Linux-Advocacy Digest #582, Volume #29 Tue, 10 Oct 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Power of the Future! ("Chad")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Drestin Black")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:38:07 GMT
"Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rvoft$nc7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <39e2aab3$0$5789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Jason Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8rsmtb$5nj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <0rcE5.120448$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote:
> >> >joseph wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Actually many are but not the masses of "mom and pops" that cut costs by
> >using
> >> >Linux. Lycos and several others can be found to be using Windows 2000 if
> >you
> >> >check them with the Netcraft tool.
> >>
> >> Netcraft is hardly a infalliable tool and you don't know much about
> >> networking if you believe the front door is representative of everything
> >> behind it. www.hotmail.com reports Win2k, it must be all Win2k right? It
> >> is common knowledge that it is FreeBSD doing most of the serving there
> >> even though Microsoft has started to roll out Win2k their.
> >
> >W2K is running 100% of the web servers at Hotmail but the application itself
> >has not yet been ported. Look for that to change before the year is out.
> >
>
> I berated somebody for making an inference about Hotmail's poor
> performance lately but now I guess maybe I was wrong. I rarely deal with
> Hotmail addresses but of late the few I've dealt with took 3-4 hours to
> receive mail that I sent. I guess corporate decision making doesn't take
> into account that if something ain't broke, don't fix it.
Ever since the move I've never had any problems, especially delayed
mail deliverey.
In fact, I can't remember having problems like that BEFORE the move
either.
Perhaps you're embelishing a little?
Of course.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:43:08 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:21:48 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8rv41n$utm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Again, the same point... it's *OK* when Linux is way late because
they're
> >> > "getting it right", but it's laughable when Microsoft is late when
they're
> >> > "getting it right". Why the double standard?
> >>
> >> Because microsoft DIDNT "get it right".
> >
> >Of course they did. What basis for this claim do you have?
>
> Companies running away from NT as a low thruput RDBMS
> running and screaming to Oracle on some form of Unix.
>
> [deletia]
That's funny - and... when was the last time an Oracle database won ANY
benchmark? At 3 times the price even? On *nix or Win*?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:43:18 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rvg9s$1c61$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8rv41n$utm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Again, the same point... it's *OK* when Linux is way late because
they're
> >> > "getting it right", but it's laughable when Microsoft is late when
they're
> >> > "getting it right". Why the double standard?
> >>
> >> Because microsoft DIDNT "get it right".
>
> > Of course they did. What basis for this claim do you have?
>
> The dozen or so bugfixes released since ITS release.
Unlike the hundred or so kernel patches since Linux' release eh?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:47:12 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
> >
> > Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux
creator
> > Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the
next
> > Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> > early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due
to
> > ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
> >
> > ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued
that
> > the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
> > models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux
and
> > Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> > schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
> >
> > "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> > services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
database
> > servers or online transaction processing. The independent software
vendor
> > support [is not there]"
> >
> > <yawn>
>
>
> Given that some people on this group (!) have run 2.4 so you still think
> yourself justified.
>
> It may not be considered stable, but then win98, by the same standards
> isn't
So - I don't get it. Linux Torvalds, THE man when it comes to Linux says 2.4
isn't done yet. You disagree? (oh, beta test versions? When the first beta
of W2K was released, did everyone stop their release date timer and no
longer accuse MS of being late? I know I didn't!)
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:49:04 -0500
"spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
> > >
> > > Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux
creator
> > > Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the
next
> > > Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000
or
> > > early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original
due to
> > > ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
> > >
> > > ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued
that
> > > the open source development model is superior to the closed,
monolithic
> > > models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both
Linux and
> > > Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> > > schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
> > >
> > > "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and
DNS
> > > services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for
database
> > > servers or online transaction processing. The independent software
vendor
> > > support [is not there]"
> > >
> > > <yawn>
> >
> > Given that some people on this group (!) have run 2.4 so you still think
> > yourself justified.
>
> Check my headers (linux-2.4.0-test9)
>
I see "test9" - a beta version. So, does it mean when the first version
stamped 2.4 comes out (alpha, beta or whatever) we say that it's released
and stop watching the calender? Apparently Linus (and the rest of the
working computer world) don't agree. I don't imagine when the first beta of
W2K came out you decided it was "released" and stopped berating MS for being
late?
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: 10 Oct 2000 16:50:14 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rv445$utm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > You're comparing a relatively new (although based on archaic
technology)
> >>
> >> This one always irritates me, the Windows people say it about Linux,
and the
> > Linux
> >> people say it about Windows.
>
> > Well, the Linux people seem to not understand the difference between
> > Win9x and WinNT/2K (which only further proves my theme that Linvocates
seem to
> > have not much clue about the state of the rest of the computing
industry).
>
> > WinNT/2K is not based on DOS. Period. DOS (cmd.exe) in NT is merely a
tiny
> > subsystem for compatibility, just like POSIX subsystem and the OS/2
subsystem.
>
> Actually, the POSIX subsystem and OS/2 subsystem dont work at all. Oh
sure, theyre
> there for certification sake, but they dont actually do anything.
Oh really? And how is it that you determine the POSIX subsystem to be
non-functional?
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 16:51:15 -0500
Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote in message
news:zEJE5.128107$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Weevil wrote:
>
> > Actually, one of the main reasons Win32 is so HUGE (28 million lines of
> > code, or something in that neighborhood)
>
> Win32? You surely must be referring to the entire Windows 2000 Operating
> System. The Win32 interfaces are contained in a single subsystem,
WIN32K.SYS,
> of that OS. That file is 1,686K. I don't care what compiler you use --
you are
> not going to compile 28 million lines of code into under 2MB. How silly.
You're referring to the kernel, of course, and you're right. Win32,
properly speaking, is only the kernel. But the kernel by itself, without
the accompanying DLL's produced by the OTHER 27 million lines of code, is
pretty useless. Still, you're right --I should have said "Windows", not
"Win32".
> > is that Microsoft spends at least
> > as much time making the API a "moving target" (Bill Gates' words, not
mine)
>
> So post a link to that quote, why don't you?
Nah. I'll just post the quote itself.
"DR DOS. I doubt they will be able to clone Windows. It is very difficult to
do technically, we have made it a moving target and we have some visual
copyright and patent protection. I believe people underestimate the impact
DR-DOS has had on us in terms of pricing."
-- Bill Gates, May 18, 1989, in a memo to his executive staff.
His comment about pricing, by the way, was a major sore point with him. He
resented any competition because it tended to keep MS from charging much
more for their stuff. Here's another quote from the G man:
"DOS being fairly cloned has had a dramatic impact on our pricing for DOS. I
wonder if we would have it around 30-40% higher if it wasn't cloned. I bet
we would!"
Bill Gates, August 6, 1989
Here's a quote that tells us how much they care about improving their
product for you, their loyal customer:
"While DOS continues to be our most important and most profitable product
over the last four years we have done very little with it technically."
Bill Gates, November 29, 1989
> > as it does actually trying to fix or improve anything.
>
> Right. Nothings been fixed or improved since Windows 95. Sure. You just
keep
> telling yourself that.
Nope, didn't say that. I only said that fixing things and improving things
has never been their focus. Except by coincidence, of course.
> > My guess, based on
> > known Microsoft history, is that less than 10% of their R&D money and
> > technical man-hours are spent on trying to improve the product.
>
> Your guess. And not educated at that.
>
Depends on what you mean by educated. It's a guess based on known history.
> > They spend
> > their time destroying any hint of competition and thinking up new
> > justifications for jacking up their prices.
>
> R&D does that? I thought that was the marketing department's job :-)
>
At Microsoft, that's *every* department's job. Ever heard that story about
Microsoft inserting some code into Windows that displayed false error
messages if it detected that it was running on any DOS other than their own?
You do know that it's true, don't you?
> > That's Microsoft in a nutshell. That's who you spend so much of your
time
> > and energy defending.
>
> No. That's a warped Linutic Penguinista's version of reality. I shoulda
> stopped reading this bullshit after the first sentence.
>
You might as well have. You won't change your mind about your heroes, no
matter what evidence is placed before you.
Hey, you weren't on the O.J. jury, were you?
jwb
PS -- I bet you were rooting for Richard on Survivor, too. Am I right?
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Legal issues - Re: Linux DVD player!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 21:48:50 GMT
In article <8rupti$rmi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rtr5m$1bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> > Unfortunately, the MPAA is doing
> > everything they can to prevent this
> > thing from coming to market.
> > Furthermore, they are allowing Microsoft
> > to do exactly what they are trying to prevent
> > LinDVD and DeCSS from doing.
> >
> Rex
>
> You've posted this many times before, and
> have yet to provide any evidence
> to your claim.
> I would be interested to see your answers to these
> questions:
> 1. What exactly is Microsoft doing to prevent a Linux DVD player?
First of all, the original video standards were established by the
Motion Picture Engineering Group (MPEG). The first standard (now
called MPEG version 1 or simply MPEG) was an open standard. This
standard was widely adopted, at the earliest by the adult film
industry, where it was used on CD-ROM media, unfortunately, even at
320x240 low resolution or 640x480x30 frames per second, the 640 meg
CD-ROM barely held 1 hour of programming.
In the process of designing MPEG-2, which was the standard to be
used for the 14 gigabyte DVD media, an improved compression algorythm
and higher resolution standards were being introduced.
The RIAA also wanted to embed invisible "markers", essentially serial
numbers every few seconds so that if the media was pirated, the piracy
could be traced back to the original perpetrator.
At some point, Microsoft persuaded the MPAA to form a new committee,
and to have all of the standards protected as trade secrets under the
trade secrets act passed by the Clinton Administration. While this
was originally intended to prevent things like having sales people walk
away with the entire customer database burned into a CD-ROM, Microsoft
used a variation of it's own Nondisclosure agreements with provisions
for both criminal and civil prosecution under the trade secrets act.
In exchange for Microsoft's acceptance of this standard, the
participants agreed not to publish information that would allow
ports to other systems and adoption by competitors. It's likely
that Microsoft was trying to prevent Apple, RealNetworks, Linux,
Sun and Javasoft from proliferating implementations that would directly
compete with Micorosft's proprietary media software.
The standards group required all potential developers to pay $6000
cash "up front", before even seeing the nondisclosure agreement.
(Pretty much assured that geeks and hackers wouldn't be joining
the party).
You then had to sign a nondisclosure agreement which prevented you
from a number of actions. Furthermore, you weren't allowed to
disclose information outside the organization.
(The nature of these agreements was disclosed in the judicial hearings
and motions to suppress web sites and prosecute contributors).
> 2. How are they going about this - what channels?
The biggest one is the DVD CCA orginization.
> 3. What evidence is there?
Here are some related Links:
http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/dvd.html
(a bunch of links to cover most of the developments in the case).
Note that the earliest copyright date on the DeCSS indicates that
it had been available in publication for MONTHS before anybody raised
any objection. Suddenly, when it began to look like Linux would have
widespread support for DVD Movie playback, about 7 sites popped up
claiming that DeCSS would be used to defeat the anti-piracy measures
embedded into the DVD standards.
Furthermore, the lawsuits filed by the MPAA attempted to claim that
even though the developer was in a country not adopting the "Digital
Millineum Copyright Act", and even though there was no proof that the
developer had signed the contract, and no proof that any violations
had been committed, in fact, there were even statements that the
author had intuitively derived the DeCSS technology from press
releases and other publicly available information available both
before and after the DVD standard was adopted.
Unfortunately, since DeCSS cannot be proven to be covered by the
nondisclosures and Digital Millineum copyright act, and since the
technology was not patented (if it could have been), and since the
very nature of the nondisclosure environment only adds more
credibility to the argument that the author didn't have access to
the "top secret" information, there was no way to control DeCSS
through nondisclosure.
There are a number of very simple solutions to the entire problem.
The simplest would be to include "snitch-ware" as "mandatory code",
which essentially assures that the MPAA would receive a "play-list"
similar to the playlists used by restaurants, bars, and elevators
to assure that copyright royalties (usually a flat monthly rate)
are distributed to the correct authors, publishers, and producers.
An additional measure would be to have the original code include
warnings similar to those found at the beginning of videotapes, and
on the crates used to ship 35mm film, which remind the reader that
the penalty for copyright violation is almost as severe as the penalty
for murder.
> Cheers
>
> Stu
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
