Linux-Advocacy Digest #647, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Security in Open Source Software ("Les Mikesell")
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, 20 May 2001 12:08:16 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Why do people get window$, dolt? Becasue everybody else uses it.
> > >
> > > No, because it will run their apps.
> >
> > ... which everyone else uses.
>
> Some of them, yes.
>
Most of them.
> [snip]
> > > > Tehy did run TRS-DOS, AND CP/M
> > >
> > > <shrug>So did Apple IIs, with the appropriate
> > > upgrade.
> >
> > The TRS 80s didnt need an upgrade. They ran CP/M out of the box.
>
> Hmmm? No, I don't think CP/M was included. Perhaps
> you mean it was cheaper on the TRS-80 than,
> the Apple II?
>
I dont care what you -think-. Try doing some research. TRS 80's didnt
need an upgrade. They could run CP/M out of the box. Apple IIs couldnt.
And dont tell me what I mean.
> [snip]
> > > Yes. TRS-80s had the usuasl limitations for
> > > 8-bit computers, but unusually poor graphics
> > > support- really pretty much nonexistant actually.
> > >
> > > This put a big kink in game support for the
> > > computer, and games were really big on PCs
> > > back then. Even moreso than now.
> >
> > Games !?!?!? Graphic laden games at eh time of the Model I, II, II??
> > AHahhahahahahah...
> > name some.
>
> Go to:
>
> http://www.classicgaming.com/vault/appleiiroms-AM.shtml
>
> This is an archive of Apple II games. You can get
> Choplifter and Montezuma's revenge. Poke around and
> you'll find the necessary emulators to run them.
>
> Lots more games too. Enjoy.
>
> By the way, the Apple II wasn't actually
> the most graphically rich platform of the
> time, either. You might try the Commodore
> 64 stuff on the site too.
>
> [snip]
> > > I tried those search items just now. Didn't see
> > > any review. Lots of nostalgia pages though.
> > >
> > > Am I supposed to search each?
> >
> > Do your own research.
>
> I guess that means you don't have a clue
> where to find this review of yours. Or
> you just made it all up.
>
You guess wrong. You go do some research, unless you are afraid to
uncover facts that challenge your notions.
> [snip- complaint removing snip]
> > > > Not awlful close. MS-DOS had CP/M code in it. Code written, if not by
> > > > Killdal himself, at least by Digital Research.
> > >
> > > Where'd they get it from, then?
> >
> > Where did who get what?
>
> How did Seatle Computer allegedly
> get source code for Digitial Research's
> CP/M?
>
I dont know. Ask IBM. They are the ones that made the payment.
More context removing snips.
> [snip]
> > > > > The reason early Macs had so much less
> > > > > memory was that it was expensive back
> > > > > then.
> > > >
> > > > Define early Macs.
> > >
> > > The first Macintoshes were
> > > the original 128k Macintosh,
> > > and then a later 512k Macintosh.
> >
> > The 128K macs had upgrade kits available before the fat macs came out.
>
> To >1 Meg of memory?
>
> > > *Then* you get the Macintosh Plus,
> > > which supports up to 4 megs if you
> > > can afford it.
> >
> > Many pep[le were putting in the 4 megs as soon as they got their
> > Plusses.
>
> Oh, I rather think it was a minority. Remember, back
> then Macintosh apps did not require so much
> memory. Just 1 meg was a lot.
>
Oh, you rather think? Not good enough. Did you own one? Did you hanag
with people that did? No? I thinught not.
> [snip]
> > > Well, it was very different from the stuff
> > > that you could get for timesharing systems.
> >
> > Get this through your thick passive-agressive head - we are discussing
> > microcomputers.
>
> You seem determined to reduce the scope of
> the discussion, but I don't see how excluding
> better computers than PCs helps you.
>
We are discussing microcomputers. Minis and mainframes are another
thing. You cant compare the 3, especially in the timeframes under
discussion. You merely use them to move goalposts or to try to confuse
the conversation.
> [snip]
> > > I can find some references, but no details. You know
> > > a good website on this?
> >
> > I dont need no steenking website. I have the manual. Find your own web
> > site, or go to an Apple II group and try not to look to ignorant.
>
> I guess you don't know much about
> it either, then.
>
You guess wrong. AGAIN. I have the app. I have the manual. I have data
files. You dont have jack. Including any knowledge whatsoever about
Appleworks.
> [snip]
> > > Hmmm?
> >
> > It was the best selling software for years.
> >
> > > It may have been the best selling Apple II
> > > software, but that didn't amount to all
> > > that much for long.
> >
> > No. Not the best selling for Apple IIs. The best selling software.
>
> This I do not believe for a second.
>
Too bad. Its true.
> [snip]
More context removing snips.
> > > It's limitations are not dependant on its
> > > timeframe. The biggest one for an integrated
> > > package is the problematic graphics support.
> >
> > Sheesh. It was the most advance piece of software of its time, yet you
> > continue to compare it to later stuff. What the hell is wrong with you?
>
> "The most advanced piece of software of its time"?
>
> I'm trying to show you how the computer industry
> advanced, and how the PC was part of it.
>
It seems to me you are comparing todays micros withtt he micros of the
time and calling the old machines shit becasue of what we can do today.
I have worked with each generation of micro. I can see how they have
progressed.
> The Apple IIs time was the late 70's. It
> was in many ways eclipsed before the PC
> even came out by other 8 bit machines.
>
NO. It wasnt.
> [snip]
> > > > Well then EVERY "personal computer" was a joke, even your precious
> > > > little IBM PC.
> > >
> > > Well, I dunno about that. The IBM PC was no 360, but at
> > > least you could put a compiler on the fool thing.
> >
> > Anything you could do with a PC 5150 you could do with an Apple II.
>
> You really believe that?
>
> What's the Apple II equivalent of dBase?
>
When did dBase for the PC come out and did it run on a stock 5150
(hopefully Ive got the model number right)?
> [snip]
> > > The inadequacies of early 8-bit PCs do not go
> > > away just because you don't want to compare them
> > > with better computers.
> >
> > THe comparisons are with the computers of the -same- timeframe.
>
> The PDP-11 and System/360 were both old hat
> by 1980. If you insist I can go find out what
> models DEC and IBM were selling then.
>
Stop comparing minis and mainframes with micros. They are in no way
comparable.
> [snp]
> > > Yes. But the introduciton of the 16-bit
> > > Apple IIgs was too late to prevent what
> > > was by then the inevitable.
> >
> > What was that?
>
> The collapse of the Apple II line. By the
> time the IIgs came out, Apple had already
> committed to the Macintosh, and
> wasn't about to let the Apple II steal the
> limelight back.
>
Well, at least you get something half-way right.
> In some ways that's almost too bad.
> The Macintosh remained too expensive
> to be competitive for years, because Apple
> insisted on using technology that was
> ahead of its time.
>
> The Apple IIgs was able to deliver a fair
> part of what the Mac did much cheaper,
> and was Apple II compatible to boot.
>
> But to really succeed it would have had to be
> avaiable earlier, I think.
>
You... think?
> [snip]
> > > I, on the other hand, do give a rats ass about
> > > developers, and I think you *should*, since
> > > they are crucial to understand how the
> > > industry has developed.
> > >
> > > Nobody bought an IBM PC to run COMMAND.COM,
> > > but they bought them to run Lotus 1-2-3.
> >
> > And people bought Apple II's first to run Visicalc, then Appleworks.
>
> There were quite a few things in between. :D
>
> But you are quite right. People bouth Apple IIs to run
> particular apps, VisiCalc perhaps the most famous
> amoung them.
>
> Developers, however, didn't write to Apple IIs
> because VisiCalc had been written there; they
> switched to the PC pretty quickly really.
>
The entrance of IBM ptpretty much legitimized the personal computer in
business.
> [snip]
> > > > I had a 1024k desktop. I dont care how it got there. I had it. At the
> > > > time I had it, the PC didnt.
> > >
> > > PC's could have that much memory, or more, by 1987.
> >
> > Apple IIs had it before that and more.
>
> Oh? Do you have a cite for this?
>
> > > Even 8086s could. 80286s could access 24 megs of
> > > memory directly, as is typical for 16-bit CPUs.
> > >
> > > And the 386 was released in '87 wasn't it?
> >
> > Doubtful. I thought you were supposed to be the big bad expert
> > know-it-all person.
>
> That was a rhetorical quesiton. I've got a magazine
> from 1987 here that reviews the 386. It was released in '87.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Then why was it the best sellin pice of software, for years... without
> > > > advertising?
> > >
> > > Apple didn't advertise it? You sure about that?
> >
> > It didnt advertise it until very late in the product cycle. Word of
> > mouth sold it at first.
>
> Apple's crazy, but I doubt they are this crazy;
> I suspect you just didn't see any ads.
>
> [snip]
> > > You could put "database reports" in WP documents?
> > >
> > > I think you are talking about mail-merge and
> > > have dressed it up as "reports".
> >
> > I tell you what. Get the damned manual and then tell me what you think
> > since it is painfully obvious you have never used the program.
>
> I have used it. That's why I find your recollections
> so hard to swallow.
>
> [snip]
> > > > The Mac did not have software that worked together like Appleworks. No
> > > > computer did. Prove ptherwise. Give an example.
> > >
> > > Certainly they did not. Only an 8-bit computer
> > > would benefit from *that*.
> >
> > If only an 8 bit computer would benefit from an inegrated program, why
> > did micro$oft develop and -continue- to market micro$oft work$?
>
> They wanted an entry in the integrated desktop software
> market. Works frankly was always a lousy one though.
>
In your very biased opinion. It worked very well for me.
> > > The 16 bit computer could *multitask*,
> > > and that gave you everything AppleWorks
> > > did and much more.
> >
> > Multitasking, in and of itself does not integrate apps, or allow them to
> > share information. there also has to be a way for the dtat to be shared.
> > Your credibility continues to erode.
>
> Yes; that was a the next step. That was what products
> like ClarisWorks did; they provided integration, not just
> easy switching between different types of documents.
>
Clarisworks didnt do much Appleworks didnt do, except Clarisworks worked
in a GUI.
> > BTW, it was many years before Word and Excel could share information any
> > where near as well as you could with micro$oft work$.
>
> Oh? I have used Works but a little, so I'm not too
> confident in my knowledge of it, but my impression
> was that Works had very little integration actually. One
> of the reasons it was such a dog.
>
Your impression, as usual, is wrong. It had a great deal of integration.
Thats why it was caleed an "integrated" app.
> [snip]
more context removing snips.
> > > > So WHAT???? Thats all many people need.
> > >
> > > So, you can do much more on better
> > > platforms.
> >
> > Not... at.. that.. time... on ... microcomputers. GET IT?
>
> You could do it on IBM PCs.
>
This part cant really continue to be discusse, becasue you continue to
remove the preceding conversation.
> [snip- complaint removing snip]
> > > > YOU doubt. YOU??? I thought you knew it all. It could do mail merges.
> It
> > > > wa an integrated program, dolt.
> > >
> > > It wasn't all that integrated, really.
> >
> > Prove it. Prove to me it was integrated... as I sit here with my
> > Appleworks manual, and the disks, and an Apple IIgs in the living room.
> > prove to me you one bit of correct information on Apple IIs in general
> > and Appleworks specifically.
>
> Ah. An Apple IIgs. No wonder you have an exagerated
> idea of what the Apple IIs that the IBM PC was up
> against could do.
>
I had an Apple IIe BEFORE the GS. I did MORE on the IIe with Appleworks
than I did with the GS. In fact, for along while, I just used the GS as
a souped up IIe. wait.. let me guess, you are now going to make some
disparaging remarks having no basis in reality...
> The IIgs was a rather later development; it was
> a much better computer that the other IIs, and
> comparable to the IBM PC. Better in some
> ways, even- it could access more memory
> directly.
>
I knew it. You are a dolt.
> So, perhaps you are refering to AppleWorks GS?
>
No. I was referring to Appleworks. Maybe you didnt get the reference to
the author, Rupert Lissner? He wrote Appleworks, not Appleworks GS.
> That's a whole 'nother program than the one I was
> thinking of.
>
Duh. Appleworks is the one we were discussing, not Appleworks GS.
> [snip]
> > > > Really? That will be a first for you.
> > >
> > > Yep. :D You so rarely give me enough
> > > information to verify your claims.
> >
> > Look. Its the grinning dolt that is too stupid to do google searches.
>
> Well, I do them, but they don't seem
> to be helping. :(
>
> [snip]
> > > > HAhahahhahahah. The graphics capabilities of the Apple IIs were called
> > > > works of art by engineers of the day.
> > >
> > > They were *cheap*; they were implemented more
> > > cheaply than anyone else. They got to market
> > > first.
> >
> > HAhahahhahahah. The graphics capabilities of the Apple IIs were called
> > works of art by engineers of the day.
>
> Essentially, the IIs had a black and white graphics
> mode that did funny synchronization things. The
> color of a pixel would depend on where it was;
> pixels would alternate green and violet as you
> passed horizontally over the screen.
>
> If you had the 48k upgade, there was something
> else. The pixels were kept in a bitmap but
> the high bit of each byte did not represent
> any pixel. Instead it shifted the position of
> the other pixels in the same byte over by
> half a pixel; green and violet became orange
> and blue.
>
> You could get white by turning on consecutive
> pixels; the collors blended together to make
> white, but there were colored fringes.
>
> this arrangement meant that shifting an image
> over was quite a chore, unless it was by a
> even multiple of 14 pixels. (You couldn't
> move by just 7; that woudl turn all your
> greens violet, and your violets green)
>
> The bitmap layout was interleaved annoyingly;
> row 2 didn't follow row 1 in memory, they were
> arranged in a very much more complex way.
>
> There were even 'gaps' in the video memory;
> bits of video memory that represented no
> row and would not be drawn. You could
> put stuff in there. The Apple IIs were
> so small that that was even profitable.
>
> You needed a mapping table to convert logical
> row numbers to addresses. I remember
> keying in one of those; no fun at all.
>
> > > But by 1981, they were obsolete and feeble
> > > even by the standards of 8-bit computers.
> >
> > No, they werent.
>
> Yes, they were. Commodore 64's even
> had hardware sprites by then!
>
> [snip]
> > > > PCs? Crap.
> > >
> > > In 1981 they were the best thing going.
> >
> > Except for the TRS 80s, the C64s, and of course, the Apple IIs.
>
> C64's were the best game machines (the 1981 vintage
> PCs had terrible graphics).
>
> But other than that the PCs were unbeatable;
> they were the next generation.
>
The PC was unbeatable because it came from IBM
> [snip]
> > > The Amiga had quite impressive multitasking
> > > from day one, and didn't need "integrated"
> > > packages like AppleWorks at all.
> >
> > You continue to mistake multitasking for for integraton. BTW, the PC
> > first had taskswitching, not true multitasking. Look up the difference.
>
> The Amiga had *multitasking*, all the way. The PC was
> saddled with a retread 8-bit OS, which was a great
> disservice to it. All the other 16-bit computers did better
> on that score. Even your IIgs's GS/OS kicked DOS's
> butt.
>
> But they weren't available in 1981; the PC was
> the first 16-bit machine to hit the market, largely
> because they did cut those corners.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Appleworks did it.
> > >
> > > Certainly not. You don't appear to even
> > > understand what you yourself are saying.
> >
> > I came home one night from a party. I had a 64k Apple II. I installed a
> > memory card with 1 meg on it and went from about a 10k desktop to a
> > 700somethingk desktop. You do the math.
>
> You put RAM chips in. That's very nice. But *using*
> that RAM was a big problem. AppleWorks did, but
> most programs didn't.
>
Well, well. First you say Appleworks DIDNT use the RAM, now you say it
does. Well, which do you "believe"?
> > > > > Other apps did use it, but it wasn't common.
> > > >
> > > > OK.. just how uncommon was it?
> > >
> > > Quite uncommon. :D
> >
> > How uncommon grinng idiot dolt?
>
> The cream of the crop did it- AppleWorks
> among them. But many applications
> did not do it, because it wa shard and
> those applications didn't *need* it.
>
> They would have benefitted from using
> the extra memory, but it's a cost-benefit
> analysis thing; if most of your userbase
> hasn't got the extra memory, and its a large
> effort to use it, it doesn't make sense to
> do it.
>
> [snip]
> > > > It was *visibly* slowed.. compared to what? How could you compare?
> What
> > > > action was there in Wizardry?
> > >
> > > Compare to later products on the same hardware;
> > > products written in assembly.
> >
> > Again with the LATER products. What is it with you? So, the Wright
> > brothers' plane was shit becasue a 747 is better?
>
> Yes, the Wright brothers plane *was* shit,
> thank you very much. :D
>
You are an idiot.
> > > > ... and are those "scare" asterisks?
> > >
> > > No, they are emphasis asterisks..
> >
> > Oh, but when I use " they are scare ". I see.
>
> You've never heard of "scare quotes" before
> this conversation? Really?
>
> [snip]
> > > > "... Other similar games came after that were dramatically faster and
> > > > better"
> > > >
> > > > You keep comparing what came AFTER. AFTER. Thats like saying the V1
> was
> > > > shit because the Saturn 4 was so much better. You cant compare the 2.
> > >
> > > Sure I can. And the V1 *was* shit, it was totally ineffective
> > > and a waste of resources. :D
> >
> > it was the best rocket -at the time-.
>
> And it was shit. Really, being the best rocket
> of its time doesn't make it any more effective.
>
> Same with the Apple II. Saying that in 1978
> it was the best thing going is true but doesn't
> make the product any better.
>
> [snip]
Well, then, by your definition, your precious PC's are shit. They cant
do what mainframes can do.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Security in Open Source Software
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 16:06:37 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > >
> > > > An interesting article about security in Open Source projects.
> > > >
http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/websecu/article/0,,12013_621851,00.html
> > >
> > > This is interesting but silly.
> > >
> > > Open source is open -> people think people look at it -> false sense
of
> > > security
> > >
> > > Open source is open -> people exploit code for there own gain ->
> > > exploits
> > >
> > > Open source is open -> people still don't find the bugs
> > >
> > > It just does not stand to any reason to argue that Open source is
> > > anything but MORE secure. It is like encryption algorithms : "my
secret
> > > unbreakable code". It just makes simple sense.
> > >
> > > The only valid point is that just because software is opensource
people
> > > should not *automatically* assume that it is secure. But is this not
> > > just common sense ?
> >
> > More people looking, more bugs found. But the problem is, there is no
> > end to the bugs. More bugs get produced (a natual byproduct of humans
> > programming computers in closed and open source) and not enough
> > eyeballs are looking to solve all the problems before the next release.
> >
> > The net effect is that more vulnerabilities are found in open source
> > and less in closed source.
> >
> > Is this a good thing? Perhaps. But it's just more work for the admins.
> >
> > Is less bugs being found in closed source a bad thing? Perhaps, but
> > in the end, and there is strong evidence to support this, the crackers
> > just end up using the known bugs anyhow, rather than looking for
> > new ones.
> >
> > Keeping your server patched (with any OS) is the best, most safest
> > way to avoid being cracked.
> >
> > With Open Source, this just means more work.
> >
> > I know, the Open Source promise is a strong one, but in the real world,
> > it just doesn't pan out properly.
> >
> > -c
>
> I'm scared. You're getting very close to talking sense. However, you
> miss one vital point. Open source vulnerabilities tend to get patched
> faster. So yes, there is more work for the admins, but I would rather
> the extra work from applying more patches, than what may happen if you
> have a security breach.
That's not the only vital point here. First, IIS holds the record this
year for the most security patches needed according to some of the
tracking sites, so the premise that open source is worse is wrong
to begin with. Second. many open source projects are very stable
with the same program available and evolving over many years.
In these cases the bugs are found and fixed early and you are done
with them. Commercial vendors like to force upgrades by writing
vastly different and somewhat incompatible versions of their
programs every few years. These nearly always introduce a whole
new set of bugs and start the cycle of patches over again with every
release.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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, 20 May 2001 12:10:58 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Just what argument did Max lose?
> > >
> > > He seem to have given up trying to defend
> > > the notion that Windows is inferior for now.
> >
> > It is inferior. What delusional perceptions do you have to think that
> > it is the best?
>
> I had been arguing that Windows is the best development
> platform for making desktop applications of the
> conventional sort, not that it was ever the best
> platform for everything.
>
> I was saying, you see, that Windows was
> near-universal on the desktop because
> developers had flocked too it, and users
> had to follow to use all the apps that were
> being produced.
>
> I wished to show that developers had
> good reason to flock to Windows (for
> desktop apps), and so didn't just do it
> because the users were there.
>
> My argument for it at the time centered around
> printing support. Windows provides
> a device independant printing model that
> lets you redirect screen drawing commands
> to the printer. This makes WYSIWYG much
> easier, and it is a feature shared by the Mac,
> OS/2, and NextStep, but not by other Unixes.
>
> This puts those other Unixes out of the running
> for whole categories of apps.
>
> Now, the Mac has no API that exposes
> the existance of printer fonts. This makes
> for nasty problems if font substitution is
> used, or slow printing if it isn't. The Mac
> also uses a physical-pixel model for screen
> drawing, which is hard to use when printing.
>
> NextStep used display postscript, which meant
> that printing on PostScript printers worked
> wonderfully, but all non-PostScript printers
> were reduced to printing bitmaps- and the latter
> printers are rather more common.
>
> OS/2 had a printing system similar to Windows,
> but it's printer setup user interface was infamous
> for its difficulty for years.
>
> The situation for printing is typical; Windows
> has the best tools for desktop app developers,
> OS/2 comes in second and is pretty close. Most
> others have serious gaps, and generic Unix
> tends to have almost no support for anything
> that desktop apps need.
>
> I can extend this to some other areas with
> specifics, if you want to hear it.
>
> [snip]
You are either totally ignorant of how micro$oft gained its marketshare,
or you are, as Weevil put it, one of Bill Gates' whores.
--
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
******************************
