ECTED]
Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
except that you are opting in, by purc
On Saturday 30 June 2001 16:22, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
While I'm as interested as anyone else in the exact steps Microsoft takes to
drive users to us, I don't see what this has
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Dmitri Pogosyan wrote:
> Well, this is an old as world argument used to take your freedom away -
> 'law obeying citizens have nothing to fear'
except that you are opting in, by purchasing the product.
> Why not allow police to search your car at every moment they wish ?
> I
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
> > each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
> > abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In oth
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 07:50:36PM -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
> More likely, Microsoft will display escalating suspicion with
> each install, If they find out that a key is definitely being
> abused, they will stop issuing unlock codes for it. In other words,
> they will cause great incon
Lew Wolfgang wrote:
> It is something that I read somewhere. If memory serves, Microsoft
> will allow two installs on the same CD-key. Note that this is
> different from the old MS key manager, all you had to do there
> was enter the CD-key. There were no real-time checks on how
> many times
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, David Schwartz wrote:
> > If the
> > CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
>
> Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
> This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
> send the final key u
> If the
> CD key is used again they just refuse to send the final key.
Do you have any evidence to support this statement or is it an assumption?
This is almost never the way such schemes are implemented. The policy is to
send the final key unless there's clear evidence of abuse (such a
P. Schmiedehausen;
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: The latest Microsoft FUD. This time from BillG, himself.
> >
> > > Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
> > > 1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
>
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > The biggest improvement would be that users could remain with a version
> > that works for them and NOT be forced to pay more money for the same
> > functionality (watch out for the XP license virus... also known as
> > a logic bomb).
>
> What is XP li
>
>I still have my 3.1 package all boxed up in the basement. I remember
>impatiently waiting for its arrival. What a disappointment it turned
>out to be.
>
>Mark
To say the least. The big thing in the current Windows OS's these days is
FAT 32.
NT 3.1 and NT 3.5 won't even acknowledge this fil
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Fulghum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:02 PM
> To: Pavel Machek; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Schilling, Richard;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Henning P. Schmiedehausen;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The latest Microsof
> Is this accurate? I never knew NT was mach-based. I do not think NT
> 1-3 were actually ever shipped, first was NT 3.5 right?
> Pavel
NT 3.1 was the 1st to ship.
Paul Fulghum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Microgate Corporation www.microgate.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
Hi!
> > I'm unimpressed with what Microsoft calls an operating system and
> > I'm equally unimpressed with what Unix calls an application layer.
> > For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> > and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong. Seems like
> >
Hi!
> Hmm. This *is* the company that has at least one guy full-time working on
> merging their changes back into gcc (with the right Copyright
> assignments), and where the guy in question does discuss how to make gcc
> work nice with both Apple's application framework and the GPL clone of
Hi!
> I wouldn't be at all suprised if they did. It'd fit in with the history of
> NT. (Version numbers really approximate, I don't have my notes with me.)
>
> NT 1.0: the inherited OS/2 1.x code ported to 32 bit mode, sort of.
>
> NT 2.0: 1.0 didn't work so let's try porting it to the mach
On Mon, Jun 25, 2001 at 08:05:41PM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Name one thing Microsoft actually invented. Other than Microsoft Bob.
>
> were listed and where they bought or stole it from. The only things
> that were really Micr
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:21:18PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> Name one thing Microsoft actually invented. Other than Microsoft Bob.
I remember there being a web page where all of Microsoft's "innovations"
were listed and where they bought or stole it from. The only things
that were really Micr
Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
> > > for $20 but gcc isn't listed
> >
> > I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that. See clause 1 (c):
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm
>
Minor note:
1) The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Landley) wrote on 22.06.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> > > they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> > > the techies.
> >
> > A compan
On Thursday 21 June 2001 18:49, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> > they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> > the techies.
>
> A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
> in your spare time' in
>Did I mention I'm writing a book on all this? (The history of linux and
the
>computer industry, going back to World War II...) This makes me the only
>person I know who's excited about finding ~50 issues of "Compute" and
>"Compute's gazette" from the mid 80's at a garage sale. An the univ
On Thursday 21 June 2001 17:49, Schilling, Richard wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Rob Landley
> > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 9:25 AM
>
> [snip]
>
> > BSD forked to death in the 80's. Everybody from AT&T to Sun
> > to IBM who saw
> > money in it spun off their own incompatable,
> Apple's doing it right now.
Hardly..
> Except that Apple keeps the old code open. Probably because
> they'll gain nothing from it, and at best, they can appeal to
> the techies.
A company that seems to write 'you shall not work on open source projects
in your spare time' into its employment c
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 12:25:15PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> If MS was currently facing BSD rather than LInux, they would have "embrace
> and extend"ed it long ago. Hide half of office in the system libraries (just
> like windows), come out with a closed-source version, loot the open
> compe
On Thursday 21 June 2001 04:50, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Ooh, do I get to say "I told you so"? (LinuxToday buried my submission
> > way back under a blurb about caldera, but still...)
>
> And the quote of "stealing the TCP stack from BSD" is st
On Thursday 21 June 2001 04:37, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>
> Devils' advocate position: If Linux would not be under GPL but under
> BSD license, M$ may have already done so. But consider them porting
> one of their monster applications and release it just to find out that
> they've linked
On 21 Jun 2001 15:48:11 +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2001 10:46, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP,
>
> This makes about as much sense as going to a cocktail party with nose glasses
> on.
One of the mantras that get hammered
> > You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> > of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> > your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
>
> I think this is an unfair generalization.
Not really. In Linus's book he describes that his presentatio
> > Do they include the source? There's a CD of source that you can buy
> > for $20 but gcc isn't listed
>
> I'm not sure if they are allowed to do that. See clause 1 (c):
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/516/eula_mit.htm
Slight oops on their part, but then that license is fair
On Thursday 21 June 2001 10:46, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> My last LinuxExpo talk was also made with PP,
This makes about as much sense as going to a cocktail party with nose glasses
on.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
Larry McVoy wrote:
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Never used powerpoint. If I need slides I use a (linux-based) word
processor and a bigger font
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Paul Flinders wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite leg
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite le
Alan Cox wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
>
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
>
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
Do they include the
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:53:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Not I. The slides for my last meeting were done as TIFF files and I used xv to
> display them. Plus, the most recent documentation I wrote for one of our
> mainframe applications was done with vi and LaTeX. "What, in addition
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 18:31, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
> >
> > Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
> > of people ;)
>
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 03:33:45PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
I think this is an unfair generalization.
I'm not ev
On Thursday 21 June 2001 00:33, Larry McVoy wrote:
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Bad example Larry, most of us do our talks with MagicPoint. I'l
Larry McVoy writes:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
> >
> > Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
> >
> > Yes., Microsoft ship
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> For the last 10 years, Unix has gotten the OS right and the apps wrong
> and Microsoft has gotten the apps right and the OS wrong. Seems like
> there is potential for a win-win.
I've been hoping for this ever since the rumors of "Microsoft
Linux" starte
Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
> of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
> your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
At the Linux SuperClusters 2000 Conference, MadDog and I were the the
only ones with slides d
>You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
>of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
>your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Or AppleWorks (Mac), in my case. Or, if I wanted to be flashy, I'd
make the slides up in CorelXARA (which originated
On 06/20/2001 at 05:33:45 PM Larry McVoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can scream all you want that "it isn't free software" but the fact
>of the matter is that you all scream that and then go do your slides for
>your Linux talks in PowerPoint.
Not I. The slides for my last meeting were don
> What would be wrong with Microsoft/Linux? It would be:
>
> a) the Linux kernel
> b) the Microsoft API ported to X
> c) Microsoft apps
> d) Linux apps
Providing they follow the standards, the GPL and work with the community I
certainly have no problems with it. Its not really a
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
>
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
>
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part o
On Wednesday 20 June 2001 23:33, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
>
> Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
> of people ;)
Not to mention the GPL, which I can guarantee you, before today my m
On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
>
> Of course the URL that goes with that is :
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
>
> Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html >
Of course the URL that goes with that is :
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/interix/features.asp
Yes., Microsoft ship GNU C (quite legally) as part of their offerings...
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send th
On 20 Jun 2001, Miles Lane wrote:
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
Yes, he sure knows how to bring Linux to the attention
of people ;)
Rik
--
Executive summary of a recent Microsoft press release:
"we are concerned about the GNU General Public License (GPL)"
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092935,00.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkm
51 matches
Mail list logo
