Linux-Advocacy Digest #579, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 10:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Question (Bastian)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux lacks (Donal K. Fellows)
Sock Puppets (Grant Fischer)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (abraxas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for kooks) ("Brian Lewis")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re:
The "outlook" for kooks) (Gerben Bergman)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) ("Brian Lewis")
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
Does Linux support USB already? ("Mariano Cividino")
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks (Brian Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 07:12:55 -0500
On Thu, 18 May 2000 04:18:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So, who would bother with VMS? Why?
>
>Mainly for the programming environment. VMS has the world's best
>development tools. As I said, if you are interested in playing the
>latest games, and writing the occasional memo, then you should probably
>stick with Linux as VMS won't be for you.
Exactly. To say it would replace OS2 as a general environment is
absurd. It just doesn't have what people at home need.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: Question
Date: 18 May 2000 12:25:29 GMT
On Thu, 18 May 2000 07:16:31 GMT, Raul Valero wrote:
> Thanks for your opinions. One thing, why should Microsoft be forced
>to sell Office apart when Corel includes Corel Office at Corel Linux ?
Corel Office is also available separately. M$ would probably dongle it
to their Lindoze, which is illegal. So, courts would rule to make it
available as a single product.
Bastian
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 18 May 2000 12:19:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.development [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I want to click on a damn button and have the program install. I want
: the option to do it by hand if I have to, but installing anything on
: Linux is a nightmare if you have to build it from the source. Note
I do it for everything on my system, and I never have the least
trouble. I suspect you mean "it's a nightmare for those who can't".
: also that "make install" will occasionally break, depending on your
: distribution. And they all seem to be going in tangential directions
: on this one.
I use slackware and debian, and have no problems with either. I'd never
touch redhat with a bargepole, since it's as nonstandard as hell. But
even srpms' come ready-packaged. One just has to open them,
look at their spec file and makefile, edit to taste, and go. Apply
whatever patches look neccessary after examining them closely and
with suspicion. Remove all RH non-standard placements, and fire.
: There's just no excuse for not having an adequate installer. We have
The installers I have are very adequate (make and tar). And from what
I've seen the distros have excellenet installers too. I can understand
peoples problems with rpm, because it never brought anything to the
table except obscurantism (yes, slackware already had all the tools
and options in tgz, except for something that prevented you breaking
your own dependencies, and why would you ..). Apt-get solves most things
in debian .. it has a layering problem, in that you can import
something with apt-get and then install it with dpkg, which may leave you
needing to upgrade something else and apt-get didn't get a chance
to warn you. I had this experience recently when I upgrade libc6
and broke cucipop .. just the pop3 function. It took me a week to
discover and upgrade cucipop. I imagine that the breakage wasn't known
at the time I upgraded libc6.
: two excellent package-management tools, dpkg (and apt) and rpm. All
: we have to do is put a shiny new GUI front-end on them.
: Not that I am bitter.
:-)
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Thu, 18 May 2000 07:44:33 -0500
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3923cdb7$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 05/17/2000 at 08:21 PM,
> "Erik Fuckingliar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > >>Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust
investigation
> > in
> > > >That was not the DOJ. That was the FTC.
> > >
> > > FTC == _Fed_eral Trade Commission, isn't it??
> > > You stoop to new lows in your quest of denial, "Erik"...
>
> > The original statement, which you conveniently cut, stated specifically
> > the DOJ. Joseph said "the feds", in response to that, also referring to
> > the DOJ.
>
> The HELL it did. I have them all. You are the one who changed it to spread
> your fuckinglies.
Bob, your insistence to deny everything I say only makes you look foolish.
You claim here that the original article did not specifically refer to the
DOJ. Here, let's look at it, shall we?
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MS needs to get their lies straight. A few years ago, when it suited MS
> in their negotiations with the DOJ over "bundling", there was a "chinese
> wall" between the groups. Now, when it suits them, there is no such wall
> and the existence of one would be detrimental to the company.
To which I responded:
>A few years ago?
>
>MS has denied the existance of a chinese wall since at *LEAST* December of
>1991 when Mark Maples (MS's spokesman at the time) stated it didn't exist
in
>InfoWorld. This was years before any DOJ negotiations.
>
>The Chinese Wall was talked about in the mid-80's, not in the 90's.
And then Joseph responded:
>Bummer dude because "The FEDS" began their MS anti-trust investigation in
>1989 - two full years before 1991.
To which I responded:
>That was not the DOJ. That was the FTC.
And then Illya responded:
>FTC == _Fed_eral Trade Commission, isn't it??
Then I responded to Illya:
> The original statement, which you conveniently cut, stated specifically
> the DOJ. Joseph said "the feds", in response to that, also referring to
> the DOJ.
And then you immidiately had to state that it did not, proving that you
don't know a damned thing, nor can you follow a thread.
> Your father must be as mortified as your mother to see what he spawned.
> I'll bet you were the last child in your family.
This is known in the psychological community is "Projecting". It's when one
"projects" their own inadequacies onto others in a vain attempt at denial.
You should really seek a professional.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: 18 May 2000 12:31:26 GMT
In article <oqsU4.229$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Raul Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bobby Bryant:
>> "Microsoft operating systems, especially NT, has more reported
>> security bugs over the last two years than any other operating
>> system."
>
> This note is influenced by the fact that is the system where
> people are trying to find bugs. Perhaps it is the most insecure OS,
> but sure it is the most tested one, with everyone trying to find
> holes, bugs and faults. This is a fact. Bug balance between NT and
> other OS's will be smaller if all of them where equally tested.
Doesn't follow at all. What you write is dependent on some deeply
flawed assumptions
1) "All software has similar numbers of bugs."
Firstly, this is a ridiculous statement on the face of it; you have
to scale by the size of the project. Secondly, not all code is of
the same quality initially. Thirdly, the existence of rigorously
defined interfaces between components increases quality. If you
can't go into the guts and tweak something, you are both more likely
to moan productively about problems during development, and more
likely to insist on a rigorous following of the published standards,
since they are all you've got to go on.
2) "All bugs are equally severe."
Not true. A small error in window placement is annoying. A scheme
whereby anyone in the world can run any code they want on your
computer is utterly fatal.
3) "Testing finds all bugs."
If only! Test design and coverage are large topics, but suffice to
say that testing is typically never exhaustive and the results
obtained fairly weak. (You can say whether a configuration of
system and input has any problems, but nothing about some other
configuration.)
4) "OSes other than NT are not tested as thoroughly."
This is just plain untrue. The Unix marketplace has been highly
competitive for a long time, and quality is one of the things that
has been demanded by customers there over the period (as the
customers have typically been the people whose arses were in the
fire when things went wrong.) For all the limitations of testing, a
lot of effort has been put into testing OSes. Source-code analyses
have been used too (these are usually more effective than testing,
especially with well-documented interfaces.)
So you can't claim that NT is the most thoroughly tested. You can't
claim that all bugs have been found. You can't claim even that all
severe bugs have been found. And you can't use an argument by means
of software size. What does that leave of your argument? Not a right
lot!
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grant Fischer)
Subject: Sock Puppets
Date: 18 May 2000 12:55:29 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 18 May 2000 11:46:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So Steve, maybe you could at least be a bit more clever when choosing the
>next name to post the next "linux sucks, here is my sobby story" nonsense.
Don't forget "Syphon" -- looks the same. There have been more in
the past.
"Steve" should just stick to one name. The sock puppet campaign is
silly.
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at the domain hub.org)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 18 May 2000 12:45:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http:\\www.freebsd.org
^^
*snort*
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]>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:00:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Karlsson) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) writes:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> > i tried the microsoft windows truetype fonts.
> >> >
> >> > andale and courier new look ok per se. both leave little specs after
> >> > them. somehow X doesn't clean up after the fonts. courier new was
> >> > worse in this regard than andale.
> >> In my case (Matrox MilleniumII 8Mb/AGP) all works perfectly. Check
> >> the settings for your server.
> >
> > i've got one machine with a matrox millenium II 4MB PCI and another
> > with a 3dfx voodoo3. same little flecks of leftovers. perhaps it's
> > something to do with the redhat font server, a patched xfs.
> Ok, are you using redhat's xfs with Xfree 4?
no, i'm using XFree86-3.3.6.
> There's your problem then.
and then again, maybe it's not.
> And why are you using a font server in the first place?
afaik XFree86 version 3.3.* doesn't naturally grok truetype.
> Do you need fonts served? The X server can render its own fonts
> beautifully /without/ xfs; xfs is usually used if you wish to keep a
> font server (like a file server) to serve different hosts with
> fonts, i.e. keeping the fonts on one machine fonts only. Shut down
> xfs, unless you really need it. And if you need it use the xfs that
> accompanies the Xfree 4 distribution (source or binary).
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: 18 May 2000 13:12:25 GMT
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After three Linux experiences, two on notebooks the other on a desk
> top, our central computing supervisor has withdrawn support for Linux.
Your central computing supervisor is probably an ill-qualified
idiot. If what you typed is even true that is...
But it probably isnt. You're probably just jumping on a bandwagon
so that you can feel social.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 06:24:20 -0400
From: Joseph <[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
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> nohow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >I'm not saying that gates is right in what he says. I am, however
> pointing
> > >out that what you claim is not what gates is saying.
> > >
> > >It simply is true that lots of Windows' new features were first
> introduced
> > >in Office and other apps. It's also true that those implementations in
> the
> > >apps are seperate from the OS ones.
> >
> > Both the OS and Office implementation of OLE were seperate?
>
> OLE was introduced as part of the OS in 1992, it was NEVER an office only
> solution.
OLE officially used by MS prior to 1992 and it was an office only
solution. The Apps group invented OLE for their exclusive use.
WHEN OLE was added to the OS MS said the correct defintion and
documentation on how OLE worked was defined by their Office
implementation.
> > >Oh, one person gives the entire application team (for Office, that's like
> > >200 developers) orders of magnitudes of extra leverage. Right.
> >
> > Yea, like maybe the senior software architects? Or do you think all
> > the Excel widget makers do their own design? The Office team is a lot
> > bigger than 200 developers by the way - well at least it was about 6
> > yrs ago and I doubt that it has shrunk. As to Kerberos why don't you
> > find out what the other people at IETF and MIT have been saying about
> > MS's behaviour.
>
> I fail to see how access to undocumented API's would help a designer.
Yet you'll argue undocumented APIs do not exist.
> > >> And yet, Gates' rational for *not* splitting them up along those lines
> > >> contradicts what you claim.
> > >
> > >No, that's not what he said at all.
> >
> > Sure it is.
>
> No, it's not. For the n-teenth time. He states that Windows is a better OS
> because of the interaction with the Office teams, not that Office is a
> better Office suite because of it.
No Eric. MS ALSO says Office is a better Office suite "becasue of it".
------------------------------
From: "Brian Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:25:39 -0400
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jumping into discussions again, Brian? How typical.
What alleged "discussion"?
>
> Brian Lewis wrote:
> >
> > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards
II"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is
comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect. How typical.
> > >
> > > Evidence, please.
> >
> > $19.95 please
>
> How $19.95 is "$19.95", Brian?
Incorrect use of variable of type "float." Cannot assign the string value
"$19.95."
>
> > (shipping and handling fees.)
>
> How ironic.
Incorrect.
>
> > > > Tholenbot always picks the right newsgroup for the
> > > > job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> > >
> > > The right "newsgroup"? How rich!
> >
> > On what basis do you claim that the "newsgroup" is "rich"?
>
> Don't you know?
You fail to answer the question. Typical.
>
> > > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> > >
> > > What alleged "misinformation"?
> >
> > Why, don't you know?
>
> See what I mean?
You fail to answer the question. Typical.
>
> > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > >
> > > > Ask your grasshopper
> > >
> > > The grasshopper is in my head.
> >
> > What alleged "head"?
>
> Reading comprehension problems?
What alleged "comprehension"?
>
> > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> On what basis do you make this claim?
Typical invective.
------------------------------
From: Gerben Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot.
(was Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 15:22:53 +0200
Marty "RAT" Amodeo writes:
| > Thu, 18 May 2000 02:11:46 GMT was when a million monkeys took over Marty's
| > computer and wrote:
|
| Still using made-up words,
What alleged "made-up words", Marty (RAT)?
| eh Pascal?
Typical invective.
| > You're erroneously presupposing that I've posted from cable.a2000.nl before,
| > Marty.
|
| Not at all, Pascal.
Prove that I've posted from cable.a2000.nl before, if you think you can,
Marty (RAT).
| > Reading comprehension problems?
|
| Obviously not.
Your continued mixing me up with Pascal is evidence of a reading
comprehension problem on your part, Marty (RAT).
| How ironic of you to say so, however.
There's nothing ironic about my pointing out your reading comprehension
problems, Marty (RAT).
| > Yes, your erroneous claims are quite interesting.
|
| Non sequitur, as no erroneous claims were made by me.
Incorrect, as I demonstrated above.
--
Gerben Bergman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Brian Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 09:29:48 -0400
"tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3922db3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Brian Lewis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Eric Bennett wrote (using a pseudotholen again):
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <8fk3j9$8g4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Stephen S. Edwards
> > > > > II"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > If anyone on USENET ever wishes to emulate Templeton, as
> > > > > > some seem take great pride and joy in emulating Dave Tholen
> > > > > > (whom I know nothing of, outside of the opinions of others),
> > > > > > just simply follow these steps:
> > > > >
> > > > > Illogical. The true home of the tholenbot is
comp.os.os2.advocacy.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect. How typical.
> > >
> > > Evidence, please.
> >
> > $19.95 please (shipping and handling fees.)
>
> Jumping into a discussion, again, Brian?
Tholening without a net again, Eric?
>
> > >
> > > > Tholenbot always picks the right newgroup for
> > > > the
> > > > job. Sometimes that is COOA.
> > >
> > > The right "newgroup"? How rich!
> >
> > On what basis do you claim that the "newgroup" is "rich"?
>
> Taking jumping into discussion lessons from Curtis Bass again, Brian?
> How predictable.
Jumping lessons are irrelevent.
>
> > >
> > > > At least you made no attempt to conceal your own misinformation.
> > >
> > > What alleged "misinformation"?
> >
> > Why, don't you know?
>
> I see that, in typical Brian "I Don't Answer the Question" Lewis
> fashion, you didn't answer the question.
Reading comprehension problems again? Typical. Perhaps it's time for
tholenbot to be upgraded?
>
> > >
> > > > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> > > >
> > > > Ask your grasshopper
> > >
> > > The grasshopper is in my head.
> >
> > What alleged "head"?
>
> If you hadn't jumped into the discussion, you would have recognized the
> correct head.
The correct is irrelevent. The alleged "head" is relevant.
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > On what basis do you claim that the lunatic is "on the grass"?
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> Yet again you fail to answer the question. Of course, that is to be
> expected, coming from you.
Your argument has become tiresome. How typical.
>
> --
> Prove that there must be fifty ways to leave your lover, if you think you
can.
What alleged "lover"?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 06:41:13 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8fvpov$teg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <ZBuU4.69987$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [snip]
> > > > Q: How can a programmer use an API before it is part of the OS?
> > >
> > > Very carefully? :D
> > >
> > > > A: It's part of the application.
> > >
> > > It's possible
> > ....
> >
> > It is possible but irrelvent being the issue are
> > OS APIs and not APIs in general.
>
> Actually, MS quite frequently makes its APIs available
> separately from the OS.
No they don't and they are arguing they should integrate more APIs into
the OS.
> This may be a good or a bad
> thing, but it is nevertheless true- you can often install
> MS's new APIs in old versions of their OS.
You can often find MS's new APIs do NOT in stall on older OSs which is
why MS tells customers to upgrade to the newest OS.
> Sometimes you can install them in entirely different
> OSes, even. It's been known to happen.
"It's been known to happen" is a phrase used to describe unlikely
events.
> [snip]
> > > MS does that *all the time*.
> >
> > MS has the Apps divsion invent a service,
> > code for the service in all there apps and
> > then MS adds the sevice to the OS.
>
> *If* this is true it puts MS's apps divisions at a
> disadvantage!
No sir. At WORSE MS puts the apps group on level groud.
> It means that whenever MS-apps
> comes up with something good, MS-OS makes
> it available to all of MS-apps competitors.
EVENUTALLY and ONLY if MS thinks they have more to gain than lose.
> The Office
> team *cannot* be happy with that; they do all the work
> and Corel or whomever gets to reap the benefits.
1) The Apps group is not OBLIGATED to share all technology. 2)
Establishing a standard you have mastered puts you at an advantage.
> You know MS's competitors don't do that; since MS
> does not own then, it can't make them turn over their
> code this way.
I wasn't aware MS asked to help LOTUS establish NOTES as the de facto
standard over MS Exchange.
> > Only the owner the Os can decide
> > so the fact the Apps divison gets special treatment
> > is EVERYTHING.
>
> Specially *bad* treatment. This is one reason I find this
> implausible.
MS argues the interaction is a benefit. You can say the interaction is
bad but you can als
> > > > MS's Apps group designs and implements the API and the OS group
> includes
> > > > it into Windows.
> > >
> > > There doesn't seem to be any evidence of this.
> >
> > Oh Yes there is!!
> > MS even says they do it and they have a right to do
> > it. They call it innovation.
>
> They don't say that. Someone has already posted the
> quote; it doesn't say that.
>
> > > > MS's advantage begins when the app programmer is told
> > > > he/she can add APIs to improve their product over the competitors.
> > >
> > > How does this help the app programmers product?
> >
> > How would It not?
>
> It gives all the hard work of the app programmers to their
> competitors. That's not very nice.
>
> > Better yet we'll take a test and prove I'm smarter
> > than you - I write the test.
>
> :D
>
> But you also give me the answers, right?
If I decided to but only after you finish the test.
> > OLE helped PPoint beat Harvard Graphics. later OLE
> > was opened up for ISVs like VISIO to wriwe add-ins
> > for Office.
>
> Okay. Now, what you are saying is that since OLE is an Office
> technology, it *should not* have been made part of the OS;
> so the technology *should* have remained Office-only
> and VISIO should not have been permitted to write add
> ins.
Don't rephrase what I say.
Only VISIO had access to MS's OLE experts and they got this access after
agreeing to build a VISIO app that worked with Office.
> Is this *just* because OLE makes Windows better? Is that
> the *only* objection?
No.
> Cuz it sure doesn't seem like making an Office technology
> available to all is this horrible anticompetitive thing.
It is your obligation to think clearly. I'm not put at any disadvantage
when you rephrease the meaning of an arguement and make up dumb
possibilites.
------------------------------
From: "Mariano Cividino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Does Linux support USB already?
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:39:02 GMT
I have a USB Zip drive, printer and scanner and Red Hat 6.1 doesn't seem to
support USB devices.
Do someone know if current Linux distributions support USB and how to
configure then?
Thanks
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: 18 May 2000 13:53:37 GMT
Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: I wonder if you have an alternate explanation Jedi for why Linux isn't being
: used much on the desktop.
: I don't know anyone using it on the desktop. I personally can't stand using
: it in that roll for over 20 minutes at a time myself.
I don't particularly enjoy using Windows for any length of time, myself.
But that's beside the point. People don't use OSes to move the
little windows around; they use them for the apps. When Linux
gets the killer app people need to have on their "desktop", people
will switch to Linux. Forget ease of use. Forget stability.
It's all about apps.
Linux has all the apps I want. Now we just need to write something
everyone else can't live without.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
