Linux-Advocacy Digest #975, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 04:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Bill Todd")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Jan Vorbrueggen)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Bill Todd")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in (GreyCloud)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts (GreyCloud)
Re: UI Importance ("Edward Rosten")
Re: UI Importance ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bill Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:12:44 -0400
"Dean Kent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:L_YS6.6256$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WARNING - shameless plugs follow!!!
>
> Bill Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fh843$7qm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
...
> > I've used both XCOPY and Partition Magic to replicate a (bootable)
> partition
> > onto a new disk on the *same* machine: it's easy with the former, and
> > completely painless with the latter.
>
> I think you might want to reconsider the XCOPY method - see here for a
> starter, and follow the links for more details:
> http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT121498000000
>
Yes, I remember encountering Navas' article, and I XCOPYed with some
trepidation because of it, but the result was fine (and has remained stable
for years now). So I suspected that problems would only occur when multiple
long names (of significance in the Registry) translated to the same initial
short name (and hence created short names with incremented tail-numbers),
and that such situations were likely rare. But you're right: if I'd
remembered, I would have added that warning if it had come to mind when I
wrote the above.
- bill
------------------------------
From: Jan Vorbrueggen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: 05 Jun 2001 09:15:38 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Maynard Handley) writes:
> However, and I mean this as a real point, not an advocacy rant:
> It would be my guess that some substantial fraction of home users delay
> upgrading their hardware (and thus hurting both MS and Intel) because the
> thought of moving over one's entire world from one machine to another is
> just too painful.
More precisely, given that the OS does not come with a tool similar to VMS
BACKUP that allows you to re-create the status quo ante, it is inherently of
very high risk to attempt an upgrade in-place, and it seems almost impossible
to extricate all of user state from a Windows-family OS to transport (or
transplant) to a newly installed system. The time and effort needed to get
back to a state similar to what you have now is incalculable, and if you're
unlucky, you know you can loose things in the process.
> (Obviously moving "pure data files" is easy.
Even that isn't easy, because Windows likes to install the equivalent of a
user's home directory deep in the system tree, and every directory is by
default writeable by every user, so your state could be scattered all over
the place.
> (As for Linux, I have no first hand experience, but it wouldn't surprise
> me if the job is no simpler in that case.
The pure user state usually is not much of a problem on Unix-like OSes, given
that they obey the good engineering rule of a seperation of duties. Whether
you actually know enough about all the additional software installed to get
back to the previous state is more uncertain; there certainly could be better
tool support for that.
Jan
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 02:17:47 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fhjt5$49d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fhcis$bqn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "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)
>
> I don't have this book, and orderring it will take a month.
> Can you give a list of the reasons?
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.
------------------------------
From: "Bill Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:34:07 -0400
"Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Hj_S6.1976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've made this point before on news groups a couple of years ago but I'll
> make it again because you obviosly are new to the Linux movement.
If you'll look at the newsgroups cross-posted to, you'll see that quite
possibly the author to whom you're responding isn't in the Linux movement at
all (given his focus on its investment potential). Neither am I, for that
matter (though I'm flirting with it): I encountered this in comp.arch.
I don't particularly like some of Microsoft's actions for some of the
reasons you note (though my impression is that Intel's, while less
well-known, may be worse), but you shouldn't assume that I (or the author
you responded to) therefore agree that it's in any way inherently evil, or
even immoral. It's mostly very adept at using the capitalist system, and
that's not a bad thing IMO - as long as it gets appropriately reined in when
its success makes it monopolistic in nature (which is also part of our
system).
Your knowledge of history is a bit flawed as well. I'm pretty sure that
Microsoft did not 'take' any Apple software, for example: they certainly
copied a lot of its 'look and feel', but then Apple had copied a good deal
of that from Xerox PARC to start with, and IIRC that fact played into
Apple's eventual loss in the courts. And acquiring companies for their
technology is quintessentially American (and is a major reason entrepreneurs
start small companies in the first place, so should not be considered a Bad
Thing).
I'm glad for you that you've apparently found a kind of religion in Linux,
but don't expect others to react favorably to overt proselytization -
especially if you don't have your facts (and thoughts) straight. You also
should learn to trim the quoted material in your replies.
- bill
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 02:36:45 -0500
"Philip Neves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Hj_S6.1976$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've made this point before on news groups a couple of years ago but I'll
> make it again because you obviosly are new to the Linux movement.
Microsoft
> signifies everything that is wrong with the industry. They are a big
> monopoly that eats up smaller companies and doesn't contribute to the
> public good. Most of their so called inovation is really a result of
raping
> an pilliging of smaller companies. For example take Microsoft Access, they
> wouldn't have had the technology to create that program if they hadn't
> purchased Fox pro and stripped it for its technology and this isn't even
> the first example. More recently the company that put out Visio was
> purchased and even soft L'Image.
Microsoft had Access before they bough Fox Software. Access and FoxPro use
entirely different technologies. FoxPro uses the Rushmore engine, while
Access uses the JET engine, which are radically different in their
structures and how they access data.
FoxPro still exists, and there will be a FoxPro version 7, though it is no
longer part of the Visual Studio suite.
Finally, Visio was only purchased about a year ago, and had been a
successful product for almost a decade. Most companies *WANT* to be bought
out. The employees want to move on to do something else, and their business
plan calls for them to be bought out by someone larger.
> In the eighties Apple computers sued Microsoft for taking Apples software
> and passing it off as thier own. They would have got away with it if it
> wasn't for the fact that Apple hadn't embeded their copywrite notice into
> the software itself.
This is patently untrue. Please provide some kind of reference. I've never
heard of it, and this is the sort of thing that would have made the rounds
on newsgroups like the Stac and Citrix BS has for years.
> Even MS DOS wasn't their own creation but a creation
> that Mr Gates payed $50,000 for. So you see they do put out good software
> but it is the good software that other people have worked hard and slaved
> over only to have Microsoft turn around and take their hard work.
You act as if this is stolen work. The authors VOLUNTARILY sold their
software and/or companies to MS. MS did not do a hostile takeover.
Further, MS likes to buy software to get themselves into the market right
away, then enhance the software over time. MS-DOS 6.22 is virtually
indisquishable from QDOS which was bought in 1980 for instance.
> I imagine
> that there will be a day when Microsoft will try to do the same with Linux
> and pass it off as their own work. This is not good for the industry. For
a
> long time before the big anti-trust law suite I noticed that companies
> hadn't been inovating as much as they used to.
You "noticed". Right. The fact is that the software industry is saturated,
and few truly new ideas are born because of the industries maturity. It's
simply difficult to come up with a truly new idea these days. The same
happened in the automobile industry in the late 70's and through most of the
80's.
> The reason for this was
> obvios. Microsoft had scared all these companies so much they were affrad
> to put something new out. In fact It was said that when Microsoft comes
> knocking on your door you sell because if you didn't in a couple of years
> your business wouldn't be worth anything.
Yes, like Intuit. They're not worth anything today, right? right? Wait,
they're still the king of their market years after MS came knocking.
> When Linux first began to be popular about five years ago Microsoft
> attempted a FUD (Fear, Undermining and Doubt) campain to get people to
stop
> using the system.
No they didn't. MS ignored Linux completely, not even mentioning it.
> In fact I've personaly replied to messages of people
> comming on to this news group and spreading fear about the Linux system.
That's not MS.
> Thier FUD campaign still continues to this day. Steve Balmer just did an
> interview a few days ago where he said that Linux is a Cancer and that
No, he called the GPL a cancer. Get your facts straight.
> commercial companies can't use the system to develop their own projects.
> This couldn't be further from the truth because although it is true that
> the GPL doesn't allow people to take code and incrementally make it your
> own. You can use libraries to create commercial software under the LGPL.
The LGPL is not the GPL. They are incompatible and the FSF discourages it's
use. Further, there are very few LGPL'd libraries.
> When you stand back and look at all the facts and see what has happend
over
> the last 10 - 15 years you begin to realize something. We the open source
> community didn't begin this fight they did. We didn't throw the first
punch
> they did. They are a big bully that needs to be kicked around a bit and
the
> free software community is the only group that is equiped to do that!
Bullshit. The Linux camp has been targeting MS for much longer than MS has
even acknowledge Linux's existance.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 02:40:09 -0500
"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <F2%R6.16166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So, the question is, why shouldn't government funded software
> > development be public domain?
>
> How would you propose that it be kept in the public domain without some
> form of restrictive licensing? Publically funded research automagically
> becoming public domain is a myth as far as I am concerned.
Huh? Once it's in the public domain, it's always in the public domain.
Yes, a company can try to patent it or copyright it, but the prior art is
there and obvious. Any lawsuit will show that.
> If you want a modern day corollary, just look at what Microsoft did with
> Kerberos. Kerberos development was publically funded, but through the
> simple addition of an extension to the standard, it became copyrighted
> Microsoft intellectual property. So even though Microsoft Kerberos was
> primarily developed with public funds, you will have to pay to use it.
No, you are mistaken. The only thing MS copyrighted was their extension,
not Kerberos itself. Further, the Kerberos team actually created the
extension field themselves specifically for uses like this.
> If you can come up with a license model that can prevent this intellectual
> "double dipping", i.e. where public funds are used to develop a public
> domain product at cost and then the developer or a third party acquires
> sole ownership to market it for profit, I'd like to see it. I have a
> feeling it'd look a lot like the GPL.
It would help if you didn't distort the facts.
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[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
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:59:33 -0700
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 16:08:58 GMT, Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I learned my lesson never to download in X, I switch to a VT and
> > download using ftp. X is just too unstable.
>
> You are completely full of shit.
>
I second that motion.
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:03:17 -0700
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their mouths
> told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (pip) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Chad Myers wrote:
> >> I'm sure the brits will have some concocted story about how
> >> they REALLY invented the Internet first and Europe had had
> >> the WWW years before the FTP rfc was even submitted.
> >
> >This is a really pathetic thread but FYI the brits helped with the
> >crucial TCP bit of the IP layer. It was actually a joint effort. And as
> >I am sure you already know the nationality of the person who invented
> >the Web. But like the rest of this thread : IT DOES NOT MATTER. What
> >matters is good ideas and the WHOLE world is full of them.
> >
> >The nationality of those who made past achievements is only interesting
> >in a social studies class. Here we should talk about the world. After
> >all, if the Internet has proved one thing is that the world can be a
> >small place, and ideas can flow. Thanks EVERYONE for the Internet.
>
> Still, one cannot deny that most of the best things
> in life were created right here in the good ol' U.S.
>
> Atomic Bomb
> Stealth Fighter
> Microsoft Windows
>
> Ph34R! :-)
> </HUMOR>
Somehow those above seem to be related to each other... bombers! :-))
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:07:53 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Josiah Fizer"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:35:34 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>You still have to select the individual pictures though, which is a
>>>>long and tedious process. Basically, selecting some pictures based on
>>>>content out of 100s is a long tedious process.
>>>>
>>>
>>> CTR-F type in the parameters (*.jpg,*.gif) hit enter. I fail to see
>>> what the problem is.
>>
>>That doesn't sort them by content.
>>
>
> Sort them by what content? There images? Do you want them in cromatic
> order or somthing?
What they contain, ie the pictures. It can't be done in any system,
making it a long and tedious process. Please nothe that this is just a
reply to a long thread and I don't have 1000s of images that need sorting.
>>
>>
>>> Use a better example.
>>
>>Than what?
>>
>>> cat *march.log | grep ".jpg" | xargs logparser.sh
>>>
>>> Still no GUI way to do stuff like that.
>>
>>Indeed. That's why I use the cli 99.9% of the time.
>>
>>-Ed
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 10:08:45 +0100
In article <9fhc7r$qne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fh607$lm0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>You still have to select the individual pictures though, which is a
>> >>long and tedious process. Basically, selecting some pictures based on
>> >>content out of 100s is a long tedious process.
>> >>
>> >
>> > CTR-F type in the parameters (*.jpg,*.gif) hit enter. I fail to see
>> > what the problem is.
>>
>> That doesn't sort them by content.
>
> You can tell it to do so.
Content ?!
But that involves knowing what is in the images. I don't think computers
are powerful enough to sort 1000 images by content yet.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
