Linux-Advocacy Digest #95, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:09 GMT
Said pip in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:45:59 +0100;
>daniel wrote:
>>
>> I have witnessed first hand how many large organizations can operate
>> for years with completely skewed thinking in place which can seriously
>> block its potential to do better things.
>
>Are not ALL large organisations like this ?
Are they?
>> It seems clear to me that this is going on at Microsoft to a major
>> degree with respect to 1) interoperability with other platforms, and
>> 2) with respect to the open protocols and standards which enable
>> technology to progress and develop around the world.
>
>Well, apparently .NET will support Linux.
ITYM "reportedly", not "apparently".
>> Apparently some parties at the company believe that it helps their
>> company to severly limit their products' capacity to interoperate with
>> other platforms, such as with Linux. As simple example of this is the
>> fact that from a Windows machine you cannot access an ext2 filesystem
>> without a 3rd party application like Explore2fs, while with Linux most
>> stock kernels are compiled out of the box with FAT and VFAT support
>> and go so far as to set up an fstab entry to automatically mount a FAT
>> or VFAT filesystem each time the system runs.
>
>Typical M$ users don't want to access ext2 partitions on their local HD.
>Those that do know free utilities like Explore2fs.
Typical MS users don't use a lot of crap that MS bolts into Windows.
How are those things any different than this?
>> Microsoft is being extremely foolish by pretending that what it
>> considers as competing platforms don't exist.
>
>Erm. They do! That is why they say the "Linux is our number 1 threat".
Yea, now they do. :-D
>>They gain nothing from
>> not providing interoperability support and only bolster their
>> reputation as being a stodgy, profit-first mentality company that
>> wants to force people down a certain path.
>
>It is not in their interests to interoperate. That presents the
>opportunity for them to loose users. That is not good.
Sure sounds good for the users. Why do you presume that customers able
to benefit from interoperability will abandon Windows? Is it because
you know it is monopoly crapware? (Yes, of course it is; the same
reason MS avoids interoperability at every opportunity. They know damn
well if Windows was interoperable, nobody would have any need for
Windows at all.)
>> Now what if they actually did provide support for the ext2 filesystem?
>> Not only would their product be more usable, the company as a whole
>> would, if not gain more acceptance, at least receive less criticism
>> from the community of users who may use a Microsoft platform in
>> addition to other platforms.
>
>Microsoft's back is broad. I don't think that they care. After all X
>provides remote display while M$ also relies on third party applications
>to fill in this corner. They don't care because they don't have to.
If they don't care that X does things they can't, why do they keep
introducing new features to do what X does?
And why is it they don't have to care?
>> If I were the president of the company I would have the people
>> responsible for this sort of mentality out immediately. To operate as
>> a company with such a high degree of market domination from a paranoid
>> point of view like this is outrageous.
>
>No it's not. It's called good business sense.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Last I heard, it was called "violation of federal
anti-trust law."
>You REALLY don't want to
>make it easy for users to interoperate or switch to your competitor's
>product if you DON'T have to. Especially if the users then find that the
>other product is more reliable and cheaper.
And *this* is "good business sense"? Have you ever seen the old movie,
"How to succeed in business without really trying?" Guffaw. Some
business sense. Make sure that if your product is less reliable and
more expensive, you do everything in your power to exclude competition.
Very effective. A federal crime, but very effective.
[...]
>The core of the OS has not, and should not have anything to do with it's
>interface utilities in terms of robustness. Here you may insert the
>problems of GDI being in kernel space.
Or IE being bolted onto the desktop, or Windows being bolted onto DOS,
or any of the other various bundling and bolting and integrating tactics
MS has used to protect their monopoly in various ways.
>The argument about the Kernel should not be confused with the argument
>about the "system".
The argument about the system should not be confused with the argument
about the anti-competitive business which monopolizes the system.
[...]
>Erm. Look here is a very simple rule :
>
>M$ cares about PROFITS not USERS.
????
>Of course it will listen to some
>extent to it's users, but only to keep them from the alternatives.
"It is a felony... to monopolize or to attempt to monopolize...
punishable by up to three years in prison..."
>Anything more is a waste of money.
You gotta spend money to make money. Anything less is profiteering.
>There is a solution : GNU/Linux
>
>> I think what Microsoft is protecting has nothing to do with business
>> actually.
>
>Of course it does! M$ only seems to do things because of business
>decisions. That is why GNU-Linux is SO important in providing them with
>some REAL competition. This will result in an outcome that is better for
>ALL users.
It is silly to consider a free open source code base as "competition"
for a commercial business, a commercial product, or a monopoly.
>>I think that really a large bureaucracy of lazy and inept
>> mangement want to cover its ass and protect its way of life.
>
>Sounds like every company I've known. If you know of any other types
>then I have my CV ready.
Nobody would want you with such a cynical attitude.
>>Silicon
>> Valley has witnessed over the years how new and innovative ways of
>> thinking and operating can lead to exciting developments and great
>> gains in the technological world.
>>But young companies that are
>> versatile, innovative, and put an emphasis on creativity and reward
>> innovators more than policy makers often change.
>
>That is why IBM should have feared M$ and Apple should have done so (but
>for other reasons).
They should be concerned with producing quality products at an
affordable price. What value is there in having vague abstract bullshit
like 'fear' enter into business decisions. They should have had no
reason to presume that MS was breaking the law, certainly. But,
unfortunately, they were. Should we expect the actual competitive
companies to act inefficiently in producing quality product at an
affordable price, to protect themselves against what is already illegal?
>That is why now M$ should fear the same thing. The
>big debate is not won yet. There is another runner. There will be a
>force so powerful that it could topple M$ : yes, it's Linux. M$ knows
>this. That is why it has altered their stance towards Linux. The guns
>are out. The powder is lit.
The appeals court is your only hope. Linux will remain forever a niche,
just as any other would-be alternative to Windows. Just because it is
open source doesn't mean it will fair any better in the long run than
OS/2.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:09 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:43:28
>"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>However, that FTP daemon that they are using isn't very good, if you are
>able to crash it by sending some random to it.
That isn't what you said about IIS crashing. You claimed in a
conversation with Les (if I have the right guy; I could be mistaken)
that it was the fault of the thing sending the random data to ensure it
didn't crash the server, didn't you?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:13 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>pip wrote:
>>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> > 2) No family if you want to be in the "in crowd". Family takes away from
>>> > productive hours. Family is bad. Life outside M$ is bad. Work ( observe
>>> > the picture in your head of Gates with a whip and a few horns)
>>>
>>> This is also untrue. Many microsofties seem to be involved in lots of
>>> non-worktime events. Mike Blaczak raced motorcycles, David Kruglinski was
>>> involved in chamionship skydiving (and died in the process), etc..
>>
>>Untrue? Well that is the perception of some ex-m$ employees.
>>
>>
>>> > 3) Work anytime you want. Work a "normal" week and you won't get
>>> > anywhere. Meet dealings or you're canned or ignored.
>>>
>>> This is common in successful programming environments.
>>
>>Being common does not mean that it is any good or productive.
>>
>>
>>> > 4) You have to do what marketing tells you. (Have a look at his article
>>> > about .net and the confusion INSIDE microsoft as to what it is and what
>>> > the strategy means. I am glad that I am not being stupid when I say that
>>> > I really don't "get it" )
>>>
>>> Yet you get Sun's effort?
>>
>>Yes I do. Sun's efforts seem mostly very clear. They also have not
>>changed much give or take a few wrong turns. Also their stategy is
>>actually available to implement.
>>
>>
>>
>>> > 5) You work to produce the best revenue rather than the best product.
>>> > For example the case you site about backwards compatibility. That really
>>> > did harm for their credibility and system stability. These kinds of
>>> > foolish actions: like the hardly believable SimCity hook, just make me
>>> > wonder what a pile of crap windows can be. It removes a large amount of
>>> > respect. Have a look at the other of his articles about how one
>>> > programmer simple inserted a bug to save "time" so that he could say a
>>> > feature was complete to meet deadlines.
>>>
>>> This is why Windows is successful though. Clearly backwards compatibility
>>> is more important to customers, and customers are what make you successful.
>>
>>Then the customers remembers that they would like system stability as
>>well.
>
>Okay, well...
>
>The title of this thread says, What should Microsoft's CEO do.
>
>And here we are talking about OTHER Microsoft Employee's.
>
>And once again, I think Erik Fuckenbuch is to blame for changing
>the subject on the thread.
>
>Well let's see. What should the Microsoft CEO do....
>
>Ah....
>
>How about spread a bunch of shit about the GPL being a cancer upon
>the world and then BUNDLE something with XP so he lands back in court
>again....
>
>Now, am I going to get a cookie for this?
Sure, here you go:
Client UrlCache MMF Ver 3.2
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:14 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:27:06
>"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> daniel wrote:
>>
>> The core of the OS has not, and should not have anything to do with it's
>> interface utilities in terms of robustness. Here you may insert the
>> problems of GDI being in kernel space.
>
>If you read "Inside Windows 2000", it thoroughly debunks the myth that it's
>bad for stability (from a guy with access to the source, and a guy with
>um... SoftICE)
Is this the same guy that claimed that Win95 was really a "whole new
operating system"? Guffaw.
>> > With respect to open standards and RFCs again the way Microsoft
>> > operates is a mess. With as much weight as they have why don't they
>> > realize that operating with a profit-first mentality in a state of
>> > paranoia they stunt their potential to work in a flourishing
>> > environment with the developer community of the world and, should they
>> > choose to contribute (not dictate) to the development of standards
>> > would gain greater acceptance and realize greater benefit to users
>> > around the world?
>>
>> Erm. Look here is a very simple rule :
>>
>> M$ cares about PROFITS not USERS. Of course it will listen to some
>> extent to it's users, but only to keep them from the alternatives.
>> Anything more is a waste of money.
>>
>Have you thought about where their profit comes from? That's right, their
>users. If they don't keep them happy, they'll lose them.
So we're told. I ain't happy; they haven't lost me. I'll bet I'm not
the only one, too. Sure, there might be plenty of you guys who are
happy (for whatever reason), but does that mean that those who aren't
happy somehow don't exist? Maybe you're just happy because you are
stupid, and ignorance is bliss. Did you ever consider that?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:15 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:42:02
>"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > > Basically, the reason is that the way NT is designed, if the GUI
>subsystem
>> > > faults, then the OS blue screens anyways, whether or not it runs in
>kernel
>> > > space. The OS's main thread drops to a blue screen when the GUI
>subsystem
>> > > dies.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Okay, why I don't like this?
>> > Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should restart
>it,
>> > not stop.
>> >
>> > This doesn't sound right, and it's certainly not an excuse.
>> > It would crash *anyway* ?
>> >
>> > Beside, I understand that Win2K2 can boot without GUI.
>>
>> Good point! It does not restart because it CAN'T. In windows I have had
>> explorer faults which cause explorer to re-initialise, but a blue screen
>> by definition means a dead system.
>
>Yes, the reason this is strange is that I can't figure out what cause this
>design decision.
>It would make sense on 9x, I think.
>But on NT?
>
>Just as a note, what you deribe as explorer faults are not faults of the GDI
>sub-system, those are faults of explorer.
>But BSODing for the GDI makes about as much sense as BSODing because of
>explorer.
>
>Anyone can vulanteer some more info about this one?
I can, but I don't think you wanna hear it. :-)
Consider, that perhaps possibly someone figured that if every time the
GUI crashed, the OS just restarted it, someone might wonder if maybe the
GUI was crash-prone? Then they'd try to run it without the GUI to begin
with, and you know where that leads. Can't have people thinking that a
GUI is a waste of time and counter-productive on a server operating
system, can you? Next thing you know, they'll wonder why there is a
difference between a server and a desktop OS to begin with, and expect
the GUI to be optional to begin with.
>> BTW it should be noted by both sides that a graphics driver bug could
>> cause either system to die a death no matter if the GUI "service" is run
>> in user-space.
>
>Most drivers has this capability, although I understand that Hurd deals with
>it, to some point.s
Your problem, Ayende, is that you continue to believe that Microsoft
dominance has anything whatsoever to do with technology.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:16 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:52:33
>"Tuomo Takkula" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9fi8iq$md7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:oI%S6.7225$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ..
>> > > Okay, why I don't like this?
>> > > Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should
>restart
>> > it,
>> > > not stop.
>> >
>> > Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something is
>> > seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
>>
>> Utter nonsense. Of course there is something wrong if the GUI crashes,
>> but that doesn't mean it does crash again if you restart the GUI, or
>> that the rest of the operating system or the running tasks is in any
>> way compromised by that. Under Unix, restarting the window manager
>> (when Netscape graps the X token and dies) simply puts the running
>> applications into their old state. No reboot necessary.
>
>The distinction is that the GUI & GDI are separate. If the GUI crashes,
>fine, just respawn explorer. If the GDI crashes, well WinNT needs that to
>function correctly so it throws an exception (Blue screen)
Flumm-flummery is what that is. You seem to be saying that the GUI is
just explorer. If the *GUI* 'crashes', that means the GDI crashed. If
Explorer crashes, it means an app has crashed.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:21:17 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 00:09:44
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:My9T6.8045$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9fi8iq$md7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Okay, why I don't like this?
>> > Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should restart
>> it,
>> > not stop.
>>
>> Why should it restart it? If the GUI crashes, that means something is
>> seriously wrong, and will likely just crash again.
>
>Why should the GUI crashing cause a full system halt?
>NT is aimed at servers, not just desktops. This just doesn't makes sense.
>Other platforms don't crash if there is a crash in the GUI (well, not
>always.)
>
>> > This doesn't sound right, and it's certainly not an excuse.
>> > It would crash *anyway* ?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Why? What is the reason for this decision?
A very small but incremental increase in the responsiveness of the GUI.
Essentially, it is a scam, to make Windows appear to have better
performance than it does. I thought everybody knew this; certainly it
was widely acknowledged at the time.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
