Linux-Advocacy Digest #423, Volume #25 Mon, 28 Feb 00 05:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Klaus-Georg Adams)
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Jaro Larnos)
Re: IE on UNIX (George Marengo)
Re: IE on UNIX ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? ("Jeffrey B. Siegal")
Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid?? (Jaro Larnos)
Re: IE on UNIX (George Marengo)
Re: This is C.O.L.A here right? ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Windows users are pirates (was: UCITA) (Jaro Larnos)
Re: Recent denial of service attacks (Jaro Larnos)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Klaus-Georg Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 28 Feb 2000 08:23:10 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> It's more than that. Have you ever run a mail server? The volume of mail
> recieved for a medium sized company can put a modest server under heavy
> stress. And that's not even generating dynamic content and dealing with the
> massive number of hits the web servers get.
Speaking of which:
the biggest mailserver in Europe (t-online.de) is running on Linux.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:52:54 -0600
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Remember Win32s?
> >
> > What about it? It didn't work particularly well.
>
> It shows that Win32 was in Windows 3.1; they didn't *need* to release
> Windows 95 in order to facilitate it.
Win32s was a tiny subset of Win32. It supported only a fraction of what
Win95 did.
> > Then explain the existance of WDM, if not to get hardware vendors
writing
> > drivers that will work in NT?
>
> They were already doing that anyway. 99% of the drivers available for
> Windows 95 were also available for NT...(discounting USB, for obvious
> reasons).
99%? What world do you live in? I would rate it more like 40%, and then
mostly video, network and storage drivers. How many Video Capture cards
work in NT? only a handful. How many Winmodems? How many Windows
Printers/scanners? How many TV Tuner cards? How many Sound cards?
And with the exception of Network and storage drivers, most of the NT
drivers lacked a great deal of functionality that their windows 9x
counterparts had if they existed at all.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:59:33 -0600
Bob Lyday <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Exactly! I don't hate Microcrap for treating customers like crap.
> gouging them and making crappy. worthless junk products, or for being
> successful. I feel the market will take care of lousy products, rip-off
> pricing and shoddy support. There is no law against producing junk and
> then overcharging for it. Neither should anyone be faulted for
> success. My whole beef against Microslime is that it is a gang of
> criminals who has broken the antitrust laws. Kind of like the Crips and
> the Bloods in 3-piece suits...
Do you have any concept of the difference between criminal and civil
violations?
Apparently not. Antitrust law is civil law, and not criminal law.
> And Lose 2000 is not so good. I know 3 people who tried it: with one,
> it blue-screened every morning when he woke up, with the other one, it
> was blue-screening 3 times a day without even being used (!) (Guess it
> was trying to get attention! LOL!), and with the other it was
> completely locking up once an hour. I know several people who put it on
> for a couple of days to a couple of weeks then got so sick of it they
> took it off. This is some kind of Unix-killing, STABLE (?)
> revolutionary new product?
Well, I just happen to now 25 people that couldn't get Linux to install, and
another 47 people that got kernel panics every 3.2 minutes. Not to mention
another 48 people that had X lockup overy other minute.
See, my statistics hold just as much weight as yours.
------------------------------
From: Jaro Larnos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:01:03 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > No, they build what people think they "need". They're more
> > comparable to a crack pusher than a reputable corporation.
> > They muscle competition and actively work to make it more
> > difficult for users to choose freely whether or not to use
> > MS product or not.
>
> What is the difference between what people want, and what they think they
> "need"? Same thing, is it not? Then how do you say "No"?
They mean pretty much the same. Neither of those are really
certain by deeds. When I truely need something I go and look
for it. I don't want to settle with the easiest solution which I
prefer not even easy meaning I have to somehow get the money
for the "easiest" solution. What do "want" and "think that is
needed" have really in common is that these aren't really what
someone needs. "I think I need a DVD-Ram" is fairly comparable
to if someone says "I want a DVD-Ram", these mean pretty much
the same. If someone says "I need a DVD-Ram" it means he has
actually something he needs it for. Normally we'd only have use
for DVD-Rom so there is really no need to pay excess dough
for something we really do not need until it's reached a decent
level of price, reliability and that it's accepted as a standard
medium of choice for even normal people.
> > >Any engineer that doesn't listen to customer feedback isn't an engineer
> > >worth much.
> >
> > That has nothing to do with quality: The Quintisential
> > Lemming Circular Argument...
>
> Again, it matters little if you build a quality product if nobody buys it.
But disappointment with a products quality can turn in to rejection
towards the developer no matter how fancy the product could be.
-J
--
:---] Jaro Larnos -- Technical Assistant [---:
[email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[ ~ tel: +358-9-35086019 ~ +358-50-5226592 ~ ]
:--------------------------------------------:
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:06:54 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:52:54 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<snip>
>> They were already doing that anyway. 99% of the drivers available for
>> Windows 95 were also available for NT...(discounting USB, for obvious
>> reasons).
>
>99%? What world do you live in? I would rate it more like 40%, and then
>mostly video, network and storage drivers. How many Video Capture cards
>work in NT? only a handful. How many Winmodems? How many Windows
>Printers/scanners? How many TV Tuner cards? How many Sound cards?
I don't know that much about Win2K, especially the new driver model.
Is Win2K able to use Windows95/98 drivers? Is that what WDM refers to?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:24:01 -0600
George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:52:54 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> <snip>
> >> They were already doing that anyway. 99% of the drivers available for
> >> Windows 95 were also available for NT...(discounting USB, for obvious
> >> reasons).
> >
> >99%? What world do you live in? I would rate it more like 40%, and then
> >mostly video, network and storage drivers. How many Video Capture cards
> >work in NT? only a handful. How many Winmodems? How many Windows
> >Printers/scanners? How many TV Tuner cards? How many Sound cards?
>
> I don't know that much about Win2K, especially the new driver model.
> Is Win2K able to use Windows95/98 drivers? Is that what WDM refers to?
WDM is "Windows Driver Model". This is a new driver model that was
introduced into both Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (not compatible with
Windows 95). It allows driers to be targeted at both OS's without rewriting
code.
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:27:55 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> Their P/E has gone up based on this, but their earnings have been the
> same all along.
Oops. You stepped in it this time. I happen to have these data available at
my fingertips. I generally don't like to get baited into doing people's
homework for them, but in this case it was just too easy.
Consistent? Let's take a look at Corel's earnings, without further comment
(for now at least):
1992: $0.26
1993: $0.49
1994: $0.67
1995: $0.29
1996: ($0.05) [parenthesized figures are losses]
1997: ($3.84)
1998: ($0.51)
1999: $0.18 (first three quarters)
> Well it seems that they plan to make their money off the Linux market
> precisely by using the "proprietary software model". I don't see anything
> about Corel making Word Perfect "co-source".
Whether or not they do make money off Linux remains to be seen. The vast
majority of the "sales" of WordPerfect for Linux so far have been free (either
downloads, bundles or retail sales with a rebate equal to the purchase price.
> What the success of Corel's stock says is that the market believes that Linux
> will grow, and Corel, who sell proprietary software, have a business model
> that can turn growth of the Linux market into profits.
Hardly. Corel's stock price parallels Red Hat, VA, Andover, and every other
company with some claimed tie to Linux, whether or not they have any model
based on proprietary software. Rightly or wrongly, the market is excited
about Linux.
> Co-source would seem to dictate that software must succeed overnight
> or not at all.
Hardly. I wasn't clear on this, but cosource is based on the idea of a
package receiving *sufficient* support from advance sponsorship, not all of
its support. Users who use a package and feel the developer should be
compensated are still free to voluntarily support the developer after the
fact. The level of advance sponsorship received is used as an indicator of
the level interest which the developer and sponsor use decide whether it is
worth pursuing the project and/or releasing the package. What level is
sufficient is up to the developer and/or investors and will clearly vary. As
I suggested earlier, new and unproven products and new developers would likely
require less up front support.
> Whatever. We've seen that the more widespread the use of an application is,
> the more success an OpenSource project enjoys. The result is that OpenSource
> operating systems, and core utilities have done well. Other things like music
> software projects have been orphaned -- they come and go.
The widespread use of open source technologies for mass market desktop
computing is in its infancy. Anything more that can be said at this point is
simply speculatative.
------------------------------
From: "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 00:32:26 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > > But they don't have to share it with us. They'd be within their rights
> > > to just shut the mall down.
> >
> > Absolutely. Just as software developers would be within their rights to stop
> > developing software.
>
> Well, there's the answer. Let's just have everyone stop developing software
> except for OpenSource software. Then we can all use LaTeX and Emacs.
Are you really this silly?
I could have just as easily said, in response to your original comment quoted
above, that we should close down all the malls and people can just grown their
own food and sew their own clothes.
When logical debate disappears and you start responding with glib answers that
don't make any sense, I think that suggests something. Conclusion left to the
reader.
------------------------------
From: Jaro Larnos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bundling inherently unfair to consumers - R people in here stupid??
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:37:51 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> > Oh I see, MS doesn't have to actually ay their programmers working on
> > IE--they just volunteer.
>
> oh I see, Redhat doesn't have to actually pay any programmers working on
> Linux -- they just volunteer.
Linux is almost fully based on voluntarity, speaks for itself doesn't it?
Windows isn't.
It's clear to see RedHat pays for the people working there whether
they code or just design things. The money is made of distribution
media such as CD's and books. You just can't get the grasp of it
can you? No they don't pay for Linux coders other than their own
and I believe that's all there is to it. Those who code to Linux are
not actually totally penniless, they usually work too, or perhaps
they study but they do make some sort of a living because we
couldn't see much of Linux either if they wouldn't.
> See the silliness?
Yes, I see the sillyness on MS-part of the question, MS-workers
are paid employees, they do get paid. As to what they get paid
for is another question. If they code IE, they still get paid for it
no matter how MS tries to imply it's free. Somehow the users
of it still get to pay for it, in a form or another.
> However, no, MS does actually pay IE programmers, rather nicely including
> stock options, however, MS CHOSE to give IE away, just as Netscape gave away
> it's browser to get it going, just as Redhat choses to let people use their
> bandwidth and bundling efforts when downloading linux for free. It IS
> possible to get something for free - what strains your brain to think of
> that?
Yes, it's possible to get something for free, but If I have to pay
$xx that I can use the "free" product I consider it not free. These
add-ons are called subsidiary products. They do have a value
and that's somehow hidden in the other costs of the actual product
which in this case is Windows plus of course every other MS
product you can see on the market.
I agree that if we follow the same analogy it results Linux not
beeing totally free either, it's just excessively cheap:) This
counts for BeOS and FreeBSD too.
-J
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:49:10 GMT
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:24:01 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
<snip>
>> I don't know that much about Win2K, especially the new driver model.
>> Is Win2K able to use Windows95/98 drivers? Is that what WDM refers to?
>
>WDM is "Windows Driver Model". This is a new driver model that was
>introduced into both Windows 2000 and Windows 98 (not compatible with
>Windows 95). It allows driers to be targeted at both OS's without rewriting
>code.
So if my question is:
Is Win2K able to use Win98 drivers?
What's the answer?
On web sites I still see drivers that say Windows95/98 or
WindowsNT (I use NT) -- but your answer seems to indicate
that if a driver works in 98 it should also work for Win2K.
I'm considering moving to Win2K simply because of the
lack of USB support in NT, but the hardware requirements
have me thinking that my current dual-boot 98/NT setup
is a better solution, especially since the driver issue seems
to indicate that I would still need Windows2K drivers.
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This is C.O.L.A here right?
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 13:22:29 +0400
Mark S. Bilk wrote:
> You might try asking in alt.os.linux.mandrake .
Thanks Mark.
------------------------------
From: Jaro Larnos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows users are pirates (was: UCITA)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:27:42 GMT
John Jensen wrote:
> Looking back at my point a day later, I don't think that I properly
> descended to the Wintroll level. What they typically say, is that they
> met a Linux user who said such and such, therefore all Linux users are the
Yes I get a feeling sometimes that someone sees me as some
kind of a communist-hippie type of person who sings Imagine
and 8 Miles High, smokes pot and wears a peace sign. There's
been those who think I worship the guy who invented Linux, or
that he's a leader of a communist group called Linvocates. These
Linvocates are all long haired pot smoking hippie-coders driving
VW-beetles and writing "crappy" code. And yet the truth is so
far from that it sometimes make me sick even.
Many of the people I know using Linux and/or choosing Linux
are working nowadays, getting decent salary go to the barbers
for a haircut, do not smoke pot nor drive VW-beetles. We
surely are not hippies, actually some Linux users are really
far from being hippies, they seem like some kinds of neo-yuppies
today. But the majority, as I like to count me in, holds mostly
us normal types of guys and girls who enjoy life and live it
happily with all those normal cash-flow problems and such
that make our everyday-lives worth or not worth living. We
are quite pleased with our success at work. Nor do we have
extra expences resulting from software buys like OS'es or
other programs. The Internet has became relatively cheap
and it makes it possible for us to exchange knowledge and
programs to and for over the net.
So I must conclude these stereotypes might sound funny
to some, but there are people that can consider them
offensive. I for one don't like being called a communist
for which there is no credit for after all. I do admit I am
to some extent an idealist and revolutionalist but it doesn't
give anyone an excuse to say I am something I'm not.
> same. By that Wintroll logic, the fact that I've met people who advocate
> Windows while stealing their copies makes all Windows advocates a bunch of
> hypocritical thieves ... but, as I say, I can't quite sink that low.
I couldn't agree more, I've yet to see someone who actually
pays for his/hers Windows-based "homeapplications".
> But the piracy angle is interesting. Based on a quick web scan(*), it
> looks like the global software piracy rate is running somewhere around
> %38. A little quick, rough, math ... with Windows usage at 90% (a
> conservative estimate) and a rough assumption that Windows piracy will
> match the general rate, 0.38 x 90% = 34%. Thirty four percent of the
> market is comprised with pirated Windows!!!
Pretty much:) I'm glad I'm not one of those 34% because I use
100% Linux at home.
> What are Windows advocates doing worrying about Linux! With a market
> share of somewhere around 1% it is a far smaller problem (I would think)
> than Windows piracy. Even if I'm off by 100%, and Windows piracy is only
> at %17, it is still seventeen times more common than Linux usage.
Software prizes do encourage piracy..
> And while you're at it, get a life.
Life is free, the ones who make it expensive are the ones
to suffer from it.
I have a life, and I like it. :)
-J
------------------------------
From: Jaro Larnos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.networking
Subject: Re: Recent denial of service attacks
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:49:57 GMT
Arjan Drieman wrote:
> So? Then they find a bunch of cracked and abused servers. They might
> have (and probably have) used ip spoofing to signal the daemons on the
> cracked servers, those daemons itself do not need to use ip spoofing
> for the actual attacks.
One question.. How many people have gotten this hacker
- cracker thing wrong?
I'm serious, someone did actually mess these two words
and their meaning pretty well because I nowadays only
here of crackers, not hackers and this is quite poor.
A Cracker was and might be that one still is or those
are, the people who disable copy protections on
software and then distribute those through software
pirates.
A Hacker, is the one who penetrates a computer
system's login or some other way makes it through
to the hacked system's shell to execute commands
in. A hacker can also "hack" into databases and
terminalservers, routers etc. etc.
One doesn't "crack" a server, but hacks it. Where
have people gone this wrong??? I know the media
loves the word "cracker" with not really even knowing
what it means.
Every time something happens on Internet, it's a
"cracker" which it really isn't.
There are two types of hackers, the ones who don't
and the ones who do. If one has the knowledge to
do so whether to hack into or even exploit a server
he becomes a hacker it doesn't make him/her a
criminal unless (s)he uses this knowledge to really
attack and disable a server, or even a connected
PC. Nevertheless neither of these is a cracker.
You don't crack into systems, you crack a code.
A hacker and a cracker can co-operate, while the
other one hacks into system's the other one cracks
for instance the userbase crypta. This still doesn't
make both of these people crackers.
-J
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
