Linux-Advocacy Digest #180, Volume #26 Tue, 18 Apr 00 10:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story) (Sitaram Chamarty)
Mandrake-Install Problem! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Have it your way ("Shock Boy")
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Joseph)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software? (Marty)
Re: .DLL not present in W2K, MICROSOFT GUILTY OF COVERUP! (Donald Heller)
Re: Another crosses the floor (Cybrinjn)
Re: Rumors ... (Se�n � Donnchadha)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sitaram Chamarty)
Subject: Re: Linux for ex-Windows users (long story)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:37:49 GMT
On 15 Apr 2000 10:07:29 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2000 10:37:51 GMT,
> Sitaram Chamarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>So Linux folks - be careful who you piss off :-) It takes a big
>>man to forget a real or perceived insult and accept the facts
>>instead of digging deeper and deeper into his foxhole!
>So true Sitram, by the same token, one who is afraid to make enemies, because
>of what he believes, cannot be true to himself.
Yes. However there's a nice big line between spreading the word
tactfully and gloating over every BSOD or Melissa :-)
--
...I gloat inside now :-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Mandrake-Install Problem!
Date: Tuesday, 18 Apr 2000 07:23:50 -0600
Hello,
I am having a problem installing Linux Mandrake 7.
When I install from linux4win, I get an error telling me that my memory moduale may be
no good, the exact syntax is: Kernal Panic, Dazed and confused but trying to continue.
VFS- Failure to mount root file system on 008:001
I get the same error if I install from DOS from CD or HD. If I install from a floppy,
everything is ok. BUT, after linux is fully installed and configured, the login menu
will come up for a minute, and then start flashing on and then off the screen in about
1 second intervals, and I cannot type anything.
I have been at it on and off for about 4 weeks. Can anyone offer some suggestions?
This is really bugging me. I have also tried 2 different versions of linux, mandrake
6.0 and red-hat 5, with the same results.
HELP PLEASE!!! I will try to check back at this news group, but I am very busy, so
PLEASE e-mail me instead if you can...
Thank You, Bob S.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:07 GMT
"C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <FGoK4.2405$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shock Boy"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As with many features.. a simple minded user can not even comrehend why
a
> > feature may be even remotely useful, until he learns from experience.
For
> > example, I once thought the 'scroll mouse' to be silly.. now I know it's
an
> > invaluable tool.
>
> So you're saying you're a simple-minded user? ;)
In regards to when I was using an Apple and bought the party line of the
one-button mouse, yes. I was simple minded in the requirements and benefits
of user-input devices.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:08 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And I think Apple should remove the "Mac" in front of OS X. It *isn't* a
> > Mac OS; it's something completely different.
>
> How about "Next"? :)
Already seen a T-shirt.
"Are your ready for the NeXTMac?"
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:08 GMT
"Mayor Of R'lyeh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 14:49:54 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (C Lund) chose to bless us with this bit of wisdom:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mayor
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> >Well, it sounds like more work to me than adjusting an
> >> >application's memory partition size *once*. And we know
> >> >Wintrolls consider that to be an undesirably complicated task.
> >
> >> I haven't seen anyone say that. What I have seen is people
> >> pointing out that having to perform that task at all flies in
> >> the face of all of the ease of use claims.
> >
> >"People" generally being Wintrolls who find that to be an undesirably
> >complicated task...
>
> I haven't yet met a Windows user who thinks its at all complicated.
> But doesn't it seem odd to you that an OS whose main purpose was to
> shield users from having to figure out settings expects them to know
> about memory management?
I can understand some memory-tool if you really want to tweak the memory for
that last 1% of performance gain. But I agree with the above.. why claim to
be simple when you make the simpliest of things difficult?
Hell, most users probably do not even know they can change the memory
allocation, or even what memory allocation *IS*!
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:09 GMT
"Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:p4sK4.43267$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Steve Ballantyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <BGoK4.2400$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shock
> > Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Ah, so Apple is the reason that Linux, AIX, Solaris, HPUnix, and
others
> > > all
> > > exist?
> > >
> > > How um.. niave.
> > >
> >
> > I don't normally bother to point out spelling errors, but I'm compelled
> > to observe that when they occur as the last word of a snappy-comeback
> > type post, and particularly when that comeback is accusing the previous
> > poster of naivety... O Shock Boy -- you look such an idiot...
> >
> > Har har har har har (cruel laughter fading into the distance)
>
> All this because "Shock Boy" hit the 'i' key before the 'a' key. I doubt
> this is a rare occurance in this NG.
The funny thing is.. i'm the first to admit that my typing is horrible.. and
I do not even worry about checking the spelling, grammar etc. I tend to to
skim a whole lot of newsgroups.. and I simply don't care to take the time to
proof read it. hence, evertything is a stream of consciousness.
That said, picking "i" before "a" instead of "ai" is a pretty asinine
spelling slam. If you are going to slam someone's spelling, pick a target
that you know is not due to typing errors!
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:10 GMT
There are plenty of applications which can be rendering/spooling to print
while enabling the computer to still function. A typical render time in
Solidworks for us takes from around a few minutes to a half hour. It is a
blessing to be able to continue to work on other documents, instead of
sitting there doing nothing. You can even still continue to work with
Solidworks on another model.
Another example, on a long experiment ( which may last for days ).. it's
very useful to be able to periodically print out a data-synopsis from
Labview.. if Labview were to have to stop for us to print out the real-time
results.. it'll would cause problems in the aquisition timing!
note: I am not discussing when the program has finished spooling to the
print-queue and is simply spolling to the actual printer.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:11 GMT
"Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SvqK4.43209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "C Lund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <ZcnK4.42715$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ...
> > > But this application centric. Do you really
> > > prefer the application centric model?
> >
> > You've made some wrong assumptions, so this question doesn't apply.
>
> I've made the correct assumption, but give full marks for effectively
> evading it though. ;-)
>
> So to clarify, do you switch between applications or documents on the Mac?
> This doesn't mean, can you select the application and then the document
from
> within the application, but rather with a single mouse click can you
select
> one of a handful of documents that you are currently editing. In essence,
> does the Mac focus on applications running, and the documents they
contain,
> or on the documents.
That depends on the individual circumstances. If you only have one
application open, then you can use a single
mouse click to select the documents within that application. If you have
multiple applications open, you must first
select the application, then the document.
Personally, I prefer to be able to see all open documents and select on one
directly. The application is merely a tool to work on the document. Not the
other way around.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:11 GMT
"Steve Ballantyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <BGoK4.2400$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Shock
> Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Ah, so Apple is the reason that Linux, AIX, Solaris, HPUnix, and others
> > all
> > exist?
> >
> > How um.. niave.
> >
>
> I don't normally bother to point out spelling errors, but I'm compelled
> to observe that when they occur as the last word of a snappy-comeback
> type post, and particularly when that comeback is accusing the previous
> poster of naivety... O Shock Boy -- you look such an idiot...
>
> Har har har har har (cruel laughter fading into the distance)
Hey, I have never claimed to be a simple secretary. "Niave" is generally
considered a typing error as it is a simple reversal of characters. Kind of
like "teh" and "ti" for "the" and "it". In any event, please try to avoid
using run-on setences if you are that desperate to point out
spelling/grammar error's.
I take it you agree that the previous statement was wrong? Obviously, Apple
is not the sole reason that alternatives to MS OS's exist.
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:12 GMT
"Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I should point out that multiple instances wouldn't help here on the
> Mac, because most Mac printer drivers won't let you switch to *anything*
> else, whether another app or another instance of the same app, while
> they are writing the spool file.
Yes, no matter how well an application is written, it can not overcome
sloppy programming in the operating system.
Hell, I remember that I'ld start the print job.. then go out for lunch..
and hopefully when I get back, I could actually use my mac!
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Have it your way
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:45:24 GMT
"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Windows gives you a choice...
>
> Yeah, come to Microsoft World, land of many choices! Where you
> can have it our way, or the highway!
Well, MS gives me more options that I find useful than Apple does. Now,
maybe Apple gives more "total" number of options, maybe they don't. But MS
gives me the options that I require, and so, that is what I use.
Remember, it was the deficiencies on the part of APple that made me stop
using the Mac exclusively.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 05:49:37 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Karel Jansens wrote:
>
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Joseph wrote:
> > >
>
> > >
> > > I haven't seen any article saying any MS empolyee was fired in
> > > conjunction with the "weenie" bug.
> >
> > That was my assumption from what was written in a URL that you posted:
> >
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1696137.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.1003-200-1696137?st.ne.fd.gif.c
> >
> > 'Software code enabling the back door includes the phrase "Netscape engineers
> > are weenies!" The Microsoft spokeswoman made it clear the engineers' action is
> > a firing offense. "It's absolutely against Microsoft policy, and Microsoft is
> > looking into it seriously," she said.'
>
> Yeah. With their track record, probably to find out how to get away
> with it next time.
No one has been fired.
I'd query the QA team. This "feature" should have been detected.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000 or server software?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:05:09 GMT
Joseph wrote:
>
> Karel Jansens wrote:
> >
> > Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > I haven't seen any article saying any MS empolyee was fired in
> > > > conjunction with the "weenie" bug.
> > >
> > > That was my assumption from what was written in a URL that you posted:
> > >
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1696137.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.1003-200-1696137?st.ne.fd.gif.c
> > >
> > > 'Software code enabling the back door includes the phrase "Netscape engineers
> > > are weenies!" The Microsoft spokeswoman made it clear the engineers' action is
> > > a firing offense. "It's absolutely against Microsoft policy, and Microsoft is
> > > looking into it seriously," she said.'
> >
> > Yeah. With their track record, probably to find out how to get away
> > with it next time.
>
> No one has been fired.
How are you certain?
------------------------------
From: Donald Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: .DLL not present in W2K, MICROSOFT GUILTY OF COVERUP!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:16:57 -0700
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/fq00-025.asp
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> This is the Chad from a short few messages ago.
>
> >Subject:
> > Re: MICROSOFT IT THRU! MICROSOFT IS THRU!
> > Date:
> > Sat, 15 Apr 2000 21:57:44 GMT
> > From:
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Organization:
> > Road Runner - Texas
> > Newsgroups:
> > comp.os.linux.development.system, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,
> > comp.os.linux.networking, comp.os.linux.security,
> > comp.os.ms-windows.networking.tcp-ip, alt.conspiracy.area51
> > References:
> > 1 , 2
>
> >You know the funny thing about this post is that there is no back door,
> >and it's been proven by several parties and reported from several reliable
> >news sources. I expect you'll see a retraction by WSJ monday if it hasn't
> >happened
> >already.
>
> ><sigh>
>
> >I have a feeling this is going to be one of those topics that the ignorant
> >zealotous anti-MS morons (such as Charlie here) will continue to bring up over
> >and over and over again, even though it's been proven false.
>
> >Kinda like the Kerberos thing, or the _NSAKEY thing, or any number of other
> >BS topics.
>
> >Oh well..
>
> >-Chad
>
> Yes, Oh well Chad.
> And this was before we got a chance to communicate with him.
> He hasn't even heard the first arguement.
>
> And now he writes.
>
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Since the .dll in question was not found in Windows 2000 release, then
> > Microsoft
> > > was
> > > aware of .dll and took it out of release. Appearently Microsoft just FORGOT
> > to
> > > warn us and the rest of the world about their ILLEGAL BACKDOOR.
> >
> > Charlie, it's one thing to be an idiot, but a completely different thing to
> > outright
> > blatantly lie.
> >
> > How many times do I have to say this? THERE IS NO BACKDOOR! It's been proven and
> > verified by many sources. Why can't you accept the facts?
> >
> > > This makes them guilty of a consipiracy against Netscape Corporation as
> >
> > How was it a conspiracy against netscape?
> >
> > [SNIP More ignorant babble and flat out lies and falsehoods]
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Well Chad. As the press release indicates, Microsoft used this Illegal .DLL to
> FUD over
> thousands of Netscape Server sites running on Microsoft Operating Systems.
>
> BTW, there has been NO retraction of ANY of this since your started creating these
> pantloads of logic Chad.
>
> If I were to ask 1000 NT server administrators what permissions they've set on
> their NT boxes
> they would tell me NONE. It's assumed by most sys administration folks that
> Microsoft will
> at least take the TIME to burn them a CD for a default/safe install to begin with!
>
> As far as the password "NETSCAPEENGINEERSAREWEENIES" are concerned, I'm going
> to take it that you TOTALLY DENY THIS PHRASE "NETSCAPEENGINEERSAREWEENIES"
> ever appeared in any Microsoft code then! Is that correct Chad. Will you
> DENY this for everybody.
>
> Don't give me any more of your silly bullshit. Just DENY it was ever there!
>
> Shit Chad. I've been writing WIN API since before you were probably born. 20
> years experience
> including mainframe time. You, your a GD systems administrator for Road Runner
> Cable it looks like.
> What the shit do you know about writing software?
>
> This .DLL didn't have any function within the system what so ever. It was never
> intended to be
> seen by NON-MICROSOFT Eye's. This .dll had but only ONE function. IT's function
> was to allow
> them to disrupt service on the OS.
>
> There will be a retro-binary examination made on all CD runs they find this .dll
> on. There will be
> several compiled versions back across time. A different date and time will be
> noted for this .dll
> across several CD's and the impact of service packs will also be accounted.
>
> As the FUNCTION of this .dll was never clearly defined by Microsoft, it's function
> is obviously secret.
> All they can say is delete the .dll or as Chad has suggested, change permissions on
> the thing and
> turn it into another DISK WASTIN PEICE OF SHIT.... That's effectively the same as
> deleting it
> though, no matter how he put's it. You can effectively change the permissions on a
> file so that it's
> not executable or writable or readable anymore thus turning it into BAD PACK SPACE.
>
> I can't believe this was your suggestion dumbshit. How many people do you actually
> think will
> take such stupid advice Chad.
>
> Chad, why don't you just hang it up here. Your just another dumbass Microsoft
> systems administrator
> or worse. You don't have a clue what your talking about and your likely never
> going to.
>
> You've never written a peice of software in your life and I doubt you actually know
> what the function
> of a .dll is in an operating system.
>
> Why don't we try something simple. Tell me what a .dll stands for.
>
> Next go tell me how setting a privilage on a .dll will make it all right! Get it
> you fucking idiot!
>
> That's right, nobody can execute a .dll on their own son! It's called by a parent
> program!
>
> OH Chad, I guess your forgot that. So now you look like a double dumbass in the
> respect that
> your telling people to set privilages on files which only OTHER executables CAN
> launch and if
> another EXECUTABLE tried to launch it guess what you would have next!
>
> It's a BIG BLUE SCREEN with lots of hexadecimal figures on it!
>
> Now go back to your TROLL HOLE and quite putting ROAD RUNNER CABLES
> commercial VENUE all over every message you send out the door!
>
> Don't come back until you've grown some brains son!
>
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cybrinjn)
Subject: Re: Another crosses the floor
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:13:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Your post reminds me of a psych class scenario:
A group of year-olds (crawlers) are corraled behind various barriers. The
barriers separate them from their moms and snacks, etc. The reactions were
different:
-- Some tried to get out, found themselves blocked, sat and stared or went
back to what they were doing.
-- Still others got frustrated and began to cry.
-- One little boy crawled around and pushed and shook every barrier until
one fell over.
Even when the barrier was breached, most stayed in the corral.
If you push something hard enough, it Will fall over.
-- Firesign Theater
Congrats. You win.
Paul
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 03:10:57 GMT, David S. Hamilton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I made the switch to Linux from windoze about four months ago. I'm a
>tradesman and work with my hands and a hard hat on all day. But at
>night, I come home and sit at the monitor and delight in the
>fascinating features in Mandrake 7.0.
>
>I'd like to call my self a hobby programmer but at this stage even
>that's stretching it a bit. I nearly got hooked into VB as it was time
>to progress to something a bit more challenging having been fooling
>around computers a few years now. I just assumed since VB is the big
>hype these days I'd buy some books and see how far I could get.
>
>Thank fate I bought a 'publishers edition' of Red Hat to start with
>(version 6.0) instead, just out of curiosity and the whole wide world
>of Linux and the open source community opened up to me.
>
>I've since downloaded Mandrake 7.0 and have never looked back. Still
>have win98 on a five gig partition but Mandrake is the OS I use all
>the time now. It spans 30gig over two drives. I had to use winblows a
>couple of times to get on the net for help when I pulled the
>ritualistic newbie botch hose.
>
>I was impressed right away with the eight desktops and massive
>amount of software in the distro. How it didn't need rebooting all the
>time so I could leave it up 7/24 and come back to the same environment
>I left off with the day before. Great when you're learning.
>
>At first it was tough as I'd never seen anything remotely UNIX
>before. Persistence and patience paid off. One by one I started solving
>little glitches and discovering the vast power and configure-ability of
>Linux. I bought 'learning GNU emacs' by O'Reilly and consider xemacs a
>staple in my software arsenal.
>
>My advice to newbies is read, be patient and then read more. Once you
>start getting it, the time investment pays off for ever more and Linux
>totally rocks way beyond winlame. Now I'm getting into Python and
>Shell Programming.
>
>I hear good things are coming down the pipe with kernel 2.4. Can't
>wait! Linux Rules!
>
>Dave Hamilton.
------------------------------
From: Se�n � Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 09:40:04 -0400
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I think the keyword here is "viably". At the time that the trial
>deals with, what percentage of OEM preloads for desktops were
>non-MS operating systems? Less than one or two percent would be
>my _guess_. While technically they were shipping non-MS
>products, it is a arguably an insignificant number - ie the
>competition is not a "viable" alternative to MS.
>
Another keyword here (phrase, actually :) is "in the foreseeable
future". It would seem that because things are so different now from
when the trial started (less than two years ago), everything said then
about "the foreseeable future" doesn't hold much water.
>
>Servers don't matter since the FOF deal with MS Windows on
>desktops, not servers.
>
Forget servers. Check www.pricewatch.com. There are lots of (smaller)
vendors selling Linux boxes. This shows that not providing Windows is
no longer unthinkable for an OEM. The tide has turned; the market
changed all by itself, and I think this goes a long way toward
demonstrating that the monopoly claim is on extremely shaky ground.
>
>IIRC, plenty of other evidence showed that their primary purpose
>in integrating IE was to destroy netscape and maintain
>an "applications barrier to entry".
>
How does a built-in browser enhance the "applications barrier to
entry"? Besides, even if the idea to bundle IE rose out of the desire
to crush a competitor, I think it's par for the course if it ends up
benefitting the user, which I think it does (see next comment).
>
>Please note
>that "integrating internet functionality" into the os
>and "integrating IE" into the os are two different things. The
>judge ruled that the latter was an illegal abuse of monopoly,
>not the former.
>
Well, the judge's ruling simply makes no sense. When Microsoft first
"integrated internet functionality" (bundled an IP stack and related
utilities), many more than one company got screwed. FTP, NetManage,
Frontier, etc. - they were all were in the stack business and got
their livelihoods taken away when Win95 hit the scene. Nobody seemed
to complain back then, and for good reason - when a given software
function becomes indispensable, then it makes perfect sense to have it
included with the basic software that's preinstalled on a PC. Why
should the Netscape situation have been any different?
>
><opinion>IE has plenty of functions that IMO are not necessary
>for an html help system. MS could easily have integrated a small
>browser program for help and the such and sold or given away IE
>as a brogram for browsing the net. It seems to me that this is
>what the judge had in mind when he listed the ways that an
>integrated IE hurt consumers. If I never use the web, all that
>extra code - which is always present because it is also used for
>non-internet functions that I do use - is just a waste of
>resources that makes my system less stable. KDE is a good
>example - they file manager has basic browser capabilities but
>is not meant to be most people's main web-browser. MS could
>easily have done this and perhaps avoided this whole
>mess.</opinion>
>
I disagree. Because of the way Microsoft redesigned the shell, if you
never use the Web, then you're pretty much using the Explorer code as
it was before the integration. Sure, there's unused IE code sitting
around on your disk, but the same can be said of lots of other code.
For example, when was the last time you used RAMDRIVE.SYS? You can't
always get what you want, and that brings up the real issue. Even if
*YOU* don't use the Web, like it or not, the Web has become the #1
reason why regular folks buy PCs. Every OS in existence now bundles a
Web browser. Why should Microsoft not be allowed to do the same?
Monopoly or not, in the year 2000 an OS without a browser is DOA.
>
>If they were planning internet capabilities so eary on, why were
>they caught so offguard by Netscape?
>
This is documented in _Barbarians_Led_By_Bill_Gates_. Netscape and the
Internet caught Microsoft offguard because they underestimated the
potential of what they internally called (quite derogatively) "low
bandwidth". Given the typical dial-up Internet experience, I'd say
they were right. But it took off anyway.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
