the professional bowlers out for a golf day.
> >
> > He just doesn't know how to be a good asshole.
>
> Ah, diddums. Feeling a bit sore are we?
Wow! I guess you're a real asshole after all, Pete <g>
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux too slow to emulate Microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 05:55:42 GMT
Doug Ransom wrote:
> 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.
ROFTL.
You're kidding right?
COM's means of using a 'binary contract' to allow different programming
languages to communicate is a result of short-sightedness of the part of
Microsoft.
At Digital, we had a common OBJ file format etc. so that all languages
could be used together without noticing any differences. We had one project
that had C, Pascal, Fortran and PL/1 - all generating OBJ files that could
all be linked together.
On Windows we've never had that luxury. Microsoft jealously guarded the
format of their OBJ format, so companies like Borland couldn't steal their
thunder. The result? Multiple different formats - even with languages from
Microsoft.
COM brought all this together, and added a whole slew of other stuff too.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:01:06 GMT
Roy Culley wrote:
> Succeeding? You don't follow at all! Some people, nae most people, are
> forced to use Microsoft SW. This from the man who says he worked on
> routers and yet cannot configure NIC's under Linux. Windows was made
> for you Pete.
Nobody is forcing T Max to use Windows, the "monopoly crapware" as he calls
it. There are perfectly good news readers on Linux - yet he uses Agent
instead. I find that highly hypocritical from someone who maintains his
stance.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 06:02:12 GMT
Roy Culley wrote:
>> Brilliant. Throw something in that makes absolutely no sense and
>> completely ignore what's being said to you.
>
> You are thick aren't you? Most people have no choice but to use Windows.
> Get a clue.
He's using Agent on Linux. He said as much himself. Or did I miss something
here?
--
Pete
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
