Linux-Advocacy Digest #816, Volume #34 Sun, 27 May 01 20:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Opera (Terry)
Re: Back up in Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: ease and convenience (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 22:54:55 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9erli9$ofc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It's amazing how close you can come to making Windows into a professional
> system when you download a whole lot of ports of free unix software. But by
> the time you have got Cygwin (for bash, and common unix utilities), tcl/tk,
> perl, python, gcc, php, apache, mysql, ntemacs, X (from Cygwin - not great,
> but getting there), cdrecord, ln (so that you can actually use NTFS hard
> links), etc., why not just go the whole hog and install Linux?
Well, if you're going to use most of that crap, then you might as well.
However, if you like to USE your OS, rather than be used by your OS, you
can get all that software without having to struggle with just the simple
usability of your software.
Most of the stuff you mentioned has better alternatives in Windows
(like cmd.exe instead of bash, IIS instead of apache, ASP instead of PHP,
Windows instead of X, jesus christ, etc) so you wouldn't need to download
most of it.
> Haven't you noticed that the only reason you have anything to reply with in
> these posts is that open source developers have ported unix programs to
> Windows?
Because he only mentioned a very tiny selection of functionality used by
less than one percent of one percent of the computer-using population.
If he listed any of the functionality that the vast majority of users use,
Linux wouldn't show up near the radar.
-c
> Chad Myers wrote in message ...
> >
> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 25 May 2001 12:15:36 -0500, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400, JS \\ PL
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support
> for
> >all
> >> >> >my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and
> >connection
> >> >> >sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I
> even
> >> >> >liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when
> switching
> >users
> >> >> >(unlike Win2K) I was actually contemplating using it much more often
> and
> >> >> >only using Windows for apps I need to use that aren't available on
> Linux.
> >> >> >But....
> >> >> >Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT
> KICKS
> >> >> >MANDRAKE ASS!!
> >> >> >Internet connection stays when switching users! And get this -
> >Applications
> >> >> >even stay open and are there (still open) when returning to that
> user.
> >> >> >That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the browser still
> kicks
> >ass,
> >> >> >and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed
> to
> >the
> >> >> >hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux. Ohh I could go on and
> endlessly
> >> >> >list how much better XP is than Mandrake. Once again the Linux
> community
> >is
> >> >> >playing catch up to the industry leader. Competition at it's finest!
> >> >> >Thank You.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Can I setup Windows XP at home so that I can log into it via ssh and
> have
> >> >> a server running that acts as a proxy web browser, allowing me to
> >> >> browse the web from my machine at work over an encrypted channel and
> >> >> bypassing the filters on my company's firewall? And do all this with
> >> >> out-of-the-box free software?
> >> >
> >> >Nope, but you can download SSH. Not many people use it for this, so
> >> >Linux can be the king of the not-so-used features, I guess.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Really? What free ssh for Windows gives me a sshd that runs on Windows
> >> that handles tunneling and port redirection?
> >
> >OpenSSH + Cygwin, according to OpenSSH.com.
> >
> >> What free http server for Windows can be configured as a web proxy
> server?
> >
> >Apache, I guess. Web proxy sucks, though, so I'm not sure why'd you do
> >that.
> >
> >It's probably just better to Terminal Service in to your Windows box
> >at home, that's what I do.
> >
> >>
> >> >> Can I use Windows XP to redirect it's output over an encrypted network
> >> >> port so that I can run applications on my home machine from my machine
> >> >> at work, complete with GUI features? And do all this with
> out-of-the-box
> >> >> free software?
> >> >
> >> >Yes. Win2K had this too.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with
> >> out-of-the-box free software and then I'll believe you.
> >
> >Well, now you're claiming terms. Win2K Server can do this. There are other
> >free GUI tools like this for Win2K pro, however.
> >
> >WinXP has it in every version.
> >
> >And TS is way better than crappy X over sshd.
> >
> >>
> >> >> Can I use Windows XP as a NAT server and firewall and allow the
> machines
> >> >> on my LAN to all share a single internet connection? And do all this
> with
> >> >> out-of-the-box free software?
> >> >
> >> >Of course. Win2K had this too.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I don't believe you. Please tell me how to do this with Win2K Pro with
> free
> >> out-of-the box free software, and then I'll believe you.
> >
> >Win2K Pro has ICS. Duh. Where have you been?
> >
> >[snip rest is irrelevant, obviously you have no clue]
> >
> >-c
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
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, 27 May 2001 23:22:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001
> >> You confuse "success" with "taking out competitors", that's why!
> >
> >Well, okay, why do competitive strategies never
> >lead to an outcome where the 'opposive' competitors
> >leaves the market, or is destroyed?
>
> Who said they didn't? Are you claiming that there can be no reasonable
> knowledge of the difference between a competitor going out of business
> and a competitor being *put* out of business by a monopolist? That is
> idiotic naivete, at best.
So, you feel that there is a difference between
a) A competitor goes out of business as a
direct result of Microsoft's actions.
and
b) A competitor is put out of business
by Microsoft.
What's the difference?
> Companies go out of business routinely; it is inevitable in a free
> market. Why they go out of business can be adequately explained, in all
> such cases, by examining the efficiencies of the market and determining,
> without second-guessing the desires of the consumers, why the producer
> was unable to produce sufficient products at a low enough cost to stay
> in business.
I think that view simplistic. Especially the part about
how the desires of consumers do not matter.
> When a monopolist acts anti-competitively to directly remove competition
> so that they need not compete, and can maintain prices above competitive
> levels indefinitely, there might be some consternation between this case
> and the former typical market activity.
Okay. But what if they act *competitively* to acheive
these ends? Is that still different?
> Which is why it makes
> prosecution so easy when the monopolist has carefully documented the
> internal decision making involved in monopolizing and restraining trade
> in a purposeful effort to avoid having to compete on the merits.
Oh, I dunno. I think you'll find the
prosecution less easy than you think.
[snip]
> >Maybe so, but I see no evidence that propping
> >up your competitors is considered an act of
> >"competition".
>
> I do; especially in the technology industry, it is all over the fucking
> place. What the hell do you think the Internet is?
A really, really, big internetwork? How does propping
up competitors enter into it?
> Why do you think
> RedHat GPLs some of their developments?
They gotta. The GPL is all nasty and viral; the reason
why they'd even touch the stuff is that they can get
(some) programmers working for free that way.
> Why do you think Sun licenses
> Java to other developers?
Java isn't worth a damn to Sun if
it isn't written for; they are going out
of the way to encourge this; it's
the same way MS gives away
the Win32 docs to all comers, rather
than keeping them secret.
> Obviously it isn't "propping up your competitors"; that was your stupid
> phrase, not mine. But a newer version of the basic idea is called
> 'coopetition'.
That's a buzzword with litle cachet these days,
I think.
> Obviously, it is an easy way to ensure you never fall
> pray to the DoJ on a monopolization charge (though other anti-trust laws
> still require care to avoid infraction),
Nah. MS tried propping up Apple and it didnt'
keep the DoJ off their back. Though I guess
Sun might try it too. But you'd think they'd
learn.
> to make sure that your
> competitors stay in business, with direct actions if necessary. What is
> not so obvious, but no less true, is that it is a dynamite way to make
> profit. Competitors are just free market research firms, from the
> perspective of someone interested in competing, rather than in
> profiteering.
I think this view very, um, unusual. I don't think
many of the participants in the market share it.
[snip]
> >I mean, improving it so any
> >competitors who enter the market
> >get left behind, and can't overtake
> >MS.
>
> How is that, precisely? And what makes you think that MS is somehow
> magically capable of knowing what is best, but the competitors are
> unable to do so?
It's not necessarily easy; but just hypothetically
suppose they did it. They do have money and
staff to use for the purpose, and any new
competitors will have less of these things
> You forget; competitors are actually allowed to reverse engineer
> Windows. Whether you understand that they don't do so only because it
> will cost them millions and gain them nothing, or you understand that
I understand this. They spend megabux just to
play catch-up; MS can stay ahead indefinitely
if they do this. It's flushing money down the
toilet.
> they don't do so because using the GNU code-base is a superior approach
> for anyone interested,
I don't really agree- not if you want to compete
on the desktop. But you knew that.
> the fact remains that reverse engineering Windows
> will not prevent MS from monopolizing.
Of course not. You've got to get ahead
of MS somehow; otherwise you'll never
beat the market's inertia.
> Nor could any other competitive
> action; this is why monopolies are not remedied by the free market,
> despite the fact that the free market never allows a monopoly to form
> through competitive actions.
*Why* can't a monopoly form through
competitive actions?
[snip]
> >> MS hasn't kept, nor ever had, low prices. They don't "squeeze out"
> >> competitors. They either buy them out, or the force them out.
> >
> >Yes, yes, but *hypothetically*, why wouldn't
> >the competitive strategy I outlined work?
>
> Why should it work?
It depends on the competition not being
smarted than MS, but that seems to have
been the pattern.
> You act like nobody can do better than MS, so it is
> fore-ordained in your gedanken experiment that MS will do better than
> anyone else.
Let's say that nobody *does* do better;
*somebody* hsa to have the best proeduct,
why couldn't it have been Microsoft?
I mean, *hypothetically*.
> That isn't a hypothesis; it is bullshit. Shallow
> thinking, dishonest discourse, sock puppet quibbling; it doesn't matter
> what it is called, it is just incorrect.
I'm sure you think it counter-factual, but I'm
trying to piece the web of assumptions
that you use to protect your beliefs.
> Free market competition does not result in monopoly, ever.
Why not?
> Anti-competitive actions are required, which is why contracts in
> restraint of trade and monopolization and attempts to monopolize are all
> illegal. This is the name for that class of actions which are
> anti-competitive.
What's the name? "Illegal"? Is that a name?
[snip]
> >Oh, I think "buying" out is different again, and
> >I do realize that MS is into that sort of thing.
>
> What are you talking about? They do it all the time. There's an url
> somewhere that lists all the companies they have bought, in various
> ways.
Sure. So MS doesn't solely pursue dominance
through product quality; we can agree on that,
I think.
But what if they *did*?
> >But *hypothetically*, if they weren't, why
> >couldn't they prevail?
>
> I don't understand the question. Why couldn't WHO prevail?
Microsoft.
> The
> distinction between honest business and anti-competitive monopolization
> is not hypothetical, I assure you.
Sure. So if MS is on the "good" side of the
line, why is their bid for dominance doomed?
[snip]
> >But it's a good question. Why *can't* honest,
> >straight out, competition on quality and price
> >*only* lead to market dominance?
>
> Because what people *want* is not something that anyone can ever really
> know in advance.
They can try. They can at least guess. They
might get it right.
> There are practically NO occasions in which a single
> producer is capable of meeting all demands, and yet still be a "market".
Sure, sure- that's why there are several markets;
desktop OSes versus server OSes for isntance. Different
demands.
I only meant dominance in *one* of these markets;
they only have to meet one set of demands.
> You confuse business with the regulation of public utilities. If you
> believe in competition, you can't prefer regulation.
I don't, I assure you.
> Yet some things
> are not "markets", they are essential services. These do not provide
> for competition.
Well, maybe; but what of it?
> Then you have the alternate issue of capitalization. Say I am a
> producer and I make a good product, more efficiently than anyone else.
> It costs millions of dollars in capitalization to enter this market as a
> producer, so as all of my competitors go out of business in short order,
> I am left alone as the only producer. Do I have a monopoly?
Good question. I'd say so. What do you think?
> This seems like what your gedanken hypotheticals should have been. It
> is the only reasonable presentation of the matter. Unsurprisingly, it
> arrives at the "correct" result, as well.
"Correct"? How do you mean?
> Because I do not have a monopoly. I have committed no anti-competitive
> actions, I have merely produced the product more efficiently than anyone
> else. I am immune from federal prosecution, by precedent that is
> already clearly part of anti-trust law, mandatory as per the Supreme
> Court in any Sherman Act examination.
Hang on. If you are the sole producer, how is that
not a monopoly? Why don't you have monopoly
power?
You've hithertoo suggested that the mere
dominance of MS condemns them as
a monopoly, regardless of how they got
that way. I think you've got an inconsistancy
in your belief system here.
> Now, if MS could have managed to not have all that damning evidence that
> proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is not the way the PC OS
> monopoly was gained or maintained, they might be as innocent as my
> hypothetical sole producer.
Oh, of course. :D
> I'm not going to maintain my "market dominance", though, unless I take
> actions to do so.
Sure. THat's why I was talking about continuing
to improve the product even in the absense of
competition- it is to forestall competition.
> Somebody comes up with a way of substituting someone
> else's product, or minimizing the demand for mine, and I'm going to have
> to sit there and take it. Desperate to figure out how to maintain my
> sales and profitability, I'm going to improve my product very carefully,
> by looking at how these changes in the market can be turned into
> advantages. If consumer have figured out how to get by buying only half
> the number of units, I'm going to figure out how to half it again. A
> monopolist just doubles the price, or demands that the consumers stop
> working efficiently using contractual restrictions.
Why can't a monopolist react the way your
competitive company does? Won't it work
for a monopolist?
> And again, MS has shot themselves in the foot, in this regard. When
> middleware threatened Windows after Mr. Andreesen shot his stupid mouth
> off about a browser becoming "an OS" (if he'd have just said 'platform',
> Gates might not have even gotten it until it was too late to maintain
> Win32 as the ultimate app barrier) they modified their products and
> pricing to protect their monopoly.
IHMO,they shot at the wrong target this time;
Netscape never had a chance unless they could
get their code quality under control
*Java* was the greater threat, and it didn't
need to be in a browser to be so.
> It is all they know how to do, it
> seems. A careful reading of the history of Microsoft indicates that
> Bill Gates is a megalomaniac, and Balmer is no more honest than Tony
> Soprano.
Well, I'm sure that's your reading. :D
> >I'm nto asking to accept that this is historical
> >fact; I know better than *that*.
> >
> >But what *if* MS had been different...
>
> Then computers today would be as advanced, reliable, and inexpensive as
> we can only hope they will be ten years from now.
Would it be a Microsoft OS? Would MS
have a 95% marketshare with it?
------------------------------
From: Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 23:30:31 GMT
Are any of you guys aware that "free" in the Linux context does NOT mean without
monetary exchange? It seems from
reading this thread that "free" to you means you do not have to pay money to acquire
the product you are getting. Of
course all of you know better than that, but I am just curious why you keep implying
that "free" in this context means
without monetary exchange.
Or, maybe you really do think that "free" in this context is what Linux is all about.
If so you are all seriously deluded.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Back up in Linux
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:02:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Les Mikesell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 27 May 2001 21:07:31 GMT
<n0eQ6.7900$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > > Jerry Wong wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I used to backup the windows by Ghost software. In linux, can the
>command "tar"
>> > > be used like Ghost. I means to backup the whole Linux system by tar it
>and
>> > > restore it when necessary. I have windows98 and two Linux system in my
>PC
>> > > (Red Hat 7.0 and Mandrake 8.0), so I can tar one of them when running
>the other.
>> > >
>> > > Is it possible? Please give me some advice.
>> >
>> > tar is okay for groups of files, but NOT good for the entire system.
>> >
>> > learn to use dump, and/or BRU or Arkeia.
>>
>> dump is not a sufficient solution either. linus had a few comments
>> about this on linux-kernel about a month ago. it seems that the only
>> way to get a clean snapshot of the disk partition is to unmount it
>> first and then save. this is especially true of the journalling
>> filesystems.
>
>Tar is actually better than dump at dealing with an active filesystem
>but neither will handle the case where multiple files must be saved
>as a snapshot of a consistent state. What we need is kernel support
>to freeze the 'real' filesystem while letting the system continue to work
>with changes staying in the buffers or paging out to swap if necessary - and
>of course, a way for the backup utility to read the frozen copy.
I'm surprised this sort of thing hasn't been done yet; it is exactly
analogous to a database snapshot -- the idea being that, once a transaction
is begun, the set of records is consistent and stays consistent
(e.g., edits, deletes, and additions are only seen by the editing program)
until a commit.
(Does anyone know/remember what VMS's ODB2 did?)
Not sure how well NTFS implements this, admittedly -- but Microsoft
has made some noises about their so-called journaling filesystem.
But AFAIK that's all they are: noises. (Their MFT does seem to make
a lot of noise on my disk drive... :-) )
One nice thing about Linux: most of the system may be open for read,
but apart from such apps as postgresql (which is important!), it's
not clear that restoring a system backed up while it was running
is going to cause problems. (Postgresql is a special case, but
not part of the OS. I don't know offhand whether one can back up
its files while it is working or not, and how well it handles
a restore later.) Of course, one must be careful to restore the
system on a drive that's not already running another system...
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 27d:05h:27m actually running Linux.
[select one]
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
You were expecting something relevant down here?
Does this message really exist? Where?
This is a pithy statement. Please watch where you pith.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
I am, you are, he, she, and it is, but they're not.
No protons were harmed during this message.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 00:04:29 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Dave Martel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 27 May 2001 11:12:03 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Sun, 27 May 2001 17:14:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>>Others can use tin, trn, a newsreader under Emacs (interesting
>>idea, that!) <snip>
>
>Some days I wonder why we don't just do away with linux and use Emacs
>as the OS. ;o)
*chuckles*
It does seem to do an awful lot, but I'm afraid I'm a VI man;
never got around to learning Emacs.
Oh well.
(Either one's a hell of a lot more functional that Notepad.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random kitchen sink here
EAC code #191 27d:06h:48m actually running Linux.
Hi. I'm a signature virus.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
