Linux-Advocacy Digest #407, Volume #26 Mon, 8 May 00 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
RE: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Bob Germer)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!! (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Bob Germer)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (herodotus)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Tim Kelley)
Re: Virus on the net? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Virus on the net? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (The Cat)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (The Cat)
Re: Shithead Distribution? (No Name)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Eric Bennett)
RE: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Alberto Trillo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 12:54:00 GMT
On 05/08/2000 at 09:37 AM,
"Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Anyway, the whole world (not only software) is moving to the existence
> of two companies having a theatre competence between them and being
> happy to have only one and known enemy. Coca v.s. Pepsi, Playstation
> v.s. Nintendo, Intel v.s. AMD, and the so ... sometimes (by now) some
> third company borns and then either buys or is bought by one of the
> other bigs. It is something we all must fight against.
Maybe that is true in your native country. It is certainly not true in the
United States or most of the world.
Your understanding of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain,
and Japan is obviously very limited. US, Canadian, etc. consumers have a
much broader range of competing products today than we did 20, 30, 40
years ago. Much of the innovation in our lives comes from startup
companies offering better products than the traditional manufacturers.
Even your "examples" above are spurious. Intel and AMD are not the only
companies offering processors. Ever hear of Motorola, IBM, or Texas
Instruments? CocaCola and Pepsi the only soft drink bottlers? Not by a
long shot. There are regional companies in every part of the United States
offering competing brands.
Not so very long ago, there were only 4 automobile manufacturing companies
in the US. Today there are at least twice that number. Today besides GM,
Ford, and Chrysler we have Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, Volvo, and Humvee at
a minimum being made here in the United States and/or Canada and/or
Mexico.
Even in industries where manufacturing firms have been consolidated such
as refrigerators, ranges, dishwashers, we have different totally
independent marketing companies offering different products with different
features although the sources may be the same manufacturing company. Off
the top of my head, I can think of at least a dozen different brands of
refrigerators including Sears, General Electric, Hotpoint, Frigidare,
ColdSpot, Gibson, Westinghouse, Whirlpool, Tappan, Amana, Montgomery Ward,
and Kelvinator. Moreover, there at least five makers of large (greater
than 24 or so cubic feet) units for the upper end of the consumer market.
Walk into any store specializing in home entertainment or the home
entertainment department of any major retailer and one will find products
from dozens of different, unrelated manufacturers. There are many makers
of competing cell phones from Japan, Europe, the US, each beating their
brains out to outsell the others.
So far this year, I have purchased computer motherboards from at least 6
different manufacturers each of which builds its own products. They
include AMI, Compaq, IBM, Tyan, PCWare, Acer, and Dell. Whoops, that's
seven. And while I have not purchased from them, HP is another company
which manufactures its own motherboard.
Memory DIMMS? At least a dozen manufacturers.
And the list goes on. Every time there is a major consolidation, new
makers surface to compete. It is an unalterable maxim of capitalism that
profits breed competition. As long as no one is able to establish a
monopoly, competition thrives and consumers benefit. In the US, we have
choices even in many regulated industries. I can choose from a list of
about 8 different electric generation companies who beat each other over
the head for subscribers. I can choose among literally dozens of long
distance telephone companies and between two competing local service
providers. In some communities in New Jersey, consumers have a choice of
cable tv providers and rates in those communities are much lower than
adjoining places which do not have a choice.
Since the cost of initial wiring, etc. for cable tv is so expensive, costs
have prevented more communities from granting multiple franchises. But new
changes in our Federal law now allow satellite providers to carry local
channels and Cable TV is facing a competitive challenge from at least four
different companies which did not exist 10 years ago.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 12:55:13 GMT
On 05/08/2000 at 05:03 AM,
"Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Given Microsoft's track record for sabotaging competitors, I would not
> > be surprised if there were plenty of APIs which revealed whether the
> > app was Microsoft friendly and if not, some random spurious msgs
> > would be generated causing that app to fail or perform badly.
> That's not true. If you take any major MS application, e.g. Office,
> you'll see that it uses documented APIs only. Any developer can see
> that. On Windows OSes all API stuff is inside MS-supplied DLLs. There
> are tools (like QuickView) which list dependencies for any EXE or DLL.
> It's easy to see that Office uses standard Win32 API calls only. Same is
> true for other MS software. 3-4 years ago some software utilities used
> undocumented APIs. Not any longer.
If you REALLY believe that, I have some shares in a bridge between two of
New York City's boroughs which I will sell you cheap.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: 8 May 2000 13:03:34 GMT
In article <QouR4.70$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>While Microsoft most certainly cannot claim to have "invented" XML, they
>were certainly key in it's development. In fact one of the editors of the
>XML specificaiton is Jean Paoli (Microsoft). Microsoft was supporting a
>form of XML back in 1996 when it was first proposed as a proper subset of
>SGML.
Isn't that the one that lets web pages render mathematical equations?
When will Explorer support it?
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: This is Bullsh&^%T!!!
Date: 8 May 2000 13:04:26 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy M. Buchenrieder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> [...]
>>Sure, it could happen in linux and probably eventually WILL happen in
>>linux---as long as common unix concepts like WHEEL are not supported
> [...]
> Please learn something about Linux prior to making unsubstantiated
> statements like that. Whether a command is supporting the "wheel"
> concept or not is a question of the command itself. The GNU version
> of "su" doesn't, but nobody forces you to use it. Download the non-GNU
> version and use that one instead.
Apparantly you missed my followup post.
Sorry to say that I do not have a "certification" in linux, but I do have
enough experience to understand that it is at its *very* best, GNU-unix.
Which is a bit nonsensical, ironic and pitiful.
I like it anyway. I use it at home almost exclusively, and at work in
a large capacity.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:01:36 GMT
On 05/08/2000 at 01:29 AM,
Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'm not sure who to roll my eyes at. Do you think Ignatius just made a
> random guess at who invented XML, or do you think Microsoft gave him a
> hint?
Al, I invented the internet, Gore tipped him off!
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 13
MR/2 Ice 2.19 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
From: herodotus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 06:13:37 -0700
Xclusively for Windows
Markup
Language
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 08:41:21 -0500
Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On 05/08/2000 at 09:37 AM,
> "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Anyway, the whole world (not only software) is moving to the existence
> > of two companies having a theatre competence between them and being
> > happy to have only one and known enemy. Coca v.s. Pepsi, Playstation
> > v.s. Nintendo, Intel v.s. AMD, and the so ... sometimes (by now) some
> > third company borns and then either buys or is bought by one of the
> > other bigs. It is something we all must fight against.
>
> Maybe that is true in your native country. It is certainly not true in the
> United States or most of the world.
Yes it is
> Your understanding of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Great Britain,
> and Japan is obviously very limited. US, Canadian, etc. consumers have a
> much broader range of competing products today than we did 20, 30, 40
> years ago. Much of the innovation in our lives comes from startup
> companies offering better products than the traditional manufacturers.
Capitalism is moving inexorably towards corporate centralization
and has been for the last 100 years at least, despite the ravings
of US libertarian capitalists. Look at the media.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 8 May 2000 13:39:30 GMT
In article <mJpQ4.4498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Security is not much of an issue here. Chances are, a user on a
> workstation will have write access to most data files on his
> machine. And may or may not have access to files on a server. The
> same is true of Windows, since network resources can be restricted.
Not necessarily. On my home Linux system, the only reason that a
majority of files can be written by me without needing sudo is the
sheer quantity of source files I keep lying around... :^)
Running as root/admin hasn't been smart for years on any platform.
Time for a particularly amusing quote from my .sig DB...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Always running as a superuser is not a fault, it's an OS preference.
-- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Virus on the net?
Date: 8 May 2000 13:35:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
William Adderholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (Though I did find an entry to execute safe-tcl programs if "swish"
> was installed on the system. It was commented out by default.)
This is because Safe Tcl was folded into the Tcl core ages ago ('97?)
About the same time as interpreters that could embed themselves within
conventional web-browsers were produced.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:58:16 GMT
On Sun, 07 May 2000 23:33:36 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>proculous wrote:
>
>> The net result of a virus infestation is a loss of productive time of
>> the persons involved. What better example of Linux as an operating
>> system.
>
>I think Windows 98 is a virus; that's why I tossed it off my system.
>Windows is the virus -- virii typically go around screwing with the
>MBR (without you knowing about it), and that's what Windows does.
>Therefore, Windows == Virus.
Aol is the ultitmate virus. Those CD's keep replicating in my mailbox.
BTW that was not me..
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 14:01:26 GMT
On Mon, 08 May 2000 05:45:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
> If you genuinely have sparred with any form of DOS, then
> you should certainly be able to handle a sweetheart like
> Linux. Given your carrying on, I don't for a minute
> believe you have ANY experience with DOS at all.
>
> no pnp, no services, no bundled device drivers, manual
> memory management: that's DOS.
For once I agree with you jedi. I made a lot of money juggling Hi
memory and excluding mapped sections using QEMM so that users had
enough memory below 640k to run their applications.
Virtually any operating system is a pussycat to install compared to
those days, where you really had to know something.
I think my record was 623k or something like that free.
>>
TheCat (Steve)
"Agent under Wine and powered by Mandrake 7.0"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: Shithead Distribution?
Date: 8 May 2000 14:13:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am sure he/she was not, but the point was that the original
idiot thought he/she was being clever asking for a Linux or
Unixlike OS for such a low spec configuration, to show him/her
that actually such thing exist is to say in a very subtle
nice manner: you are an idiot.
Now, you monkey, what do you have to say?
On Mon, 8 May 2000 04:58:08 -0400, mws said:
>Your not actually taking this idiot seriously,are you?
>
>Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I am trying to run Linux on an 8088 computer with a 300 baud modem and
>> >5 megabyte hard disk. I have been told about a distribution of Linux
>> >called Shithead. I can't seeem to locate this anywhere on the net?
>> >Could some kind soul offer assistance?
>>
>> Might I suggest Minix instead? It's open-sourced (finally!) and runs
>> surprisingly well on a 640k 8086 from two 720k floppy drives. You should
>be
>> able to run it off of floppies for experimentation, but it's unlikely that
>> you'd be able to install much more than the contents of the boot floppies
>in
>> 5Mb. There's also ELKS, a Linux-alike for the 8086/8, but it's not as
>proven.
>>
>> You might consider just selling that 5M drive as a collectible (I'd think
>an
>> original ST-506 would do well) and buying a $400 or so low-end machine
>from a
>> local cloner to run a full-scale Linux distribution.
>> --
>> Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
>> Colony name not needed in address.
>> DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+
>Fo++
>> R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
>
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2000 14:59:37 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Karen Mansbridge-Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:43:31 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
|
||If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
||case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
||software company--Microsoft.
|
|And I suspect Bill Gates actually *believes* just that.
|Megalomaniacs often are deluded in that manner, imagining that
|their control is something that benefits everyone else and is
|therefore completely justified. They are often genuinely
|horrified that anyone would question that assumption.
|
|Karen
A while back, Steve Ballmer was asked in an interview what
he thought MS's fair share of the software industry was...
His reply? 100 per cent.
So much for any settlement short of the DOJ's...
Guido
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 11:00:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> et>, "Karen Mansbridge-Wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
> |On Mon, 08 May 2000 03:43:31 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
> |
> ||If we carry this argument to its logical conclusion, Gates is making a
> ||case that the best thing for consumers would be to have a single
> ||software company--Microsoft.
> |
> |And I suspect Bill Gates actually *believes* just that.
> |Megalomaniacs often are deluded in that manner, imagining that
> |their control is something that benefits everyone else and is
> |therefore completely justified. They are often genuinely
> |horrified that anyone would question that assumption.
> |
> |Karen
>
> A while back, Steve Ballmer was asked in an interview what
> he thought MS's fair share of the software industry was...
>
> His reply? 100 per cent.
>
> So much for any settlement short of the DOJ's...
That wasn't Ballmer. It was Mike Maples.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect,even when you take into
account Hofstadter's Law.
------------------------------
From: "Alberto Trillo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: RE: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:00:04 GMT
Say whatever you want. My native country is Spain, inside UE, and
being every day more and more similar to U.S.A. But the country is
meaningful in here. Put as much examples as you want, that won't change
the big unions of banks, hardware, software, food, and the so companies
first inside a country (whichever one) and then world wide. It is just
starting now ... I do not say there are two companies for every product.
It reminds me a Science Fiction book I read, but it is here now :-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
