Linux-Advocacy Digest #479, Volume #34 Sun, 13 May 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (Bob Hauck)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (Bob
Hauck)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (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, 13 May 2001 13:43:23 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's a good thing as long as it's something that the OS
> should
> > > > > provide.
> > > > > > > > > Today, can you really sell an OS without a browser? Can you
> > > *find*
> > > > > an OS
> > > > > > > > > that doesn't come with a browser?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Tell Micro$oft it isnt integrated into the OS. They say if you remove
> it
> > > > Windows becomes unuseable. They even presented an unuseable version to
> > > > Judge Jackson to prove it.
> > > >
> > > > Now, what "shell" is Konquer integrated into? It seems to be just
> > > > another app to me. I can install it, uninstall it, use it in a KDE
> > > > session, sue it without a KDE session. How is it not another app?
> > > >
> > > > > > What browser is "integrated" into GNOME?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nautilous, by RIP Eazel.
> > > >
> > > > Is nautilus actually being shipped in GNOME yet? And how "integrated"
> is
> > > > it? Can you remove it and still have filemanange capabilities? Will
> the
> > > > OS work?
> > >
> > > It doesn't matter if you CAN remove it, or CAN'T remove it. It's a
> useless
> > > argument - Microsoft can bundle a ham sandwich with windows if they so
> > > choose.
> >
> > Thats not what the consent decree says.
>
> SORRY, the consent decree does state that they may integrate anything they
> like into Windows.
>
> (E) Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in
> which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly
> conditioned upon:
>
> (1) the licensing of any other Covered Product, Operating
> System Software product or other product (provided, however, that this
> provision in and of itself shall not be construed to prohibit
> Microsoft from developing integrated products);
>
Provide the REST of the citation.
> AND here's what the appeals court has to say about Jacksons twisted view of
> that section of the consent decree.
>
> "We find that the District Court erred procedurally in entering a
> preliminary injunction without notice to Microsoft and substantively in its
> implicit construction of the consent decree on which the preliminary
> injunction rested," the court said.
> The ruling sided with Microsoft on several grounds, including that Jackson
> failed to give Microsoft adequate notice that such an injunction was under
> consideration. It also ruled that the jurist misread a key provision of the
> 1995 consent decree which lies at the heart of the government's case.
>
> "The preliminary injunction was issued without adequate notice and on an
> erroneous reading of section IV (E)(i) of the consent decree," the opinion
> states.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:43:51 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 20:10:58 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 14:37:28
> >On Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> To wit, an algorithm is a recursive computational procedure with a
> >> finite number of steps. Translation tables need not apply;
> >
> >You can implement a translation table as a series of if-else tests,
> >thus turning it into a "computational procedure". Does that make a
> >translation table into an algorithm?
>
> No, quite specifically. If-else tests are conditional processing, not
> algorithms. An algorithm is a purely mathematical construct. Two plus
> two doesn't equal seven IF...
Many mathematical functions are non-continuous. They are defined as
one thing over one interval, and something else over another. The unit
step is one example that comes to mind. Sounds like an if-else test to
me (if time<0 then value=0 else value=1).
> An algorithm in software does not and cannot use translation tables;
> every value must be calculated, not looked up, or it is not algorithmic.
Well, ok. So, if I write a procedure that takes the first N terms of
the infinite series for the sine function and sums them, we can agree
that what we have is an algorithm for computing an approximation of the
sine of an angle, right?
Now, suppose that instead of using the series, I have a lookup table
with a whole bunch of pre-computed values for the sine function. Then,
instead of summing the series, I do a couple of table lookups and an
interpolation to get my answer. Is this now merely a "computational
procedure" rather than an algorithm?
And yet, these two methods will produce the same results (to some
specified degree of accuracy). I'm confused Max, help me out here.
> >The Knuth-Morris-Pratt string search uses a lookup table too. In
> >spite of that, Knuth thinks it is an algorithm. Is he wrong?
>
> The 'algorithms' that these things are named for is not the sum total of
> the program, but a particular mathematical processes implemented by the
> program. Knuth isn't wrong; you are mistaken.
I can't parse the first sentence of that paragraph. I got the part
about KMP not being "the sum total of the program", but then I thought
"but it could be a string searching program" and got all confused
again. How am I mistaken, exactly?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:43:53 GMT
On Sun, 13 May 2001 06:44:40 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I recall that same argument from about 15 years ago when someone thought
> they could make a GUI shell that would represent pipelines graphically
> so you could construct them by dragging icons instead of typing names.
> Did anything like this ever really exist?
The closest I have seen is LabView from National Instruments. It is (I
think they still sell it) a "visual programming language". You write
programs by connecting boxes and filling in forms. You end up with a
picture that looks like a data-flow diagram, only it will run. Pictures
can be nested to make "subroutines" and so on.
It actually works reasonably well for the problem domain it is aimed at
(process control and automated test). I recall that it had some OLE
capability, but it certainly was not aimed at being a general desktop
scripting tool.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:43:55 GMT
On Sun, 13 May 2001 00:38:26 GMT, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it's anywhere near as bloated and over-engineered as ADA was/is, then it
> deserves its' oblivion! Sad how suit types and academics can take good ideas
> and screw them up so much.
I'm fairly sure that C++ has surpassed Ada's bloat factor by a couple
of factors at least. As for being over-engineered, I'd prefer that to
being under-engineered. YMMV.
I say this as someone who was very anti-Ada and pro-C++ back in the
late 80's to mid 90's.
The biggest problem Ada had wasn't the language, which is actually not
bad if you like Pascal-like languages, so much as the arrogance of DoD,
who vastly oversold it. Ada was going to cure all that ailed software
development. Of course, most of the things that are wrong with
software development are beyond the capability of a mere programming
language to fix.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:46:52 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > > "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [on the high probability that MS will skate...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>that will make them about as innocent as O.J. Simpson.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Keep practicing statements like this. Your going to need them in
> a
> > > few
> > > > > short
> > > > > > > days (or weeks) Judgement day is drawing near for Sleepy
> Jackson.
> > > The
> > > > > big
> > > > > > > slap down is fully cocked and set with a hair trigger. He's
> looking
> > > up
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > his tail between his legs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sleepy is about to feel a boot in his ass from a full panel of
> his
> > > > > > > superiors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And Max is going to be doing some major spin control when his
> life's
> > > > > work on
> > > > > > > usenet turns to vapor in a fleeting instant, one day soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the US judicial system fails then the EU are just waiting to
> bring
> > > > > > Microsoft to justice. Microsoft don't have any political clout in
> the
> > > > > > EU and the penalties will hurt where they hurt most - up to 10% of
> > > > > > gross world wide sales.
> > > > >
> > > > > The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the "fix"
> phase.
> > > And
> > > > > who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux.
> > > >
> > > > You are right about one thing. The US judicial system failed.
> microsoft
> > > > should have been broken up the first time, instead of being allowed to
> > > > skate with a worthless consent decree.
> > >
> > > That would have been on par with the government trampling of the day.
> > > Especially since the DOJ testified that they could find no prosecutable
> > > offenses the first time around. The second time around Microsofts
> > > competitors complained that MS was breaking the consent decree. The
> appeals
> > > court then ruled that they haven't broken the consent decree. But then I
> > > guess anything is possible from an Attorney General who will happily
> order
> > > the gassing of children to near death then burn them alive while they
> lie
> > > curled up and gasping for air.
> > >
> >
> > What? Are you mad?
>
> By proclaiming the truth? How is that "mad". Oh, I see it goes with the
> anti-MS reasoning that truth is like holy water to a vampire. Anyone with
> the gall to print something truthfull must be mad. You mean you've
> forgotten about the twenty or so children Janet Reno tortured then murdered?
... and just where and when did this torture an murder take place? Where
was Janet Reno? Have you sought therapy?
> >
> > > > As for Linux - at them moent, Microsoft is scared to death of Linux,
> the
> > > > Open Source movement in general and the GPL in particular.
> > >
> > > Microsoft isn't afraid of anyone or anything. Let alone "scared to
> death" of
> > > Linux. Microsoft welcomes linux to market. The more the merrier.
> >
> > Yeah, thats why micro$oft has been publishing stories saying Open
> > Software and the GPL will kill the marketplace.
>
> By that logic I suppose any pro Linux zealout which prints information about
> MS is "scared to death" of Microsoft.
No. micro$oft is not merely "printing information". M$ is lying its ass
off again. They are saying open Software in general and the GPL in
particular will ennd intellectual rights. They are lying. You' see that
if you werent an m$ sock puppet.
--
Rick
------------------------------
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, 13 May 2001 17:45:20 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > To do it with a driver, you have to
> > > > reimplement the whole driver. Windows
> > > > printer drivers do not 'stack'.
> > >
> > > So, how is this a limitation for Linux and a strength for Windows?
> >
> > You have a remarkably one-track mind, there, Rick.
> >
> > Review the thead. I'm not saying what you think
> > I'm saying.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> Dont snip, and you wont lose context.
If I don't snip we'll all drown in effluvium
of this thread.
If you can't remember what we were talking
about, there is always Google.
> Now answer the baove question.
The question is, of course, irrelevant.
However, just to make you happen, I'll
answer it anyway.
The way the unix printing model lets you
stack up filters is not a limitation (compared
to Windows); the limitations of the Unix printing
model are *other* things, not directly related to
stacking up filters.
------------------------------
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, 13 May 2001 13:47:59 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > JS PL wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > > > All Microsoft have going for them is their desktop monopoly. This
> will
> > > > > > either be rectified by the US judicial system (and charges of
> perjury
> > > > > > brought against several Microsoft employees if the judicial system
> > > > > > wants to keep any sort of credence) or the EU will punish them
> where
> > > > > > it really hurts (up to 10% of gross annual revenue).
> > > > >
> > > > > Your scope of the law is rather limited isn't it? By that logic, all
> > > persons
> > > > > who plead innocent but are later found guilty should also have
> "perjury"
> > > > > tacked on to the sentence because they said they were innocent.
> > > >
> > > > I see you dont know the difference between a defendant pleading
> innocent
> > > > and a witness lying under oath.
> > > >
> > > > Oh and
> > > > > Europe isn't going to do a damn thing, so don't get your hopes
> up...just
> > > to
> > > > > have them all crash again.
> > > >
> > > > And just what do you know about European anti-trust law?
> > >
> > > I know that they have no authority to break up Microsoft. They may have
> the
> > > authority to impose a fine. Any such fine would respectively raise the
> price
> > > of Microsoft software sold in Europe by an amount equaling the fine. I'm
> not
> > > sure Europe desires to fine themselves. At any rate, EU is basicly
> powerless
> > > over Microsoft.
> >
> > They could probably fine M$ and not allow a price increase. Or possibly
> > (but not very probably) ban Micro$ft from Europe.
>
> Those remedies are not available. Ban and not allow a price
> increase....pfft.
> You can come out of fantasy land now. The EU won't be doing a damn thing,
> it's all media hype.
You might want to do some research and see mhow much m$ has changed
their ISP licensing since the EU has been investigating them.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
