Linux-Advocacy Digest #610, Volume #34 Fri, 18 May 01 21:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!! ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (Dave Martel)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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, 19 May 2001 00:52:23 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Jackson stated clearly what the application barrier is; we have no need
> to guess what he "seems to think" unless you'd rather make shit up than
> pay attention to facts. Jackson documented the fact that the
> application barrier is fiscal; whether compatibility or some other
> technical explanation is available is irrelevant.
I'd like to make up some shit. That is, to state what I think
the application barrier is.
First, the AB is indeed fiscal. There's an AB in starting a car
manufacturer because the tools needed are expensive. There is generally
not a fiscal AB for software because the tools to write code are
fairly inexpensive. There is a bit more of an AB for distribution,
at least to those customers who don't have a broadband internet
connection.
Second, the AB can be technical. It may take a LOT of experience
or education to write the software.
Third, the AB can be a matter of scale. Writing a whole operating
system of the capabilities of a Windows or a Linux is very difficult.
Any technical or fiscal ABs are magnified.
I'd like to add another form of technical AB... that is, it may
take a lot of experience to /use/ the software. Learning to use
an OS and the apps supported by it takes a lot of time, for any
OS, /including/ and /especially/ the multifarous forms of Windows.
Relatively few people can climb this barrier. Even fewer have the
tenacity to climb it a second time. Since Linux differs enough
from Windows in its particulars, if not in its function, and since
Linux came along second, it presents an AB that is not of its
own making. Someone who learned Linux (or UNIX) first would have
a tough time with Windows. (I've actually seen this difficulty with
engineer/programmers who try to port code over to Windows).
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Sucks!!!!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 17:57:24 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Michael Vester"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> wendy wrote:
[a buncha crap]
>> wendy
>
> A new handle for our cute and loveable Flatfish?
>
>
Spot on, mate. Could be no other. The limited vocabulary and consistent
grammatical cockups makes it pretty easy to pick the poser out from the
rest of the noise. Expect the vehement denial shortly, same format as all
the other vehement denials for the last thirty-five aliases.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 19 May 2001 01:00:02 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > They damn well DID see WordPerfect and Lotus as a threat, or they
wouold
> > > have been busy with all those bundling licenses the DOJ busted them
for
> > > the first time.
> >
> > They don't seem to have seen them as much of a threat.
>
> Now. Duh.
No, I mean back in 93 or so.
[snip]
> > > As long as micro$oft has a desktop monopoly, window$ cannot fail.
> >
> > If I understand what you mean, you are saying that
> > as long as Windows does not file, Windows won't
> > fail.
>
> m$ has basically always had a desktop monopoly, but window$ has not
> always been around.
"Basically always"?
Surely even you wouldn't date it further
back than 1981, right?
I mean, you don't think that all those
copies of Microsoft BASIC before then
amounted to control of the desktop,
do you?
> > I'm tyrying to tell you *why* it's so firmly
> > entrenched.
>
> windows$ is so firmly entrenched because m$ stole the marketplace, which
> you refuse to acceppt.
You don't seem able to understand that there's
a further question: how did Microsoft "steal" the
market?
It's not black magic; Bill Gates did not have to
shoot lightning out of his fingers.
He won over the developers.
[snip]
> > > If developers could figure out a way to develop an OS that was
> > > "compatible" with window$, thy would. That is what's scaring m$.
> >
> > Oh, come now. That'll a sure-fire losing strategy, as
> > IBM discovered with OS/2 2.0.
>
> Duh. BUT... m$ went after Netscape becasue m$ viewed as an alternate
> platform. Same with JAVA.
In the case of Netscape there were almost certainly
wrong; in the process of chasing that will-o-wisp
they seem to have missed the real niche that
Java had been aquiring. For a while, anyway.
> > Being "Windows, only not from Microsoft" just
> > means you are perpetually behind MS, since they
> > are hardly going to give you a stationary
> > target.
>
> Gee. No kidding? So, no you unsderstand one of the reasons competitor
> scream about m$ unfair market practices.
MS improving its products is hardly
unfair. As long as you insist on just
cloning Windows, you can't possibly
expect to outpace it, no matter how
quickly or slowly MS advances.
[snip- same as below]
> They have NEVER won on basic competition.
>
> > How about Visual Basic? What is the dirty trick
> > with that one?
>
> OS leveraging.
How so?
Visual Basic was never bundled, was it?
It does not need any special access to
OS features, does it?
It's not integrated with anything, is it?
[snip]
> > > The FTC made m$ give up on this one.
> >
> > Yes. They couldn't beat them so they
> > tried to buy them; MS is like that.
>
> SO, now you agree that m$ doesnt compete on software merit?
No. I agree, however, that sometimes they compete
and *lose*. MS did have a competing product to
Intuit's Quicken; Microsoft Money.
[snip]
> > AOL is kicking MSN's butt. Sure, it may be
> > dirty pool to have played on Microsoft's
> > fears to do so. But it worked.
>
> AOL played on --micro$oft's fears-- ????? Are you a total freaking
> loony? NA, BTW, I was talking about browser selection.
Fears that Netscape would mutating into
a competing platform that would make Windows
obsolete.
[snip]
> > You didn't say anything about "core" in your
> > original question. I would say that SQL
> > Server is closer to their core business than,
> > say, Office is.
>
> You would be wrong.
NEvertheless, it's irrelevant. SQL Server
is another example of how Microsoft
sometimes fights.. and loses.
At least, so far.
[snip]
> > > And it will stay difficult as
> > > long as GPL SQL stuff is out there.
> >
> > No way. There are no GPL SQL databases
> > that don't suck and suck hard. Not to put
> > too fine a point on it.
>
> Really? I dont think so.
Consider that PostgresSQL is not GPL.
It appears to the best of the free lot, but it's
still not up to Microsoft's standards. Or
Oracles.
MySQL does not do transactions. I don't
think I need to say any more than this one.
GNU SQL is not ready for prime time,
from what little I can find on the web.
If you have another GPL (or otherwise
free) SQL implementation you'd like me
to look at, I will.
But don't get your hopes up. Good
SQL Servers are very elaborate and
featureful, and they do not grow on
trees.
[snip]
> > > You are using Lotus as an example as a company that survived
competition
> > > with m$? Are you crazy?
> >
> > Lotus didn't; but IBM has, and you can't tell
> > me MS played gentle with IBM. And Notes
> > continues to be entrenched.
>
> IBM is an 800 lb gorilla in several markets, and m$ still pushes it
> around in the desktop OS market.
Sure. IBM doesn't seem to have understood that
OSes are development tools; they tried to sell
OS/2 direct to users as a "better Windows",
which was never going to work.
A pity. OS/2 was the best competitor
Windows had.
But MS can't seem to push IBM around
in the groupware arena; IBM has Notes.
[snip]
> > > Apple is not competition for m$.
> >
> > Sure it is, in *several* markets.
>
> Name one.
Streaming video is the one I was thinking
of. Quicktime versus Windows Media,
on both Mac and Windows platforms.
But Filemaker is a wholy owned
subsidiary of Apple, isn't it? Filemarker
Pro competes with Access.
And of course they do compete in the
desktop OS market. If MacOS X pans
out, they may even compete a bit more
credibly.
[snip]
> > Windows Media has *always* been integrated;
> > it is an OS component. Quicktime likewise on
> > the Mac. Both have been around for awhile.
>
> Integrated as in you cant remove it from the OS. You can remove
> Quicktime. IIRC, you can still remove windows media, or at least media
> player, but soon not.
Integrated does not mean "you can't remove it from
the OS"
You know the Windows user interface, with
the buttons and the gradient title bars. You can
remove it. Delete USER32.DLL and USER.DLL.
Indeed, most APIs are isolated in this or that
.DLL, and can be removed if you are crazy
enough.
Can't expect an app that uses those thing to
work if you do. But then, that's true of
both QuickTime and Windows Media, too.
> > This is why Quicktime works rather less well
> > on Windows, and Windows Media Player
> > works rather less well on the Mac. You can't
> > really do these thigns properly inside an
> > application like that.
>
> Yes, you can. Witness mpeg players.
Well, perhaps I should say "as well" instead
of "properly". It *can* be done, vide Real Networks,
but there seems to be a big advantage in building
it into the OS itself.
[snip]
> > > And Digital DOES stand as an example of what happens when you compete
> > > agains m$. They had a viable OS alternative to m$'s. m$ killed it
> > > through immoral, unethical, illegal means.
> >
> > Through a better product, Windows.
>
> Listen. DR-DOS did NOT, hear me..... NOT compete against window$. It
> competed against m$-DO$. And micro$oft sabotaged it.
Sure it did. Just as MS-DOS did. Both were platforms
for desktop applications.
They just weren't very *good* ones. And they lost big.
But competing and losing is still competing.
> > DR-DOS was horrible compared to what we have now,
> > thanks to Microsoft. Being *slightly* better than MS-DOS
> > is simply no complement at all.
>
> You continually compare whaty we have now to what we had then. Get in
> the right freaking timeframe in a conversation. DR-DOS competed against
> m$-DO$. Get it? m$-DO$. Being *slightly* better than MS-DOS WAS a
> complement then. People were buying DR-DOS. Thats why m$ sabotaged it.
No. Even before Windows 3, there was the Macintosh to compare
against. And the Amiga. And Unix.
It was *well known* that MS-DOS was weak at nearly everything,
and that progress had left it behind.
MS-DOS was a clone of an 8-bit operating system
running on a 16-bit computer. This was not very
sensible, and it did not take other computer vendors
very long to start proving it.
[snip]
> > I suspect this isn't true. For one thing it would be very
> > silly indeed; PenWindows big selling point was that it
> > would use the same API as Windows did, so it would
> > be easy to port apps or find programmers.
>
> Get the book Barbarians Led by Bill Gates. It is written by Marlin
> Eller. You know... the guy that wrote the first pen window$ demo and
> then headed up the pen window$ team. Read about it. It his own words.
Well, it's *possible* he was dumb enough to do what
you suggest, but I suspect you simply read what he wrote
in a creative fashion.
> > Making it appear to be a clone of Go would have
> > been very foolish.
>
> I didnt say it looked like a clone of GO. YOU assumed that. I said the
> demo merely reproduced GO's demos actions plus a few others.
You sure made it sound like you meant a clone of GO.
What you are saying now makes it sound like a development
prototype, and that's something else entirely. I don't
see why you'd be upset about *that*; you expected
PenWindows to spring from Microsoft's mind
fully formed?
Heck, we should consider ourselves lucky they
didn't *release* that prototype! :D
[snip]
> > Oh, I know it sucked. I read the reviews. All the others
> > sucked too, Go included, and in pretty much the same way:
> > the handwriting recognition technology was just not
> > good enough.
>
> Except that the reviews for GO were great.
Not really. They all ooed and aahed about how
great this new pen coputing thing might be... when
the handwriting recognition was up to snuff.
> And m$ froze the market to
> kill GO. It's interesting how you ignore the fact that m$ froze the
> market and try to throw some lame excuse to absolve m$'s behavior. You
> do this all the time.
What MS did was producing a competing product.
This stuff about "freezing" the market is
a red herring.
[snip]
> > Painting Stac as one of MS's helpless victims is
> > very silly. They won.
>
> ... and where are they now?
Others have mentioned this. They are still
around.
> They are certainly not inthe position they
> were in when they produced Stacker. They won. Which showed m$ could be
> shown, in court, to be the thieves they are and they still dont get the
> axe.
You were expecting them to execute Bill Gates maybe?
> > They were plenty nimble enough.
>
> I wish you brain was.
That's "your" brain. Nyah nyah. :D
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft BACKDOORS AGAIN! MORE CHEATERY!!!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:02:25 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > If it's old news then Charlies right... you've been spreading
FUD
> > for
> > > > > > > quite a while now.
> > > > > > > But charlie has already provided you Trolls the correctly
dated
> > > > articles
> > > > > > > ... and you still can't read.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, apparently Yahoo fucked up an reposted an old article as
new.
> > If
> > > > you
> > > > > > notice, the article does not appear on the front page.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This *IS* the > 1 year old vulnerability, and it wasn't a
backdoor,
> > > > despite
> > > > > > MS originally thinking it was. They later retracted it saying
that
> > the
> > > > > > message was not a password at all, but simply embedded into the
code
> > > > while a
> > > > > > buffer overrun vulnerability did in fact exist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo is the *ONLY* news service that has this story, and guess
> > what?
> > > > It's
> > > > > > disappeared. It no longer is on the link. You'd think someone,
> > even
> > > > the
> > > > > > register would have picked this up. But they didn't. In fact,
the
> > > > register
> > > > > > posted a story about how Yahoo fucked up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18975.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Then ya better tell that to Sun Microsystems then. They say its a
new
> > > > > one!
> > > >
> > > > They do? I can't find the link. Please provide it.
> > > >
> > > > This is not the double decode bug that was recently discovered.
> > > >
> > > > Further, how much evidence does it take? Now you won't even believe
the
> > > > register, the place so many of you Linux advocates love to use as
your
> > > > source of information.
> > >
> > > I've read all of the previous links you have provided. It looks to me
> > > nothing more the MS spin doctoring.
> >
> > So now "The Register" is a MS puppet publication? What a riot.
>
> Only what MS told any publication or editor... pure spin doctoring.
> Doesn't take a genius to spot it either.
> It's MS that is spinning its tales.
Ok, so now The Register isn't smart enough to spot FUD? Any way you spin
it, you're nailing your favorite publication and will never be able to use
it as a reliable source to back up your claims again.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:54:29 -0600
On Fri, 18 May 2001 21:53:30 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> It would appear that you've never sat down next to an auto mechanic or
>> a grey-haired granny while they tried to install Windows themselves
>> (why do you think MS wants it to come pre-installed?) or tried to
>> teach them how to chase down registry corruption after one too many
>> application installations.
>
>I've watched my brother struggle with Windows and my father. I dread to
>think just how much _more_ they would struggle if it was Linux. I can
>just hear my brother say "What's this password cr*p?".
If they can't even handle passwords, I wonder how they are at fixing
the Windows registry when some application trashes it?
>
>> I also disagree with the rest of the user-bashing parts of this
>> thread. If Joe Sixpack buys a computer to surf the web or manage his
>> home-business, then he wants to spend his time surfing the web and
>> managing his records - not wading through a stack of computer manuals.
>
>Precisely what I've heard others say about Linux. They want to use the
>machine, not get bogged down in working out how to configure it.
Whether or not you want to admit it, I've no doubt you've also heard
people say the same thing about Windows.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 20:07:53 -0500
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > In article <9dtp1l$eeb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>> >
> > > > > >>> > What part of "Importing is not Embedding" don't you
undersrtand?
> > > > > >> Embedding
> > > > > >>> > is Embedding the entire original document *IN IT'S ORIGINAL
> > FORM*
> > > > > >>> > within another document, then maintaining that that embedded
> > > > document
> > > > > >>> > *WITH
> > > > > >> IT'S
> > > > > >>> > ORIGINAL PROGRAM* without exporting it first.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Commonly called, "insert"
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Your just pretending not to understand. If you really don't
> > understand
> > > > > >> the power of COM, please get a clue.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Linux *CAN NOT* "embed" documents... this is TOTALLY different
than
> > > > > >> importing data or whatever you call it.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> You look silly trying to imply Linux can do this when it can
NOT
> > and
> > > > > >> Windows CAN. Now what part of this don't you understand ?
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> -Todd
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Matthew Gardiner
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Yep,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Did it yesterday with StarOffice 5.2. Created a spreadsheet,
saved
> > it,
> > > > > > *embedded* it in a text document, double-click, and *voila*
StarCalc
> > > > lets
> > > > > > me edit the spreadsheet in place.
> > > > > > Bonobo adds the same technology to the Gnome desktop, there are
> > > > > > unfortunately not a lot of programs that use it yet. And to make
you
> > MS
> > > > > > advocates happy, Bonobo is inspired by COM, so evidently
Microsoft
> > *can*
> > > > > > come up with good ideas.
> > > > >
> > > > > Applixware also does this. I have an embedded spreadsheet in a
> > graphics
> > > > > document. Any changes I make to the screadsheet are reflected in
the
> > > > > grahpics document.
> > > >
> > > > That's not embedding. That's linking.
> > >
> > > How would you know? You don't even have a running Linux system with
> > > StarOffice 5.2.
> >
> > I do have a running Linux system, Mandrake 7.2, but you're right,
> > star-office is not installed, neither is X, so it's beside the point.
>
> What type of system do you have? With X and star-office installed you
> would see what others have been saying. Try it.
It's quite difficult to get Mandrake to install exactly what you want when
you have only limited disk space. It's a P100 with 72 MB of memory and an
old S3 Trio/64+ chipset. X just doesn't seem to like it, and the OS crashes
when I try to use it. Oddly, it ran windows just fine, but i'm not blaming
Linux, it's a flaky video chipset. (Onboard Dell thingamojob).
In any event, I'm using it for a firewall mostly.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
