Linux-Advocacy Digest #993, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 20:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows advocate of the year. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Larry Elmore)
Re: Best Distribution? (pip)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (Stephen Edwards)
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications (LShaping)
Re: Chicken and egg problem ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition - (Philip Neves)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Larry Elmore)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Christopher L. Estep")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:27:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donn Miller wrote:
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Not all windows advocates are bad.
>
>> They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might not
>> believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like Chad
>> Myers).
>
>...and Jan Johansen, or whatever his name is. And then there's
>Ubercat, who is bad because he almost never posts anything on-topic.
>You mostly hear things out of him like "You're an idiot!", and that's
>pretty much it (like he should be the one talking).
>
>> I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
>> like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
>> advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
>
>I would say Erik F., but at times he makes excuses for Microsoft
>intead of just admitting "well, OK, MS really shouldn't do things this
>way".
>
Well, let's don't forget another reason EF can't possibly be
nominated. He continual insistence he knows something about
FreeBSD when it's blatently obvious the man's never even
installed it.
At least with Ayende, he will openly admit that he questions
the GPL as it doesn't allow for people to copyright code
and steal it from the public. I have to give him credit
for being HONEST about his positions.
And I suppose EF could be honest also but stupidity keeps
infliciting damage upon everything he does.
I think we should probably give Wintroll of the year
to Jan as she/he/it is probably the most arrogant
annoying bitch of 2000-2001 year.
Her comments are so idiotic she rarely draws any kind
of crowd is is thus self policing. She doesn't even
attempt to emulate intelligence like EF does.
As far as emulating a real person, Ayende and Jan
are at complete opposite ends of a vaste universe
of humanity.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:30:56 GMT
Peter da Silva wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Peter da Silva wrote:
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Peter da Silva wrote:
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> > > > > > mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> > > > > > install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> > > > > > a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car?
>
> > > > > AOOOGAH AOOOOGAH! BAD ANALOGY WARNING! BAD ANALOGY WARNING!
>
> > > > Only for the too literal-minded. What manufactered commodity item would
> > > > make a better analogy, and why?
>
> > > A modular one, of course. Removing the transmission from a car is expensive,
> > > and they're unlikely to sell it to someone else. Software can be erased with
> > > a moment's work, and licenses are fungible.
>
> > Who said anything about _removing_ a transmission?
>
> I don't know any computer vendor outside of small screwdriver shops that
> take the JIT concept all the way to the shop floor.
>
> If you want a real-world analogy, then you have to pay attention to real-world
> issues.
Okay.
> > > Bass boat and outboard motor would be about right.
>
> > I don't think so. Sure, it's easy to format a hard drive and "remove"
> > the OS, but what does the dealer gain from it?
>
> A licensed copy of the OS.
How? Don't they pay M$ per copy they ship? If they don't ship it, they
dont have to pay M$ for it. (I know that wasn't always the case, but
that was then and this is now)
> Oh, Microsoft doesn't let you do that? Well, isn't that the point?
Umm, didn't Microsoft get nailed in the courts and have to stop that
practice some years ago, _before_ the "big" antitrust case?
> It's like buying a bass boat with the outboard motor welded on, and no option
> to install a bigger one, or one with a propellor cage because you go fishing
> in the Atchafalaya... except by buying an extra motor mount and sticking it
> next to the one that's already there.
AOOOGAH AOOOOGAH! BAD ANALOGY WARNING! BAD ANALOGY WARNING!
If my analogy was bad, this one is at least as bad -- if it's so easy
for the manufacturer/dealer to erase Windows, why can't you just erase
it and install BeOS/Linux/FreeBSD/Solaris/etc. and have the "motor" you
want? It's not like Windows is "welded on", is it? Nor are you forced to
dual-boot. And you could theoretically sell your copy of Windows as long
as all traces of it were erased off your machine, right? Finding a
willing customer might be a trick, though. :) Especially since the
effective end-price of Windows 95/98/Me is very low if you compare the
prices of a computer with Windows and building one yourself without
Windows. Certainly nothing like the shelf price of Windows.
Larry
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2001 00:40:21 +0100
drsquare wrote:
> Who the fuck puts postscript code in their sig?
A person with more intelligence than you.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Edwards)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:39:50 GMT
Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their mouths
told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote in <9fi4kp$70k$1
@news.ox.ac.uk>:
>>>>> OK, well GPL spiel aside - may I ask why you think why the Linux
>>>>> kernel is "completely" substandard ? In the interests of fairness I
>>>>> would like you to compare 2.4.x V Win2k, so we are on the same
>>>>> ground.
>>>>>
>>>>> May make for a more interesting thread :)
>>>>
>>>> That's easy. No central distribution point of development
>>>> (ala NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD), and therefore, a severe
>>>> variance in code quality.
>>>
>>>Everything that ends up in the Linux kernel goes through the kernel
>>>development team, that's as central as you get.
>>
>> I don't mean to pit free OS against free OS here, but I still find
>> Linux's development model to be rather undesirable.
>>
>> I know of no central core development team for the Linux kernel. AFAIK,
>> additions are often just added if other developers "like" them.
>
>Sure there is, headed by Linus, himself. Everything in the offical kernel
>goes through them.
I see. Then things have changed greatly since
I was a Linux us^H^H zealot. :-)
>> NetBSD has a core team, that verifies, and if need be, corrects the
>> code, to make sure that the kernel remains of a clean design. Have you
>> noticed how many arch's that NetBSD runs on? *grin*
>
>Linux does too (nearly as many).
Well, not really. Linux runs on about 26 arch's I think.
NetBSD runs on about 40 (never really sat down and counted).
I think that NetBSD demonstrates how much more flexible
and portable code can be, when it's done right. That
said, I can't say that I'm not somewhat impressed with
the diversity of hardware that Linux has found its way
onto.
Mind you, I realize that this doesn't really matter.
I'm sure Linux and NetBSD are equally useful. But
I don't have any second thoughts about placing my trust
in NetBSD, because one of its features is a very clean
design. In fact, it's so derned simple, you almost
forget that it's supposed to be "one-a them thar complex
UNIX-workalike boyhs". :-)
------------------------------
From: LShaping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:26:11 GMT
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ("wgaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>Computers process applications,
Computers process data.
>>be that word processing, photo editing, CAD,
>>etc. Communication is part of computing, be that email, sharing files, etc.
A communications program is an application.
>>Integrating telephony services with the computers makes sense for some
>>people.
Almost everyone in the United States has a telephone, but apartments
and houses do not come with a telephone preinstalled or the long
distance carrier already chosen.
>>The modular design allows the users to select which feature they
>>want to use.
But we were discussing Windows.
>>I fail to see how XP would destroy other businesses. If other
>>products are better than Microsoft's, then they will have no problems.
United States courts do not see it that way. I bet wgaf is not even
from the US. Seems like the only Microsoft defenders left are from
outside of the US.
>>Following your logic, then IP telephony shouldn't exist either. There should
>>be no reason to mix voice with data, right? After all, it might destroy
>>phone companies.
>That's a bad example.
Not for wgaf. It is about as pointed as anything else he has to say
(not very).
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:42:09 GMT
"spam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:28:08 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> No doubt IBM is to blame for alot of problems with OS/2 but the OS/2
> SDK was unbelievably expensive when it was a MS product. IBM did drop
> the SDK price long before Win95 was released.
Yes...to a price still more expensive than the Win32 SDK, which Microsoft
*gave away* to Windows 95 testers. IBM was *specifically* told about this
(by, among others, Dave Barnes), but Marketing not only didn't listen, but
dismissed Barnes' prescient and accurate warning that IBM had to seriously
get behind non-verticial application development.
The biggest market for OS/2 SDKs (in fact, for a long time, the *only*
market) was, by IBM's admitted design, the vertical application market
(proprietary applications designed for internal use by a business). That is
still the biggest single place where you find OS/2 today (automatic teller
machines and other bank apps).
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: Philip Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop. - Security issues.- competition -
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:53:52 GMT
What do you mean that I don't appreciate Linux I've been using it for 7
Years exclusively. That means I don't use anything else and few people know
the in's and outs of using Linux as I do. I don't even own a copy of
windows. But I do appreciate the fact that other OS's like mac os have
something to contribute. For instance the Mac's ease of use and high
quality security should be something that we as linux people should strive
for not just dismiss as gliter or hype. These are the things that make an
OS successful.
Andre G- wrote:
> Please be rational:
> rumors or assertions like MACOS is better or worse do not help anyone.
> Be as specific as possible, every one win.
> Clean facts ==> better competition.
>
> As far as I am concerned, the only desktop OS manual that I have ever read
> explaining security issues an holes, and also how to test it is SUSE
> Linux.
>
> For Linux / Unix there is also security test suite (called Satan) than you
> can use for free. Could you make a specific comparison with other OS'es?
>
> Even if you do not appreciate Linux, and do not use use it, you benefit
> largely from the Linux dynamic.
>
> Microsoft has to enhance its Windfows OS'es to be able to compete: Windows
> users get a better product... and so forth.
>
> BTW: Apple used a free OS kernel (MACH) for the base of theur new finally
> multitasking OS.
> AG-
>
> Philip Neves wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Don't forget security, of which the MacOS has none.
>>>>> >
>>>>> This must be the reason why there are thousands upon thousands
>>>>> of virii for the Mac.
>>>>
>>>> There probably aren't thousands of active ones, but the Mac
>>>> has virii.
>>>>
>>>> The reason it doesn't have as many is because it's a niche OS
>>>> and virus programmers go for the largest potential user base
>>>> for maximum effect. This is pretty elementary, perhaps you
>>>> should pay attention more.
>>>>
>>> Sure, there are Mac-virii.
>>> I should guess about 1 per 1000 win-virii.
>>> As there are about 1 per 10000 win-virii on the linux-side.
>>>
>>> Yeah, you shouldn´t forget security. One of MS´s biggest plus, I guesss.
>>> No one managed more. More virii, more trojan horses, more buffer
>>> overflows. MS for sure knows how to do security.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
>> The MacOS has the best security in the world. A group tested it in
>> England. If the person who posted that that OS has no security then he
>> doesn't know much about the MacOS. I'd put the MacOS's security up
>> against Linux any day of the week. It will even stand up to Free BSD's
>> securty. As for windows on the otherhand, well that company never has
>> concerned itself with something so small as security.
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Larry Elmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:59:36 GMT
Fred K Ollinger wrote:
>
> But windows isn't needed. Can you go to a car dealer and get no options? Yes,
> this is a more valid comparison. A car won't run w/o a transmission. It will
> run w/o windows.
Um, it needs _something_ if you want to see more than the POST...
> : sufficiently large market for cars without certain major systems,
> : certainly the manufacturers and dealers would offer some that way.
>
> Unless they signed a contract that said that they couldn't offer it or they
> would have to pay more for standard things like transmission.
I would say that that was their choice and they'd have to live with
that. If they lost customers, they'd change or go out of business. M$
hasn't been able to do that in a few years, though, has it?
> : Obviously, there simply isn't enough demand for computers without OS's.
> : Anybody wanting a computer without an OS can _build one from parts_!
>
> Not everyone who wants a computer w/ linux wants to install it. I'd take
> a computer w/ debian.
So find someone who sells it. Perhaps _I_ want Yellow Dog -- should I
expect to find it easily? If you want what is effectively a niche OS,
you're simply going to have to find a niche dealer, and it would be that
way whether Microsoft was in business or not. For PCs, I think it was
inevitable that _one_ OS would dominate the market and it needn't have
been M$. For that matter, I think the PC market will nearly always be
powerfully dominated by one and only one OS -- and I don't think it will
be Windows in 10 years. I sure as hell _hope_ not!!!
> : (anyone who can install a non-Windows OS can certainly build their own
> : system) How much money will you save by _not_ paying for Windows that
> : way? Not very much, if you price it out. Most people I know that build
> : their own systems pay _more_ for the box because they want known
> : high-quality components, not the unknown generics that are liable to
> : show up in a cheap pre-built box. You certainly wouldn't save
> : triple-digit amounts!!!
>
> I think they pay less _and_ get better components, actually.
Having been seriously weighing my options for a new computer up until I
had a car accident last month, I honestly don't think the savings are
that much. Especially not if you factor in the value of your time. If
you haven't noticed, PCs are a notoriously cut-throat, low-margin
commodity product and have been for a few years now.
Larry
> : And those of us who do not have children, are we stealing the planet
> : from other people's children? Or are they stealing it from us? :)
>
> Other people's children. But we're not stealing,
> we're borrowing.
>
> fred
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 23:59:39 GMT
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KYzP6.44881$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
> [snip- something I said that was kind of lame]
> > >> Daniel. It ain't a whole lot better now; MFC is still an industry
> joke,
> > >> but its an industry standard joke, by now. And BOY does it *SUCK*!
> > >
> > >MFC is not part of Windows, you know. You might
> > >try a different framework if you don't like it.
> >
> > []
> >
> > I honestly wish I could have responded to your statements, Daniel, but
> > they were just too stupid and too incredibly lame; I am at a loss for
> > words.
>
> Oh dear. You don't undersand how the toolchain
> works, huh?
>
> MFC is quite a limited thing. It's a bunch
> of C++ classes that are frankly kind of
> obsolete. MS can't abandon them completely
> because that would piss off developers.
>
> But it's purely a Visual C++ thing. And
> it's not the only C++ framework MS
> offers; there's also a simpler, cleaner one
> that is linked to ATL.
>
> And of course VB does not use MFC at
> all; only C++ programs can do so.
>
> J++, while it lasted, had its own
> framework too- WFC. That one
> was nice.
>
> And C# isn't going to use it either;
> it's going to have a new framework
> based on WFC, or so I hear.
>
> All this is possible because the real
> stable layer that goes between apps
> and the OS isn't any of these- it is the
> Win32 API, a rather simpler low level
> construct. MFC, WFC, all those TLAs
> are language-specific frameworks that
> are implemented in terms of it.
>
> They make life easier, but they aren't
> fundamental, and there are lots of them
> to chose from- even from Microsoft.
And WFC, like MFC before it, isn't even solely a Microsoft creation. In the
case of MFC, the other partner was (surprise) SYMANTEC (who made a pretty
decent compiler for C++ called Symantec C++; is it still available?). In
the case of WFC, the other partners include Sybase and (don't laugh!) IBM.
DB/2 Universal includes the WFC for creating native DB/2 databases for
Windows 2000 deployment; so does Sybase in the last two iterations of SQL
Server.
Microsoft could *not* have succeeded with Windows without the help of
application and development tool creators *other* than itself...and they
know it.
Application *and* development tool creators/vendors are what keep any OS in
business.
Linux Torvalds knows it. Bill Gates knows it. And you had better believe
IBM knows it.
Even the Justice Department knows it.
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
