Linux-Advocacy Digest #185, Volume #26 Thu, 20 Apr 00 06:14:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates ("John W. Stevens")
Windows2000 sale success.. (J@M)
Not sure I understand..Help.. (JoeX1029)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (WickedDyno)
Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (News-Only)
Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000? (sandrews)
Re: Not sure I understand..Help.. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Rumors ... ("billwg")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Rich C")
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates ("John W. Stevens")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:43:10 -0600
"Se�n � Donnchadha" wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Nonsense. Fast, stable VMS, pre-emptive multi-tasking, mult-user
> >support, security. . . these are not irrelevant.
> >
>
> These features are most certainly irrelevant - to Mac users - if they
> can't all be accessed through a familiar, well-designed Mac interface,
IOW, these features are relevant.
> which is as far away from Unix as you can get.
Wrong. You've never seen OpenStep, have you?
> No self-respecting Mac
> user would be caught dead typing "awk" into a command line and you
> know it.
All you are doing is illustrating your ignorance. There are other ways
of interacting with a Unix box than through a command line.
> Besides, half the things you listed - multi-user support and
> security - are of no concern to today's Mac user.
Wrong again. Most knowledgable Mac users in a multi-user environment
already use some kind of per-user configuration switcher.
As for security . . . you'd better believe it's a consideration for Mac
users!
> >Considering that the first version of MacOS X was *EXACTLY* like the
> >Unix experience (IE, it was OpenStep), then all I can say is: you are
> >misrepresenting the Unix user experience.
> >
>
> Oh please. OpenStep is almost as far away from the Unix experience as
> MacOS.
OpenStep ISA Unix, therefore OpenStep is one of the Unix experiences.
Since, of course, you can run a shell on a Mac, and type commands into
that shell, obviously the "Unix user experience" . . . isn't. It is the
CLI experience, which is also the Mac user experience.
> The Unix experience is a command line
Nope. That isn't the Unix experience. It is just one experience, and
not one that is specific to Unix.
> >Unix, as geeks know it, is only *ONE* of the many, many different user
> >interfaces available to Unix users. Unix is flexible.
> >
>
> That explains the horrifying mangled mess of cheap imitations of
> decent user interfaces that is the typical X Windows screen.
Ahh . . . the "Choice is EVIL!" argument. . .
> >More than Five *YEARS* ago Unix users could interact with their computer
> >in exactly the same GUI'fied way that Windows users and Mac users can.
> >
>
> Given that that's not even true today, it could hardly have been true
> five *YEARS* ago.
It was true more than five years ago, and it is true today.
> >Wrong, since Linux *DOES* run the software that lets them "do their
> >stuff".
> >
>
> Come on now. You admit later on that Linux does *NOT* run all the
> software some users need.
So what? Linux does run the software that some users need.
No OS runs every piece of software that every user needs.
> >Better is not a matter of opinion when it represents objectively
> >measurable criteria.
> >
>
> The problem is that your criteria may be different from mine, and it's
> only your arrogance that makes you think yours are somehow more
> important - or more objective - than mine.
I never said that my criteria are more important or less important than
yours . . . so accusing me of arrogance is simply silly. Objective
criteria, however, are not "weighable". The fact that you do not loose
work because the system is stable is an objective criteria regardless of
your desires.
> >No, it doesn't. It says something about applications availability, not
> >OS'en.
> >
>
> If a given app's availability is of primary concern to me, then its
> lack most certainly *DOES* say something about the OS - to me.
No, it says that that application isn't yet available for that OS . . .
it doesn't say anything about the OS.
> In
> fact, it would be nothing short of stupidity for me to choose Linux
> knowing full well that it doesn't run the apps I need.
It would be even *MORE* stupid to choose Windows, when Linux *DOES* have
the apps you need.
> >It isn't the OS that is unusable in your scenario. It's the
> >application.
> >
>
> I beg to differ. If I *MUST* run, say, Quicken, then Linux is not an
> option.
Yes . . . it's Quicken that is unusable in this scenario.
> Quicken is a perfectly usable app, but for me, Linux is an
> unusable OS.
Wrong again . . . Linux is usuable, you just can't use it to run a
Windows dependent verison of Quicken. . . all you are really proving
here, is that MS is a monopoly, and that part of what allows them to be
a monopolist is the use of non-standard, closed, proprietary and in some
cases secret interfaces to what is otherwise widely available
functionality.
> Ah, these are all just pointless word games. The bottom line is that
> if I need a capability or app that Linux can't run, then Linux is not
> an option, and all your "objective OS criteria" don't amount to a hill
> of beans.
However, that statement applies to any OS. Since I need to run
applications that won't run on Windows, then according to you, Windows
is unusable.
> >What instrinsic limitation exists in Linux that would make playing a
> >Sorenson encoded video stream on Linux impossible?
> >
>
> How about the lack of a decent extensible multimedia framework at the
> OS level?
Why would that framework have to be available in the OS?
> >Nope. It's a comment on their monopoly.
> >
>
> Repeating your argument doesn't make it more convincing.
You, yourself, proved that MS is a monopoly through your description of
why Linux is unusable . . . since Windows does not use a standard, open
API, ISV's get locked into Windows, so the *APPLICATIONS* you need to
run cannot be run on *YOUR* choice of OS.
> >MS deliberately created an API that was non-standard, to create a vendor
> >lock in situation. Had they stuck with the available standards, then
> >they would not now be a monopoly.
> >
>
> Give me a break. Had they stuck with the available standards, their OS
> would be as useless to the mainstream user as Unix is.
Nonsense. There is nothing intrinsic in the open, standard interfaces
that Unix is based on that would make Unix unusuable to the mainstream
user.
> >I already am . . .
> >
>
> So how are you doing now that the Linux companies have tanked?
They haven't tanked, so your question is just silly.
> >No, for two reasons:
> >
> >1) They aren't a monopoly.
> >2) They don't control a critical market.
> >
>
> But what good is monopoly power - and how can the market be critical -
> if the product in question doesn't have some undeniable advantages
> over its competition?
A product can be INFERIOR, and still be used to gain control over a
market, through the use of predatory pricing practices ("dumping").
> You can't have it both ways, you know.
You didn't give two ways . . . I'm not sure of what your reasoning is,
here.
> You can't say that Windows has
> no advantages over Linux, then turn right around and say that Windows
> is so critical that its vendor must be considered a monopoly.
I didn't. You said that.
But your point falls apart because it is based on a false premise: that
two things that have equivalent functionality are always interchangable.
Linux has much that Windows 9X does not. But functionally, Windows NT
and Linux are basically the same. However, the interface to this
functionality is wildly different.
"Information Processing", incidentally, is the critical market, and MS
uses it's Windows monopoly power to control this critical market through
the use of non-standard, secret, proprietary interfaces to what is
basically equivalent functionality.
> >How so? I386, for both of 'em, unless you are talking about earlier
> >versions of Windows, in which case it is *YOU* who needs the history
> >lesson, as the relationship between Windows "the early years" and later
> >versions of it is minimal, to say the least.
> >
>
> Nonsense. Win9x can still use DOS drivers for its own operation, and
> can still run all those old badly behaved apps.
Just how many of the Windows 2.x apps, etc. can Windows 9x run? THAT
was the compatibility issue under discussion, not the ability to run DOS
apps.
> >Yes.
> >
> >Remember, the United States is not a democracy. . . precisely because
> >democracy is not a viable political system.
> >
>
> It's closer to a democracy than it is to a communist state, but maybe
> not for long...
No, the US is closer to a Republic, where the a limited and controlled
version of democracy is used to select representatives.
Pure democracy inevitably leads to pure evil. The biggest and most
difficult problem to solve in any political system, is that of choosing
leaders who will place the good of the people higher than their personal
desires (who will, in short, do the right thing), and who will ignore or
ride out the temporary emotional storms that "the people" are wont to
engage in.
Incidentally, did anybody *EVER* figure out what the WTO/IMF/WB
protesters were trying to say? What was their message? After listening
to them for almost two hours . . . I was disgusted to realize that they
had never stated their stance, nor made any justification at all for
their protest. . . a nearly pure example of an entirely semantically
null speech . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Windows2000 sale success..
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J@M)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:46:30 GMT
"Indeed, on Tuesday, Microsoft said it had sold 1.5 million copies of Windows
2000 in the two months since its launch, a pace four times that of its
predecessor, Windows NT 4.0."
0.5 million copies for the second month compared to 1 million in the first
month...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Subject: Not sure I understand..Help..
Date: 18 Apr 2000 22:50:37 GMT
I was in the comp shop in the Linux section and I saw "Linux for Windows" I
really don't understand the point of this as Linux is a seprate O/S. Why don't
they just come up with "Solaris for OS/2" or something.
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 18:57:19 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Connors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Craig Kelley at
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 4/18/00 12:23 PM:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Connors) writes:
>>
>>> Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
>>> personally know looked at the Linux Source?
>>
>> I did last week.
>>
>> I wanted to figure out why I couldn't have more than 8 SCSI CD-ROM
>> drives attached to the system.
>>
>> Regards.
>
>There are several Posibilities
>1) You develop Linux
>2) You are lieing
>3) You are dillusional
>
>I have no reason to beleive 1 or 2
>
So you're saying what, that he CAN use more than 8 SCSI CD-ROM drives,
and is under a dillusion that he can't?
FWIW, I've briefly looked at the Linux source. I didn't understand it,
really, but I've looked at it.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Which Linux and which hardcopy?
Date: 18 Apr 2000 18:58:49 -0400
On Tue, 18 Apr 2000 15:37:38 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Well, all of the books that I checked on were described as "all levels",
>which normally mean inordinate amount of text going over the basics. I'd
"All levels" can mean a lot of things.
>The Sybex books on RH look a bit dated.
The latest is at Redhat 6.1. This should be sufficient.
> OTOH, I might spring for "Linux
>Complete", especially if they do a new edition. I've already got some
This is a collection of the free LDP docs. This is what I started off
with and found it to be quite good. They are a bit terse in some places,
but from what you've told us, it sounds like the kind of thing you'll
like.
>> Other good perl books:
>> "Programming Perl" and "Advanced Perl Programming", ORA
>
>I notice that you don't list "Learning Pearl". Is there a reason to
>avoid it?
Inferior IMO. It's too shallow. If you know what a "variable" is,
don't bother with it. "Programming perl" goes into much greater
depth.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (News-Only)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:54:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8didpj$knm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote...
> I'm sure every line of NT has been audited, by Microsoft that is.
Don't you mean VMS?
Incidentally, years ago when MS had to hand over the source code to
Windows 3.x to IBM for inclusion in OS/2, some IBM employees took great
delight in sifting out ome of the worst and most obvious programming
howlers. Spaghetti GOTOs and illegible variable names did abound, as did
some muddle-headed attempts to defeat the smooth operation of other
operating systems running cloned DOS sessions. There were also some API
calls that were different from each other only by the number of
milliseconds delay placed between (say) screen writes.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:07:37 -0400
From: sandrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Backdoors in Windows 2000?
Gary Connors wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram) writes:
> > Thank you very much for this post, Drestin. Although your little game of
> > reverse psychology is funny at best, it clearly shows the value of open
> > source software. See, it is possible for Microsoft or another closed
> > source vendor to place a backdoor into their program and there would be
> > no way of knowing that until it is far too late. It would also be
> > possible for Linux or another open source system to be backdoored, but
> > this would be noticed *very* soon. As a matter of fact, this happened in
> > real life. Someone cracked the win.tue.nl ftp site and replaced the tcp
> > wrapper tarballs with trojaned versions that would send a mail with
> > sensitive information to some hotmail account when used. Within hours
> > this was all over Bugtraq and for all we know, nobody used the trojaned
> > version unintentionally.
>
> Hypothetically speaking, when was the last time you or anyone you
> personally know looded at the Linux Source?
5 minutes ago, I intend to have a look at thye entire kernel code
--
TurboLinux Beta Tester
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Not sure I understand..Help..
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:16:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029) writes:
> I was in the comp shop in the Linux section and I saw "Linux for Windows" I
> really don't understand the point of this as Linux is a seprate O/S. Why don't
> they just come up with "Solaris for OS/2" or something.
With the number of distributions that can be installed on Windows
systems, I think the time has come for such a book.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:19:58 GMT
"Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Servers don't matter since the FOF deal with MS Windows on
> desktops, not servers.
>
The DOJ may have drawn the lines too narrow in regard to the "relevant
market". I personally think so, but a more significant issue is the case
law that has defined competition generally as anything that is capable of
taking business away from the company that is being accused of monopolizing.
Jackson ignored this argument in his finding of law and that is a big issue
on appeal. Desktop Windows competes with Linux servers, Apple Macintosh,
and lots of other things, including palm tops, network computers, and even
game machines. What the DOJ focused on was the lack of internal
"competition" within the Wintel product itself. A lot of legal experts see
that as too narrow, equivalent to claiming GM has a monopoly on Corvette
parts because anyone with a Corvette is economically disincented to go buy a
Porsche or other brand of sports car and therefore all other brands and
types of car are excluded from the relevant market.
>
> IIRC, plenty of other evidence showed that their primary purpose
> in integrating IE was to destroy netscape and maintain
> an "applications barrier to entry". 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.
>
This is sort of contrary to the "finding" that Microsoft was trying to
maintain their monopoly. After all, the real purpose of the IE integration
was to offer developers an easy road to the inter/intranet so that they
would stay with Windows and not try to build applications that didn't
require Windows and could use the interfaces in Netscape instead. Netscape
was just roadkill on the way to keeping Windows attractive to developers.
> <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>
>
Where Jackson is out on a limb is in directly opposing the Appeals Court
rulings and decision logic that suggested that product improvement was not
proscribed by the antitrust laws and that a plausible case for improvement
was sufficient to overcome any technical tying claim and that the courts
should not set themselves up as a referee in a technical decision. Jackson
offered a slap in the face to the appeals judges and argued that their logic
was flawed and cited some Supreme Court cases that might justify what he
did. But that is not the conventional way of doing this and there is some
suspicion that it will not play well in the upcoming appeals process.
> All of this has no doubt already been discussed to death, but I
> wonder if MS has any chance of a successful appeal.
>
They've managed to hold together so far. Plus there's the evidence that MS
and the DOJ had come to a deal that only failed because some of the states
AGs wanted a lot more and vetoed the deal. Given the participation of Judge
Posner and his obvious irritation that the deal was not struck, there's a
lot of handwriting on the wall to say that the DOJ saw the limits of their
case and that the judge club is not going to shoot the economy in the foot.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 19:43:41 -0400
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Lr9K4.6454$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In alt.destroy.microsoft Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>
> : Because they are going to come and forcibly take away your current
> : version?
>
> They will have to in fact use violence. I bought my copy of QBASIC, after
> all. Tough shit if I route my code into a QB >> C converter and compile
> away on UNIX. Fuck the monopoly. Bill Gates can suck my dick. And I won't
> allow it to do so.
>
I doubt ms would use violence to stop you from converting qbasic code (even
theirs) to c and linux ;o)
Just curious: have you checked out the OpenDIAS project? Is that something
like what you're looking for, or do you just want to continue to use
microsoft's qbasic?
http://pandora.inf.uni-jena.de/pframe.phtml/e/basic/basic.html
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:44:50 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Indeed. The governemnt here used to have a requirement that
> all components in government contracts have a second source
> if possible, and many manufacturers did the same. The government
> would even require one manufacturer to supply engineering
> information to another manufacturer for their parts in cases
> where only one supplied the item initially (and this is pretty
> much how AMD got their start as an X86 supplier). This was not
> only to ensure availability should one manufacturer screw up
> somehow, but also to prevent getting locked in amd then stiffed
> on pricing later. I wonder if they have extended such rules
> to software components.
Nope. They didn't. In fact, part of the USDA just got through giving
millions of dollars to a company that makes a product that nobody else
can supply a plugin replacement for . . . that company, of course, was
MS.
> Wouldn't be a bad idea, IMO. . . .
I agree. Unix is the closest thing to a "plug replacable" OS there is .
. . especially if you use ELF, and stick to hardware that conforms to an
open, standard interface.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
