Linux-Advocacy Digest #618, Volume #29 Thu, 12 Oct 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (D. Spider)
Re: The Power of the Future! (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ermine Todd")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Ermine Todd")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (2:1)
Re: David T. Johnson lies again ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: D. Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:05:02 -0700
It appears that on Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:49:38 GMT, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 15:44:17 GMT, Dustin Puryear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 13:46:44 GMT,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 04:27:23 -0600, David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>conducted with an entirely different philosophy than Windows. Also, Windows
>>>>95/98 and, yes, Me are still running on top of a real mode MS-DOS, no matter
>>>>how much MS may try to say that they are OSes, they are not, the DOS
>>>>underneath is the OS with a protected mode 32bit GUI on top of it. I will
>>>
>>>Not quite. DOS has never been an operating system; it is just a program loader
>>>and file system.
>>>
>>>Calling DOS an OS because it loads first is like calling lilo an operating
>>>system.
>>
>>DOS is an operating system. It provides file and memory services, and in general
>>acts as an interface between the system and applications. That's what an OS
>>does. The analogy between LILO and DOS doesn't really hold water.
>
>No it doesn't. Just about every DOS application ever written has to talk
>directly to the hardware to get anything done.
So what? The fact that DOS provides a minimal API doesn't make it any
less an OS. It's just an OS with a different design philosophy. It has
low overhead, a minimalist API, and makes direct hardware access very
easy. A comparison could be made with the likes of the Mach kernel -
certainly there are some enourmous differences, but there are
similarities too.
Of course, an OS is not simply a kernel, so Win9x is not DOS, but it
definately is an OS built on top of the DOS kernel, and still includes
most of the rest of DOS, although it tries to hide it and pointedly
removed the documentation for it.
>
>My comparison to DOS and LILO holds perfectly well. Once windoze/9x loads, dos
>is out of the picture. Windoze 9x doesn't even use dos hardly anything.
Nonsense. Tell that to Transmeta - who recently had to redesign their
chip to run Win9x at an acceptable speed by adding hardware to handle
16 bit code efficiently. They had initially made the same assumption
you are making - that DOS functions simply as a loader for windows,
then gets out of the way and stays out of the way - and found out the
hard way that this is wrong. The 3k series Crusoe is the original
design, and works fine with Unix, but is a total dog in Windows. The
5k series is different only in that it has the additional hardware to
handle DOS efficiently, and shows a big performance boost over the 3k
series with Win9x.
>You might as well call the BIOS an OS if you really DOS can be considered an OS.
>DOS has a file system and can load programs but that's about it.
That is not an inconsequential distinction, nor is your categorization
exhaustive. DOS provides access to storage, memory, standard input and
output... that's the basic core of what an OS must do.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 12:10:59 -0500
Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> Funny you should say this. I haven't seen any Windows advocates urge a
> rabid one of *their* midst to back off, either!
>
> Try
>
>http://x57.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=673841498.1&mhitnum=14&CONTEXT=971351951.928120973
>
> I think that it's daft to have to post something like this, though.
Fair enough. Now if only we could just purge the rabid ones on both
sides of the fence. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:33:55 -0700
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Dang ... there goes all that conspiracy theory noise down the pot.
Thanks, Simon.
--ET--
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s31ai$2km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Iz6F5.122$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Even the rumors that MS might be engaging in this underhanded (and
> illegal)
> > activity served their purpose. Whether it was intentional or not, the
> > reasoning went, it's still better to stay away from DR DOS.
> >
> > It was a year later before it was finally proven that there had never
been
> > any errors or incompatibilities at all between DR DOS and Windows. By
> then,
> > though, their cute little FUD campaign had done all the damage it needed
> to
> > do. DRI was dead in the water, and Gates & Co were again free to charge
> as
> > much as the market would bear.
> >
> > And then, as now, Microsoft had apologists all over the place. So you
> would
> > have had lots of company back then, too.
>
> As you have lots of company now, Mr. FUDspinner.
>
> BTW; here's the official Microsoft line on it, from Dr. Dobb's Journal,
> Jan94, Letters.
>
> "
> Dear DDJ,
>
> The lawyers have finally given me the green light to describe why the
MS-DOS
> detection code discussed in the article "Examining the Windows AARD
> Detection Code" by Andrew Schulman (DDJ, September 1993) was in the
> Christmas beta. I hope you will keep an open mind, listen to the truth,
and
> accept it. It may not make such good press, but sometimes the truth is
like
> that.
>
> It has never been a practice of this company to deliberately create
> incompatibilities between Microsoft system software and the system
software
> of other OS publishers. I am not aware of any instance where Microsoft
> intentionally created an incompatibility between Windows and DR DOS.
Windows
> is tightly coupled to the underlying MS-DOS operating system. It relies on
a
> number of very precise behavioral characteristics of MS-DOS which have
> nothing to do with the Int 21h API. Because of this tight coupling, an
> MS-DOS imitation must have exactly the proper behavior, or all sorts of
> subtle and not-so-subtle problems will occur, including data loss.
>
> Microsoft does not test Windows on anything other than Microsoft's MS-DOS.
> We don't have the development or testing resources, nor do we consider it
> our job to test Windows on other systems. If you're the developer of an
> MS-DOS imitation, you shouldn't expect your main competitor to do your
work
> for you. If Windows works on your imitation, it works; if it doesn't, it's
> your problem to fix. That may not give you, Andrew, the warm and fuzzies,
> but this is business, not a giveaway.
>
> During the developing of Win 3.1, a great deal of thought was given to
ways
> to reduce the high support burden associated with Windows. During the
betas,
> we got a few bug reports about Windows not working correctly on some of
the
> MS-DOS imitations. So it seemed like a very small portion of the market
> might have problems running Win 3.1 on something other than genuine
MS-DOS.
> In order to be fair and up-front with them, we considered that it might be
a
> good idea to let them know--before they encountered problems or even data
> loss--that they were running Win 3.1 on a system we hadn't tested. The
> intended purpose of this disclosure message was to protect the customer
and
> reduce the product-support burden arising from the use of Windows on
> untested systems. The plan was to include an "off switch" in the
commercial
> release that the end user could use to prevent the message from being
> redisplayed every time Windows was run.
>
> In order to preserve the option of putting a disclosure message in the
> commercial release of Win 3.1, some MS-DOS detection code was implemented
> and inserted into the relevant modules of the "Christmas" beta. This code
> only detected the presence of MS-DOS; it did not detect any competing OS.
>
> The wording of the message that was displayed if something other than
MS-DOS
> was detected in the Christmas beta has been the subject of accusatory
> speculation. Our intention for the final release was to warn the user that
> Windows (and that includes all Windows components) is being run on a
system
> we have not tested. The message in the beta, however, was carefully
crafted
> to produce a desired effect. Since this code was inserted very late in the
> development schedule, we were very concerned about making sure it worked
> properly, and especially that it did not have "false positives," i.e.,
that
> it did not "misfire" when there really was genuine MS-DOS underneath. As a
> result, we wanted to make sure that anytime it triggered, the beta tester
> would call us so we could follow up and confirm that the code was reliably
> detecting MS-DOS, or if instead it was returning false positives. In fact,
> the message says to contact the Win 3.1 beta support.
>
> The language of the message was not alarming; it did not mention the
nature
> of the "nonfatal error" nor the name of any competitor. Moreover, the
> message either disappeared in a matter of seconds or with a single
> keystroke. Nor did the message stop Windows from running.
>
> Of course the code was concealed. This should not be surprising at all. If
> it can be easily circumvented by an imitation (which I remind you we
haven't
> tested against), then its purpose has been defeated.
>
> Neither the detection and concealment code nor the nonfatal-error message
> created any incompatibility with DR DOS.
>
> Prior to the March 9, 1992 RTM date for Win 3.1, we decided not to include
> the disclosure message in the commercial release of the product because we
> didn't want to run the risk that it would be misinterpreted and thus
divert
> attention from the new features of Windows 3.1. We were in a tough
> competitive battle with OS/2 and wanted the attention focused on the great
> new features of Win 3.1, rather than artificial "controversy" whipped up
by
> the press or our competitors.
>
> In fact, the planned disclosure message was never coded into the product.
> Because this decision was made so late in the development cycle, and we
> didn't want to risk introducing instability into the product, we left the
> detection and concealment code and the nonfatal-
>
> error message in the product, but disabled it from printing onscreen. As a
> technical person, Andrew, you know that a NO-OP is a NO-OP. Even though
the
> code remains in Win 3.1 in a "quiescent" state, the fact remains that no
> messages are printed. You insinuate that we could somehow, sometime "turn
it
> on." How? ESP? Remote control? If we could get people to execute a patch
> that would turn the code on, we could certainly figure out a way to patch
> the whole thing in.
>
> Finally, the detection and concealment code and the nonfatal-error message
> code have been stripped out of the versions of Windows currently under
> development. That's the story. Surely not as interesting or controversial
as
> you or others would have people believe, but it's what really happened.
>
> Brad Silverberg, Vice President
>
> Microsoft Corp.
>
> Redmond, Washington"
>
> Here's stuff from a 1998 Editorial:
>
> "According to Microsoft e-mail subpoenaed by the government and reviewed
by
> the WSJ, the AARD code was the result of an orchestrated plan in which,
> according to a Microsoft response published by DDJ in January 1994 and
> reiterated in the WSJ article, Microsoft hoped "to help reduce product
> support costs by determining whether 3.1 was running on a version of DOS
for
> which it had been tested." Whatever.
>
> In fairness, it should be repeated that the AARD code was only present in
> the "Christmas" beta release, and not included in shipping versions of
> Windows 3.1. If you're interested, both our AARD article and Microsoft's
> response are available at
> http://www.ddj.com/ddj/1993/1993_09/9309d/9309d.htm and
> http://www.ddj.com/ddj/1994/1994_01/9409o/9409o.htm, respectively. "
>
> And frankly, working for a company which receives support calls, and
having
> dealt with others' technical support, this is a typical industry manoever;
> they don't provide support on anything other than what they stick on the
> box. If you're not running the certified system, you lose the support.
>
> Note that the exact text of the message was:
>
> "Non-fatal error detected; error #4D53;
>
> (please contact Windows 3.1 beta support)
>
> Press Enter to Continue"
>
> Does this say that Dr.DOS caused it?
> Does it say that anything won't work with it?
> No, it just says, and I quote: Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support.
>
> Simon
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 10:41:24 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Not just that ... don't forget the search and replace functionality in the
NT version as well as the additional display font options.
--ET--
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:sMcF5.427$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The differences between NT and 9x are precisely because of the windows
edit
> control
>
> The Win9x edit control has a 16 bit heap, which is 64K (the size file that
> Notepad is not un-coincidentally limited to) and the NT edit control has
no
> such limitation.
>
> "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:#Cxirg#MAHA.319@cpmsnbbsa09...
> > Don't forget the autologging capability. Plus there are some
differences
> > between the NT and 9x versions - especially in terms of the size of
files
> > that can be opened. (for those who have forgotten - place a ".log"
line
> at
> > the top of a text file, everytime that the file is opened after that, a
> > date/timestamp is appended to the bottom of the file).
> >
> > --ET--
> >
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:vSPE5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8rtf3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > 3) Notepad is a trivial windows application. (Defined as an
> > > > > application a good Windows programmer could complete in a week or
> > > > > two).
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that you would expect a good Windows programmer to
take
> a
> > > > week or two to implement Notepad? Is that a reasonable estimate of
the
> > > > time it would take for a program like that?
> > >
> > > Actually, Notepad is an app that should only take any decent developer
a
> > few
> > > hours to write.
> > >
> > > The vast majority of notepad's functionality is provided by the
windows
> > edit
> > > control. The rest is just writing the text to disk, Searching in the
> > text,
> > > and adding a help box.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:39:28 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't think I played that one. I had Missle Command though.
A true classic. What was your system? Most of my old games reside on a
BBC Master, though I playes a few on the early IBM at other peoples
houses.
Another favourite of mine was Strykers Run:Codename Droid. Quite how
they got an old 1MHz computer to scroll graphics at quite that speed is
beyond me.
-Ed
>
> claire
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:36:04 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> I used to play Stargate on Atari console :)
> >>
> >> Damm I feel old :)
> >
> >Did you ever play `Thrust'? That was a really cool game too. I spent
> >*far* too long playing it.
> >
> >-Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:22:10 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> (I have something even older -- a Stargate clone that runs on CGA,
> >> >> off a floppy that has to be booted into, Last time I tried to run *that*,
> >> >> it ran, but so ridiculously fast one can't see anything. :-) )
> >> >
> >> >You obviously have bad taste in old games :-)
> >> >If you were playing, say, Alley Cat, for instance (a good game,
> >> >naturally), you would have found that not only was it a good game, but
> >> >it was also well written (except that quit leaves you in CGA mode
> >> >heigh-ho.) - it works at the right speed on a P133.
> >> >
> >> >Now I have to get hold of a copy of digger from the old IBMs too, coz
> >> >that was a good game too...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: David T. Johnson lies again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:53:49 GMT
Marty writes [to David T. Johnson]:
> Do you utilize the same (to quote Joe Malloy) "mythical and ineffective
> lawyer" as Tholen?
My lawyer is neither mythical nor ineffective, Marty, despite what Joe
Malloy wants you to think. Of course, Joe Malloy also wants you to
believe in a mythical "chat with TPTB". At least he's a consistent
liar.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:57:34 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>>>>>>>>>>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing such
>>>>>>>>>>> postings.
>>>>>>>>>> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow up",
>>>>>>>>>> Marty.
>>>>>>>>> Very good, Dave.
>>>>>>>> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
>>>>>>> Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
>>>>>> I'm looking at what you wrote, Marty.
>>>>> Of what relevance is this self-evident remark?
>>>> It shows that you brought up "off-topic posting", Marty,
>>> Irrelevant, as doing so was an act of staying on topic.
>> Exactly how does that statement represent an act of staying on topic,
> See the subject line.
See what I was talking about, Marty, which deals directly with what
you were talking about.
>> when the topic was about you practicing what you were preaching with
>> regard to "Stop being a hypocrite and grow up", Marty?
> Incorrect. See the subject line.
See what you wrote, Marty:
MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>>>> despite the fact that I was suggesting that you practice what you
>>>> preach.
>>> You made no such suggestion, Dave.
>> Incorrect:
>>
>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
> That's not a suggestion, Dave.
Yes it is, Marty.
>> Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Marty?
> Not at all.
Then why don't you recognize
DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
as a suggestion?
>>>> Context, Marty.
>>> Like the thread topic, for example?
>> Are you able to comprehend that?
> Obviously.
Then why don't you recognize
MA] Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
as the topic?
>> You certainly didn't comprehend that I wrote:
>>
>> DT] Practice what you preach, Marty.
> Incorrect. You simply failed to realize that it was not a suggestion.
How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't recognize it as a
suggestion.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
