Linux-Advocacy Digest #291, Volume #31 Sat, 6 Jan 01 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting (Tim Smith)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
) (Peter Hayes)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst. (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows fails again (Pete Goodwin)
Re: RPM Hell (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Need help with NT (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux can be made unstable, too. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com ("Tom
Wilson")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Uptimes (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Andrew Leonard has another fabulous chapter: this time IBM's commitment to Open
Source ("Adam Warner")
Re: Why Hatred? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Uptimes ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why Hatred? (Form@C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft tentacles squirm deeper into software hosting
Date: 6 Jan 2001 01:01:24 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:27:16 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Look at the IRS's deceptive use of language ("person", as defined
>in the Internal Revenue Code, is *not* an individual human being,
>but a corporation, partnership, or any of af a number of other
>types of commercial "artificial person" registered with the state.
You might want to actually go look that up yourself. I've seen that
argument before, in various "patriot" literature, and it is based on a
failure to observe the structure of 26 USC. The usual place cited for
that says something like "for purposes of this chapter, a person is...".
That chapter is *NOT* a chapter relevant to income taxation on ordinary
people. Alternativly, the "patriot" literature likes to take
definitions of the form "person includes X, Y, and Z" as meaning
"person" is ONLY X, Y, and Z, rather than "person" is the ordinary
definition PLUS X, Y, and Z. Congress almost always means the later,
and the courts agree.
In fact, if you've got "patriot" literature that cites court cases, you
really should go to a library and read those cases yourself. Such
literature is full of the following mistakes:
1. Citing to cases that were overturned. The people that "research" the
anti-tax literature haven't learned how to shepardize.
2. Citing to dissenting opinions.
3. Citing to the briefs from the lawyers on the losing side.
4. Editing quotes to change the meaning. I've seen "..." used to
replace whole paragraphs, leaving something that is opposite of what the
court ruled.
5. Ignoring the reason a court reached a result. E.g., a given case
might have a tax issue and a contract issue, with the tax issue only
being relevant if the contract issue goes a particular way. If the
court decides the case on the contract issue, nothing can be read into
that about the tax issue. Yet, I've seen such cases cited as if the
ruling was on the tax issue.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 09:13:09 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:04:26 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Peter Hayes wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 04:29:30 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > I have a machine with 'ME on it that won't complete the boot process until
> > > > I hit the eject button on the CD drive. No CD needed, just eject the tray
> > > > and push it back. Maybe not exactly a "crash" but the next best thing....
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > >
> > > Sounds like you have real computing problems.
> >
> > I'm thinking of reinstalling 'ME to see what happens.
>
> Well, when you get done reinstalling yourself,
> you be sure to tell us what you saw :-)
Nice one...
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 09:28:48 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ever seen a game of rugby...no poofy pads and shit! now thats a real mans
> sport!
Played it a few times. It was fun. Chipped a tooth.
Played cricket once, too. Very boring game...
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 2.4.0 kernel was released at 4pm pst.
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:32:06 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
flathead
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:35:49 +0100
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> Undoing the damage from an inopportune power outage (and they happen
> eventually regardless of how stable your power grid may be) costs more.
> Especially if you're a developer or handle any sensitive information.
>
> A UPS and a good backup plan are essential if you use your system for more
> than playing games and surfing the net.
>
>
> --
> Tom Wilson
> Sunbelt Software Solutions
>
I am a developer, and i do regular backups. But just to reinstall
everything would take at least a day, then even 400 Dollars is not very
much. Remember, this is a UPS ratet at 1000 Watts, this is enough to power
2 Computers with the monitors
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 09:41:47 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 23:24:36 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 05 Jan 2001 03:11:59 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> You've cleverly diverted this into a discussion about the conduct of
> >> the Fl court as opposed to the Dems.
> >
> >The Florida Supreme court is 100% Democrat, every one appointed
> >by former gov. Lawton Chiles.
>
> I believe you're confusing "Democract appointee" with "Democrat".
> Last I heard, the judges were not supposed to be affiliated with
> political parties.
They're no different than any other person - Bias and ideology seeps
through. Total objectivity is something people just aren't that good at.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:48:40 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I received my Mandrake update CD this week and decided to give
> Mandrake 7.2 another whirl, partly because I am bored at the moment
> and partly because I was hoping that this one was the big winner.
Mandrake 7.2 was certainly a big winner for me.
> Let's start with the Mandrake install process, which seems to have a
> mind of it's own. Feed it an "expert" parameter, which is supposed to
> prevent hardware detection, and it still tries to detect hardware.
> It never prompts me to make a boot/rescue disk and insists on mis
> configuring my Logitech wheel mouse.
My Logitech Wheel mouse works fine.
> In addition it thinks my Matrox
> G200 card has 4 meg, unless I select the SD version and then it asks
> me how much memory the card has, which is 8 meg.
> God help you if you choose not to set up your internet connection when
> you are prompted because ppp doesn't get installed (modem connection).
Then install ppp afterwards? Even I managed to figure that one out!
> Now we must change the default mouse to Microsoft intellimouse even
> though it is a Logitech mouse. Warning, if you choose Logitech your
> mouse will NEVER work in Linux again and there is no way out of it
> unless you happen to be good at console commands and editing config
> files. Also I had to change the refresh rate and other display
> settings including fonts.
Funny, my system is set to Logitech mouse and it works just fine.
> Speaking of fonts, Mandrake includes a nifty tool to find all of your
> Windows fonts and and make them available to Linux. It finds them all
> right but they don't appear as selections in any programs including
> DrakFont if you launch it a second time after adding them.
Fonts worked for me.
> On to Enlightenment which seems unable to even save the settings of an
> Eterm. Change the font, save current settings close, relaunch and it
> goes back to default every time. This is with root or user access and
> does not matter.
Try a different terminal then.
> How about the Wheel mouse which sometimes works and other times
> doesn't? Usually opening and closing Netscape or whatever the
> offending application happens to be at the moment, makes it work again
> until the next time it doesn't work again.
Again, I don't see these problems.
> Why can't XMMS remember it's settings like song directories?
True.
> How about no sound out of the digital port on the SBLive card?
My sound still is supported.
> Why doesn't Knode remember it's settings like Window size?
It does if you tell it to. Settings -> Save Options seems to work.
> Why does Mandrake insist on changing my mouse settings every time it
> boots up? I had to turn off hardware detection for that one.
Not noticed that one.
> I screwed with Samba till I was sick of dancing and could not make it
> work.
I got my remote machine to work just fine. It does take a bit of editing of
the configuration file.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:53:01 +0000
JM wrote:
> Unfortuanetly I don't have a copy of Linux. I had to perform a quick
> format and reinstall, immediately configuring the modem and Agent so I
> could jump right back into Usenet merely HOURS later....
I recently reinstalled my Windows system and was back up within an hour.
What are you going?
Of course, the fact that I had to reinstall Windows is not a good sign. 8)
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:54:51 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Another Steve/Claire/whatever troll. The pseudonyms are too numerous to
> list anymore. What you're responding to didn't actually occur to the
> original poster; he/she just surfs for problems in other newsgroups and
> then adds a great deal of elaboration and posts here for the pleasure of
> seeing the responses.
So these are real problems then?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need help with NT
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:54:49 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> syntax in /etc/conf.modules. For this example, the addresses and IRQ
> numbers are made up, and I will assume that you have bought a matched pair
> of NE2000 clones (a common choice). Your /etc/conf.modules file should
> look like this:
>
> alias eth0 ne
> alias eth1 ne
> options ne io=0x330,0x360 irq=7,9 "
>
Sure, there are others even more a wintroll than you are, but this
procedure can be found quite easily. And IF you really had that problem
(there are newsgroups where you can find all your reported problems with
linux) you would have searched a little better AND found this simple answer
in less than an hour.
I don't believe you.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:02:01 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
>
> Well, it was pretty clear before you snipped the text you posted which I
> was referring to. You mentioned that it is tough to port from One
> Microsoft Way to any other platform, referencing the difficulty caused
> by the difference in how audio and video are handled, which you called
> "exotic" libraries.
I'm still not sure what you're getting at here. I don't recall the audio
and video reference, or my calling them "exotic" libraries".
> >Have you seen what you get when you go for open standard and multi
> >platform support.
>
> Yes. It used to be a lot better, but that was before the deleterious
> effects of monopolization caused the entire software industry to focus
> on anti-competitive, rather than pro-competitive, development.
Why does everything have to have that "competitive slant" in your posts?
> >It kinda looks like you stepped backwards about ten years in time.
>
> I don't care how it *looks*.
So you'd be happy with something that looked like sh*t? Most customers I
know won't be.
> You're not really referring to anything, except red herrings.
Despite what you say, I'm still referring to GUI applications.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux can be made unstable, too.
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 10:00:14 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:936otu$mrd$00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> >
> > Undoing the damage from an inopportune power outage (and they happen
> > eventually regardless of how stable your power grid may be) costs more.
> > Especially if you're a developer or handle any sensitive information.
> >
> > A UPS and a good backup plan are essential if you use your system for
more
> > than playing games and surfing the net.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tom Wilson
> > Sunbelt Software Solutions
> >
> I am a developer, and i do regular backups. But just to reinstall
> everything would take at least a day, then even 400 Dollars is not very
> much. Remember, this is a UPS ratet at 1000 Watts, this is enough to power
> 2 Computers with the monitors
Sounds about like my set-up.
We have a lousy power grid here (Tennessee) that's complicated by idiot
drivers plowing into utility poles. Mine kicks on at least once a week.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:05:51 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >Try this again. Whistler will cost *THE SAME PRICE* as Windows 9x/ME.
>
> OK, let me try this again: Bullshit, or "who cares?"; take your pick.
It will be interested to see what price they do come out with. Will it be
as Erik asserts or higher?
> >They are discontinuing volume licensing of 9x based Windows, but will
> >offer volume pricing for Whistler.
>
> Yes, we knew that. And according to you, this will be WinDOS level
> pricing for something called "Whistler Personal Edition". So
> apparently, the massive rejection of Microsoft's current business
> strategies is having at least some effect, eh? Must be the intense
> pressure from the entirely anti-competitive GPL movement, and Linux,
> huh? The felony convictions don't help matters, of course.
The felony convictions still have no teeth until the _yet_another_ appeal
is heard. And if politics gets into this, the convictions may mean nothing
and Microsoft may continue as they are. God help us!
> Christ, it must be such fun to have your job. I'm assuming you have
> very close contact with Microsoft; watching them squirm would be just
> too amusing, from your vantage point. But I guess it provides that air
> of desperation we see in the Microsoft apologists these days; you can't
> see the humor in it.
Oh _I'd_ love to see them squirm, but I'm too far away.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.bill-gates,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Big government and big business: why not fear both - www.ezboard.com
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 10:05:39 GMT
> > > Worst of all, they *lock* you into Microsoft.
> > > I wonder where the idea for WinModems came?
> > >
> >
> > A scheme to reduce hardware costs by using software to provide error
> > correction and data compression.
> >
> Then why do they only work with Windoze if that is all they are?
> Isn't there more to it?
Not really. They probably wrote drivers only for the Windows platform out of
commercial considerations. It wasn't until very recently that hardware
companies started paying attention to Linux/BSD. We can only hope the trend
continues.
PS: Sorry about the personal e-mail reply. :)
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:10:51 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Yes, they are. They always are. They cause prices to be higher than
> competitive levels, for shoddy products due to lack of competition.
> They are always illegal (it being a felony to monopolize or to attempt
> to monopolize) in the US, and they always do great harm to the market,
> competitors, and to the consumer. This is unavoidable, by the nature of
> economics and capitalism. Whether you are *aware* of the harm, whether
> you've got the brains to be able to see it, whether you can recognize
> it, despite the fact that there is no less expensive alternative to
> compare the product to in order to determine whether its overpriced or
> shoddy goods: these are much less automatic and assured.
If a company makes a product, and creates one that everyone agrees is good,
but does not prevent other companies from making a profit via that product,
then how is that bad?
If Microsoft created Windows but did not do the shenanigans they did (like
private API's to make the their stuff look faster and the placement of
general purpose libraries in Internet Explorer DLL's) - in short, if they
made a platform that everyone wanted but placed no restrictions on
competitors, isn't that a good thing?
Where I see a monopoly as a good thing is if the windows product is the
result of one way of thinking, rather than the bastardised and reduced
versions you get from a committee.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:09:11 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> You open task manager and kill the opending task.
> If it's a service, use task manager to verify what is taking so much
> proccessor power and use kill.exe to kill it.
>
>
Yoiu open nothing. I've had NT running a two provessors and BOTH were used
100%. It does not react to anything anymore. I have seen this behaviour on
several different machines, not often, but way too often. And it seems be
occur less often after SP4, but is still present. When this happens, you
have to press reset or cycle power, nothing else helps
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Andrew Leonard has another fabulous chapter: this time IBM's commitment to
Open Source
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 23:16:05 +1200
http://www.salon.com/tech/fsp/2000/09/12/chapter_7_part_one/index.html
It's another fascinating read detailing IBM's secret porting of Linux to the
System 390 (you'll feel really sorry for Linas Vepstas) and how IBM was
accepted into Apache development (very interesting).
My public thanks for Andrew Leonard's superb book-in-progress.
Here's a small quotation about some 1998 developments:
'But there was still no companywide strategy. In various corners of the IBM
empire, individual researchers like Shields or strategists like Barry (who
met and became friends through an open-source mailing list started by Barry
for IBM employees) were doing their own thing, but as a company, IBM was
hardly united. Shields does recall one key meeting of the IBM Academy of
Technology, a grouping of 300 of IBM's most distinguished scientists in
October 1998, at which both he and Barry spoke, as crucial. The Academy
declared Linux to be an "earthquake" (as it had earlier declared Unix and
the Internet) and petitioned Lou Gerstner to review their findings.
'But even though Gerstner formed a task force to study Linux, the struggle
over policy at lower levels still raged without cohesion. Barry recalls how
plans to write a version of WebSphere 3.0 for Linux were spiked by an IBM
executive who gave a speech at IBM's research lab in Raleigh, North
Carolina, declaring that Linux was "going nowhere." That executive, he notes
now, without hiding his satisfaction, is currently in charge of an IBM
division devoted to Linux.'
:-)
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 10:18:44 +0000
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >"A bit of hyperbole" is an understatement.
>
> Hardly. If you don't have enough brains to figure out that "all the
> time" is used in a rhetorical sense, then considering yourself
> reasonable and capable is an overstatement.
And yet when I say "Linux lags behind Windows" I get hauled up on that one.
I eventually have to qualify it, with "Linux + KDE lags behind Windows". It
would appear that you see hyperbole when some says "Windows crashes all the
time" and don't when I say "Linux lags behind Windows"! Talk about
selective!
> >So, interfaces in Java are unstable too?
>
> I wouldn't know, but I don't see the relationship. Java isn't Microsoft
> crapware, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. My guess would be,
> though, that you are confused about the difference between Java and
> Win32 (or COM).
COM at its binary contract level is similar to Java's interfaces, if you
understand how it works. What you said in your previous post makes me
realise you don't understand it yourself.
> >We were talking about COM in general in this case, you seem to want to
> >pull the conversation back onto your favourite gripe.
>
> No, you brought up COM in this particular case, because you'd just as
> soon avoid dealing specifically with the reality of the matter. I only
> have one gripe, and its not a favorite, concerning Microsoft: they are
> felons who peddle over-priced, over-hyped monopoly crapware.
Precisely my point.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 10:18:46 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:936qsh$mrd$00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > You open task manager and kill the opending task.
> > If it's a service, use task manager to verify what is taking so much
> > proccessor power and use kill.exe to kill it.
> >
> >
> Yoiu open nothing. I've had NT running a two provessors and BOTH were used
> 100%. It does not react to anything anymore. I have seen this behaviour on
> several different machines, not often, but way too often. And it seems be
> occur less often after SP4, but is still present. When this happens, you
> have to press reset or cycle power, nothing else helps
Unless someone has had this happen to them, they won't believe it.
I've encountered it a couple of times and, you're right, SP4 apparently
helps.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 10:18:55 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>
>>The Win32(desktop) "specification" does not seek to attain the same
>>goals as Linux, the only area in which they even remotely compete is on
>>server platforms.
>
>They 'compete' in two entirely different and distinct, even unrelated,
>ways; in the market, and in technology. The market says that they don't
>compete, because Linux isn't a product. All the Linuxen together
>'compete', in terms of "market share", but that's just monopoly talk,
>not a coherent business analysis. They compete technologically, in
>terms which can generally be considered a sort of academic, peer-review
>of the engineering and statistical validity of the benefits. Peer
>review is unavailable to Windows itself, but the technical facts are
>that Microsoft's products don't even remotely "compete" with Linux.
>
This thread started with a thought-experiment in which M$ had released all
pertinent information on the Win32 system. In this case Win32 would,
indeed, be open to peer-review. The question, then, is whether the Win32
AUI would prove to be of sufficient "quality" (nice vague term there) to be
accepted as a de facto standard. Under the terms of the experiment this
would be answered by market and technological demand, but here in the real
world we cannot be absolutely certain.
>>The two can, quite legitimately, co-exist because of this
>>(well, W9x (on desktops) and Linux (on servers) can).
>
>Could, I think, not "can". They could compete, if Microsoft weren't
>anti-competitive. There really isn't any need for the client side to be
>monopoly crapware, to begin with.
>
There is definitely no technological need for such a situation to exist, it
is obviously counter-productive. However, currently the *only* feasible
contender *for the end-users' desktop* happens to be "monopoly crapware".
By definition, if there is to be even a de facto standard for desktop
machine OSs, this must currently be setting those standards because it is
the only applicant!
The POSIX standard cannot usefully be applied here as user-orientated
dedicated desktop machines weren't around when it was written. The
capability for user-interactive software was very limited on serially-
interfaced text-based terminals connected to much larger multi-user
machines as the system (from the user's point of view) was simply too slow.
Once again, under the terms of the thought experiment, M$ couldn't be
regarded as anti-competitive because they would have released their Win32
data. This would move them onto a similar footing to other OSs, forcing
Win32 to stand on its own - which appears to be the whole point of the
experiment.
<snip>
>>Win32(desktop) would probably
>>become *an* industry standard because of the user interface facilities
>>as these have a very high priority for its target market.
>
>Psychobabble and double-think. A pity even such a statement is so
>hypothetical, as we'll never know, given that Microsoft chose to force
>OEMs to bundle Windows, and only Windows, and always Windows, with DOS,
>on which they had an illegal monopoly on PC Oses.
>
While I do not condone M$'s dealings in the past, these are now history and
we now *have* a readily acceptable "standard" (here we go again!) for end-
user's desktop machines. It may well be monopolistic and ant-competitive
but AFAICS it's well and truly here!
Given the current state of the computer market, as of today's date, could
you suggest a *real* alternative to Win32 for the end-user's desktop? Bear
in mind the following points:
1) The OS has to be capable of being pre-installed on the machine and
operated by the end user without any specialist training "out of the
box". A single A4 "startup instruction sheet" is allowable.
2) A range of compatible (between packages and with existing industry
"standards") software has to be readily available (downloads acceptable,
but must not be the sole source of supply as demonstrations by company
representatives will be required in some cases prior to purchase).
3) All software has to be capable of being easily installed, removed and
updated without specialised knowledge.
4) No *real* security features are required - it is assumed that internet
access would be via an independant firewalling-type system. It is
further assumed that fellow employees are, at least moderately,
trustworthy.
5) Long-term stability is not really much of an issue as the machines will
be switched off every night and rebooted every morning.
6) Direct hardware access must be allowed by applications if at all
possible as some of these require the full hardware performance
available (I am not talking about games here - there are applications
such as SoftPLC and AutoCAD, but a similar condition would apply).
7) Cost is, by and large, not an issue. There is no necessity for the OS
to be particularly low-cost as many of the applications certainly won't
be.
8) Almost all system maintenance will be carried out by the end user,
probably with full "root" access, as there will be either no or
minimal support staff available.
I have tried to be as fair and unbiased as possible here. It is merely a
list of what is currently required by a business deskop OS as I see it. I
do not want to rule out Linux or any of its relatives or competitors, but
likewise I don't want it to look as if M$ is the only choice. Some people
are going to be amazed that *anyone* would want such an open-to-abuse
system, but millions of them are in daily use!
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
