Linux-Advocacy Digest #737, Volume #26 Mon, 29 May 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Which Microsoft will inherit lawsuit? (fungus)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: You all BAFFLE ME! CANT YOU READ?!?!?! (Was OS/2 isnt dead... I just forgot to
say Thank You to IBM...) ("Dolly")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (poldy)
Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com ("Dolly")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Adams
Klaus-Georg)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails (Friedrich Dominicus)
Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails ("Boris")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Lennart Gahm")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Dolly")
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Mark Wilden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Which Microsoft will inherit lawsuit?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 05:22:39 GMT
"Charles R. Lyttle" wrote:
>
> You know, if split up, the OS company can't ship Java, as
> that would be an application.
I don't see how a JVM falls into the category of "application".
It all depends how you define "application" I suppose,
hopefully any split-up proposal will contain a reasonably
precise definition of the term.
To my mind, an application is a program whose main purpose in
life is to allow users to view/create data files which are not
part of the operating system setup/configuration.
eg.
Regedit can be shipped with Windows because it's needed for
system setup.
IE can't be shipped with Windows because its main purpose
is to view files which have nothing to do with the OS.
By the same token, mediaplayer, et. al. also have to be
removed from the OS, and you'll have to install a "multimedia
pack" to be able to play video files[1].
If this sort of restriction is placed on Microsoft without
them being split up into separate companies then they'll
just start playing around with the definition of "main
purpose", eg. they'll change regedit to work inside a
browser then claim IE is _needed_ for the OS.
This is why a splitup is 100% necessary, and why "conduct
remedies" must be rejected as a viable solution.
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
[1] I imagine such a pack will come preinstalled on the
majority of new machines, and there'll be plenty of free
ones on magazine cover-disks as well. I refuse to believe
that this "missing functionality" will cause any hardship
to anybody, and who knows, having some variety in the
marketplace might actually spur some decent open (gasp!)
standards and nicer players than what Microsoft supplies.
Let's face it, Microsoft didn't invent mp3, and I don't
know many people with a Microsoft supplied .mp3 player
on their machine. I *do* know that Microsoft is currently
trying to subvert .mp3 and get people to use their own
proprietry .asf format instead.
Is this really "helping the consumer"? I think not...
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 01:38:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 29 May 2000 03:35:00 GMT
>On Fri, 26 May 2000 11:50:02 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>>I've never understood why Windows seems to care about the details of the
>>motherboard, given the whole concept of the PC architecture. Isn't
>>that, as well as the hard drive, the purpose of a BIOS?
>
>Says the man whose job it is to know more about the industry than
>anyone else.
>
>This would be the case if the BIOS presented a standard interface for
>all of it's functions. It doesn't. Things like plug and play and
>power management vary non-trivially from one BIOS to the next.
No they don't. They use roughly the same hardware components, and are
supported by roughly the same software OSes, so my statement that it is
the BIOS's responsibility to provide an interface between the
motherboard, hard drive, and OS is roughly correct, to say the least.
Forgive any false modesty you may have detected. It is specifically the
networking industry, and only tangentially the computer industry, which
my subject of expertise. And I obviously can't know more about any
industry than everyone else, though my claim of knowing more about
networking than any *one* else still stands.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: You all BAFFLE ME! CANT YOU READ?!?!?! (Was OS/2 isnt dead... I just
forgot to say Thank You to IBM...)
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 00:49:44 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 28 May 2000 12:36:34 EDT, Lou Nigra wrote:
>Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> WELL, IT'S FINALLY official: OS/2 is dead. IBM announced recently that the
>>> ......
>> http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2745
>
>From a layman's standpoint (that would be me), I cant read...
>
>"Limited warranty defect support will expire for OS/2 Warp 4 on 31 January 2001, Warp
>Server for e-business on 31 May 2002, and for WorkSpace On-Demand R2 on 31 January
>2002. IBM plans to continue to offer special-bid, fee-based Service Extension (SE)
>and Total Content Offering (TCO) defect support for selected OS/2 products and
>components. "
>
>Doesn't this mean that OS/2, at least in it's current incarnations, will be
>pretty much dead as far as IBM is concerned when this support ends? Is it
>not quite that simple?
NO - How about it's as simple as this?!?! IBM ***EXTENDED*** Defect Warranty
Support
I finally got so TIRED of this stupidity coming from SO MANY OS/2 users that
I dug out my Warp 4 box...
AND I QUOTE!!!!
"DEFECT SUPPORT WILL BE AVAILABLE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30, 1998..." or
"A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FOLLOWING THE PRODUCT'S GENERAL AVAILABILITY..."
Is this so hard to read?!?!?! Every one of you that obtained OS/2 legally
should stop
reading into this announcement and say "Thank you IBM for EX-F'ING-TENDING
Defect Warranty Support for THREE YEARS longer than you promised!!! Other OS
'manufacturers' dont even GIVE us defect warranty support!" since you have
the
damn original date IN PRINT in your OS/2 box... "License Information"
booklet, page 2,
paragraph 2, (paragraph 3 if you count the bulleted list as a paragraph) IBM
Part #84H5544.
Not very lady-like... but I am sooo tired of hearing all this stupid whining
and
reading into things that the writers should be thanking IBM about.
Oh - and if you missed the request for beta testers for Warp CLIENT v5, too
bad.
There might be another request... though (as of now), there is only supposed
to be one beta test period.
Doesnt anyone ever read anymore instead of just whine?
>
>I realize that it doesn't translate to "OS/2 is dead", because it
>will continue to be used and supported (as much as possible)
>by the OS2 community for quite some time. It's bound to become
>more and more difficult as IBM's connection to it fades, though.
Whatever. They make this announcement for EVERY product, and
have done so for **EVERY** version of OS/2 - why? So you the end-user
can know exactly where you stand... not so you can sit here and gripe,
and read into it.
>
>In fact, I (perhaps naively) think
>Lou Nigra
Sorry Lou and everyone else I may have offended... but perhaps it's
time you all stop whining and start KNOWING about your own damn
OS's support policy, and realize this is nothing new and has
happened with every version since 1.3 of OS/2.
Those poor journalists who DO write what they think are legitimate
"OS/2 is dead articles" have OS/2 users like yourselves to blame.
(and the rest of those journalists, I still cant fully comprehend...)
Dolly
------------------------------
From: poldy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 06:13:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>MS will get sued by shareholders for losing the case IF and only IF
>shareholders lose money. By the definition of liablity that results
>from losing so badly, MS management is culpable when they lose the case
>- Period. That the DOJ won so easily is proof enough MS botched the
>case and it will enrage the shareholders they were mislead so badly by
>management IF MS does NOT WIN on Appeal.
>
>Like crummy software, MS's defense is supposed to get better on appeal,
>the next release. Well if it doesn't get better MS managent could well
>be be sued for making misleading statements to the shareholders.
Yeah if they lose all appeals and is broken up, the stock will tank and
there will be suits. If they do win on appeal, or Bush gets elected and
gives them a sweetheart settlement, stock will go back up.
As for misleading statements, they've apparently been telling analysts
that they WILL win on appeal. If you remember, while the testimony was
going on, their stock shot up, despite how bad Gates and the MS
witnesses looked.
But just think if this expectation of prevailing on appeal is the same
expectation they had when they went ahead with the trial. On the eve of
the trial, they could have gotten a deal with the DOJ for a lot less
than is being discussed now.
------------------------------
From: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.be.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: OSWars 2000 at www.stardock.com
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 01:27:33 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sat, 27 May 2000 02:20:10 -0400, Eric Bennett wrote:
>I don't know much of what the OS/2 and Linux folks see, but as for what
>goes on in comp.sys.mac.advocacy, it seems all the Microsoft advocates
>have pretty much given up trying to make arguments that Windows 98 is
>worth using. All we really heard about in csma, for a fairly long
>period before W2K came out, was NT. And now all we really here about
>from the Windows folks is Win2k.
>
>Maybe Windows ME will change that? ;-)
>
>--
>Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Doubtfully.. .it's Win95 OSR2... err... 98... um... 98SR2... with
FINALLY, the promised USB support, and some better driver
support (though they dropped some legacy drivers
somehow... like for many older Epson printers like the
700 PhotoEX). Oh - and of course the added eye candy to
make it look like it's worth upgrading to, and as many bug fixes
(and new bugs) as they could get done - at least to date.
Still crashes and burns trying to run apps that access large
amounts of RAM (PhotoShop, wav editors, etc...), still crashes
randomly, still quirky, still working out too many issues.
And no, it's not a beta... it's Win95 fixpack 14..... if you consider
all the Win95 releases... all 8 or 9 of them, the 98 releases, the
service releases... and there are really no new features that
werent already announced in 95 OSR2. At least not in my
friend's "beta" version that MS provided him.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: 29 May 2000 08:06:08 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Please try to get this into your head:
> > If an application, however buggy it is, can crash an OS, it is the
> > OSes fault.
>
> I don't think anyone argues that having the ability to crash the OS is a
> fault of the OS.
If I parse that sentence correctly, you agree with me?
I will even swallow part of what I said:
If an application _running with User Privileges_ can crash an OS, the
OS is buggy.
However, the quotes from the MS site you snipped seem to be not that
clear. Let me requote from their Website at
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q195/8/57.ASP?LN=EN-US&SD=gn&FR=0
CAUSE
This problem occurs when an application opens a lot of handles but
never closes them. This has been seen when an application
continually opens a registry key but never closes it. When the
application is closed the system attempts to close all of the keys
but runs out of system resources while doing it.
RESOLUTION
To resolve this problem, the application has to be modified to
close the registry key when it is done with it.
Nowhere do they say the OS has to be modified, although by our common
definition it is buggy.
Looks like spindoctoring to me.
BTW, is there something like crashme for Windows?
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: Friedrich Dominicus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Date: 29 May 2000 08:05:23 +0200
Bill Sharrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "concedes the IT unit shied away from using some open-source apps, because
> > they weren't convinced that the [OSS] software was capable of running a
> > world-class services organization. "When we got here, [the tech
> > infrastructure] was a total mess. All this spaghetti code patching
> > everything together ... It's all we saw," says the source"
> >
> > http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2573035-1,00.html
> >
> > Read the whole thing...
> >
> > Linuxcare itself was using Lotus Notes and other properitary software,
> > completely avoiding any open source software. I mean, if they couldn't trust
> > OSS for themselves, how could they be the #1 support source for Linux? Can't
> > find the right software, can't find the people to write it right.
I found this:
"Doug, especially, didn't care what software was used", says another
ex-employee. "At one point [his staff was] thinking about deploying
Lotus Notes ... which isn't the most Linux friendly application."
Now it's quite a difference if saying the use it and thinking about
deploying it.
But the article is very interesting in other aspects. The believe
beeing fast and big is a gravestone on their way.
If you just see how many they hired one just can wonder what idiots
are working there. But one can hardly blame Linux for the
downgoing. They wanted too much too fast and that was and is the case
of a plenty of companies.
Redhatd, VALinux all were totally over-hyped. And people forget one
base thing, a firm just can survive while making profits. Amazon is
learning that the hard way too. And to the big shake out of hyped e-
whatever firms have begun. And that is really good news.
Regards
Friedrich
------------------------------
From: "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linuxcare failure - more proof of how OSS fails
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:35:03 -0700
> Redhatd, VALinux all were totally over-hyped. And people forget one
> base thing, a firm just can survive while making profits. Amazon is
> learning that the hard way too. And to the big shake out of hyped e-
> whatever firms have begun. And that is really good news.
Who uses that crap anyway (I mean Linux)? I've never seen any business using linux.
Boris
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:43:49 +0100
"h3$m"@3m.e wrote:
>
> Think engineering, not just coding. coding takes only about
> 15% of the resources and effort (even if that) on a large
> software project. The rest is specification, design, requirments,
> source control, bug tracking, test suites, regression testing, QA,
> maintainance, and many other tasks not related to coding.
Not to mention the interpersonal skills required to be a truly good
programmer.
This is why, to me, the term 'hacker' is still perjorative. A 'hacker'
is someone who 'hacks' at code, producing 'brilliant hacks'. You'd never
think of a hacker as someone who's really good at unit testing, for
instance.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: "Lennart Gahm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 06:48:43 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000 00:44:43 GMT, ZnU wrote:
>In article <KaaY4.2705$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Wally Bass" <wallyb6@nospam> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Sat, 27 May 2000 12:19:07 GMT, "Daniel Johnson"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> > >Hardware and software are not the same.
>> >
>> > True
>> >
>> > >Manufacturing technology has improved; computer components are
>> > >cheaper.
>> >
>> > Surprise! No monopolies there, lots of good competition.
>>
>> It's not immediately obvious that there's a relationship to be found
>> there. I've noticed an widespread assumption that competition
>> between a lot of small vendors is better than that between a few
>> big ones, or between one big one and many small ones.
>>
>> I'm not sure I see why.
>
>Say you have two companies that make web browsers (OSes or office
>software or whatever), with the market split 50/50. Each will do
>everything in its power to destroy the other, including introducing
>incompatibilities with the other browser. Web developers will hate it,
>but they'll put up with it. Can't cut your audience in half, after all.
>So both browsers will be supported, and they'll drift away from
>eachother more and more.
>
>You have the same issue with one company with 50% of the market and
>another five with 10%. The big guy will intentionally create
>incompatibles to kill the little guys and block new entries into the
>market.
>
>But what if you have 10 companies with even market share? If one of them
>introduces some sort of incompatibility, nobody will care but the users
>of that product. They'll just switch to another product. It's now in the
>interest of every company in the race to maintain compatibility. Because
>everything is standards-based, this also allows additional competition
>to enter the market at any time.
>
>
>The point is if no single company holds a significant fraction of a
>given market, it means that companies must ensure interoperability,
>which means users are free to choose whatever product they want.
One could compare it to the celluar phone market in Europe. Here we
have a standard called GSM (soon also WAP). This standards is not
controlled by a single company. Phones from Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola
and so on has no problem to communicate with each one.
No one can produce and sell a GSM phone that can't communicate with
other brands.
Standards for html, xml and even documents (like word, excel) should
not be controlled by a single company.
>--
>The number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, with more expected.
> -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June 1972
>
>ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Dolly" <[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, 29 May 2000 01:52:26 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: "Dolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 26 May 2000 23:29:46 GMT, Chris Wenham wrote:
>Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> By the same token, claiming that the procedures are seriously flawed and
>> difficult to use based on a personal episode can be misleading.
>
> Which is why I didn't.
>
> But I did say that I wanted a more granular update mechanism, and
> that points to what obviously is a flawed mechanism: The hideous
> amount of redundant code you download with every successive fixpack.
>
> The FixPack system is badly flawed for this reason alone.
>
>Regards,
>
>Chris Wenham.
True Chris,
It would be much better to say "To install FP 13, please install FP
1-12 in order, and then proceed"... or you could just use MS's
invasive "Let's scan your hard drive" method and upload
whatever info they want.
Perhaps the background secure connection to your browser that
they tried pulling off till a very legal stated complaint was issued
way back early this year?
hmmm... or perhaps you could think of a better way to consolidate
the fixpacks and make it easier... 27MB I can live with to update my
system and make sure it works... much better than my experiences
with NTSP 3, 4 or 5. Or Solaris... heh. Wont even go there.
Dolly
------------------------------
From: Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000 07:52:54 +0100
Ray wrote:
>
> One advantage of using a mailing list for
> bug tracking is that it allows search engines such as deja to tie together
> the development of various related projects (sane, alsa, apm, etc) in a way
> that would be difficult with traditional bug tracking systems.
I don't think that's really true. A search engine like DejaNews does
sophisticated full-text searching of free-form text. Yes, it gives
weights to terms found in titles (even though the titles may not even
apply to the subject anymore), and is more clever than simply listing
all articles where search terms appear. Nevertheless, it's inherently
unstructured.
A database, on the other hand, can use another search vector:
classification. At a minimum, it lets you attach text to specific bugs,
so that everything to do with a certain bug can be retrieved easily. It
can also allow indexing, where terms can be associated with text which
may not even appear in that text, but which are still relevant (the
classic example is assigning the index term 'death penalty' to an
article about capital punishment). In your example, a good database
would let users attach project terms to any report.
Finally, a database can be full-text-searched just as any other
collection of text can be.
So no, a mailing list does not offer search capabilities that are better
than a bug-tracking system.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
