Linux-Advocacy Digest #627, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Darin Johnson)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:40:50 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Lockwood in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:13:31 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>You've confused me with somebody else. I don't hate the Windows API; I
>>hate Microsoft for developing it predatoraly as a lock-in method to
>>concretize the barrier of entry to support their illegal monopoly. This
>>is what makes the API crap; not how hard it is to work with. Though I
>>haven't heard many good things from non-fanatic developers.
>
>Of course not, since you define anyone who disagrees with you as a
>fanatic,
Could you provide some substantiation of this claim?
>even though we may in fact be Java programmers who don't
>think the Windows API is all that great technically, but might
>nevertheless be inclined to disagree with your glib and highly
>motivated dismissal of what in fact functions quite well for all its
>flaws.
I'm not concerned about how well it functions in spite of its flaws.
I'm wondering why, if it supposedly "so good" that it is on 90% of all
PCs, and supposedly "so good" that it provides technology available
no-where else, it is full of flaws. How could something have such a
large number of flaws and yet be the most successful product? I find it
neither glib nor highly motivated to dismiss Microsoft as a criminal
organization, as they've provided more than ample evidence in their
internal correspondence that they base their development not on 'how to
improve the product', but rather 'how to prevent competition'. If you
can't understand why the result of such a strategy can generally be
called 'crap', that's not my problem.
[...]
>Apparently from another poster WINE in fact does work well enough to
>run notepad. I wouldn't know either way.
There are still reported bugs with using notepad on WINE.
[...]
>>>What do you mean by crap?
>>
>>The standard vernacular; a piece of shit.
>
>Well, it's not that. The reason I can tell is because I'm typing on
>it now and it doesn't smell, and my hands aren't brown. So you just
>hate Microsoft and that's fine, I don't love them that much either.
>Neither do I hate them to the point of swearing about them.
Saying "shit" isn't swearing. Its a vulgarity, not the name of a deity.
I don't 'just hate' Microsoft, and your rather pathetic dismissal of the
issue might seem comical, but does not address the point. It is that;
the reason I can tell is that the reason you are typing on it is most
probably the fact that it was included on the PC you are using when you
bought it, due to criminal activity by Microsoft. Your assumption that
it has something to do with technical merit is what qualifies you as
naive or merely ignorant.
>>>Clearly you don't mean that programmers can't use it -- you seemed to
>>>for awhile but now you've retreated from that.
>>
>>No, I haven't 'retreated' from anything. Yes, many competent
>>programmers have stated that the Win32 API is a horrendously convoluted
>>pile of crap, but clearly it is not unusable. Merely unavoidable.
>
>Now you're just going every which way, which is somewhat fun to watch,
>but I fear the fun may be short lived.
It sounds more to me like you're 'going every which way'. You don't
seem to have a valid response to any of my concerns except empty
presumptions and naive assumptions.
>>You have a disfunctionally narrow view of the issue. All the API had to
>>be in order to succeed was lacking competition, which was handily
>>provided by criminal activity, quite separate and distinct from any
>>technical usability.
>
>So in other words because they had a monopoly I could -- as a junior
>programmer at the time -- learn to use it even though it was
>technically unusable? I do admit it's tough to follow you sometimes.
No, its just tough to try to convolute my words, and still make sense.
Did I say it was ever technically unusable? Did you *assume* maybe,
that when I said it is a piece of crap, that it must therefore be
entirely unusable?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:41:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>
>> Therefore Win32 is a piece of crap. I'm not going to impugn the
>> capabilities of a developer I do not have knowledge of.
>
>Ahh - then you must know the MS developers personally then, and have
>done code reviews with them?
No. My opinion of Win32 has nothing to do with the code, directly. It
is the anti-competitive business practices which cause the product to be
a piece of crap; I'm sure the programmers are trying their damndest to
keep it running, and seem to have done well enough so far to maintain
the illegal monopoly. Not that that's very hard, from a technical
standpoint. All it has to do is work enough to prevent people from
giving in to the expense of migrating away from the monopoly, and suck
enough to ensure they're going to buy the next version in hopes it will
be a less crappy product. Suckers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:41:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John Lockwood in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 12:22:16 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>>Well, I've never used WINE, but the conclusion I'd be more likely to
>>>reach given the above is that your premise that WINE emulates Windows
>>>is false.
>>
>>Therefore Win32 is a piece of crap. I'm not going to impugn the
>>capabilities of a developer I do not have knowledge of. All the
>>WinTrolls seem pretty quick to pronounce the WINE team as incompetent or
>>unknowledgeable, but that isn't surprising.
>
>I didn't say any such thing, you did. They may not have been at it
>long, or they may be working part time. I really don't care, because
>I have no ax to grind here.
>
>But listening to someone who by his own admission is "an advocate and
>not a developer" say WIN32 is crap because he dislikes Microsoft is
>only really entertaining for a short time.
You have it backwards. I dislike Microsoft because their products are
crap, and their products are crap because they are a monopoly, not a
competitive developer. Not the other way around.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
From: Darin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 05:42:13 GMT
Quoting from the MS rebuttal:
> 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.
So even their rebuttal subtly shoves in fear, uncertainty, and doubt!
What works with FUD is the market section that isn't so well informed.
What stick in their mind is merely the suggestion that something other
than MS-DOS might have incompatibilities. Much later, next time a
purchase decision comes up, they'll remember reading something,
somewhere, that there were some problems with non-MSDOS systems
running Windows.
It's like news reports that feed on themselves, ie, in the stock
market and the like. The news (real new, not make up) says something
like "investors worried about possible problems with XYZ Corp seem to
be selling off"; then many readers don't do the research, they just
know "someone is worried about XYZ, maybe I should be too". In the
same way, a news report of "some users have been concerned that DRDOS
may not be compatible with Windows" will cause many readers to also
become concerned, whether it's a valid concern or not.
Of course, the rest of MS's rebuttal is a lot of "if others want to
horn in on our monopoly, they'd better be prepared to jump through
extra hoops".
Still quoting from MS:
> 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.
Other Windows competitors, with less manpower than MS, managed to get
the resources to test on other systems. (ok, to be fair, most didn't,
they just assumed it was MSDOS, and any competitors were just party
poopers).
> 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.
The problem is that at that time, and even more so as time went on,
MSDOS became the defacto "ABI" for PC's and PC clones. It was the
only game in town, in essence the only OS player in the PC world (if
you wrote an app that was not MSDOS compatible, you flopped). Ie, a
monopoly. Windows was a separate product, not an MSDOS extension, and
thus should not have been allowed to leverage off of MSDOS.
> 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.
This is contrary to the rest of the letter. Earlier, the purpose of
the code was to "warn" the user that there might be
incompatibilities. If it's just a mere warning, then why go to
efforts to conceal this? They obviously new that this message would
scare users away from competitors. But why hide it? Any competitor
would have found it soon enough. Smart users might find it and
circumvent it, but that shouldn't matter if they already had seen the
warning. I can only guess it was just paranoia (or maybe arrogance
that the competition wasn't smart enough to figure out the code?).
Actually, if I think about it based on experience at various
companies. Some lone wolf programmer added this in, or it was added
at the direction of some middle manager; no one higher up ever thought
of it, and once revealed a retraction letter was sent out. Maybe I'm
just too cynical.
> 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.
Sad but true. Any way at all to tell the user "not supported" is money saved.
> 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.
That's what's so bad about it. Some mysterious error happens, and
it seems to only happen to users not using MSDOS. Mysterious errors
are scary. If it had actually said clearly "we haven't tested with
that version of DOS", then it would have been better than the
implication that somethign was actually wrong.
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:53:27 -0700
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:41:15 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You have it backwards. I dislike Microsoft because their products are
>crap, and their products are crap because they are a monopoly, not a
>competitive developer. Not the other way around.
Thanks for setting the record straight.
John
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 22:56:39 -0700
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:40:50 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>I'm not concerned about how well it functions in spite of its flaws.
>I'm wondering why, if it supposedly "so good" that it is on 90% of all
>PCs, and supposedly "so good" that it provides technology available
>no-where else, it is full of flaws. How could something have such a
>large number of flaws and yet be the most successful product? I find it
>neither glib nor highly motivated to dismiss Microsoft as a criminal
>organization, as they've provided more than ample evidence in their
>internal correspondence that they base their development not on 'how to
>improve the product', but rather 'how to prevent competition'. If you
>can't understand why the result of such a strategy can generally be
>called 'crap', that's not my problem.
It's not a question of understanding it, but thanks for the ad
hominem. It's a question of it being descriptive but not especially
interesting. You hate microsoft, whether I have it backward or not,
and whether it's glib or highly motivated or not. All of that's well
and good.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:00:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> >1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
>> >> >No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
>> >> >treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
>> >> >by another information content provider.
>> >> >
>> >> >(What part of this don't you understand? )
>> >>
>> >> The part where it has anything to do with what we're talking about. If
>> >> you want to avoid being treated like a publisher, you have to avoid
>> >> publishing. That means you are not at liberty to pick and choose who's
>> >> posts appear.
>> >
>> >Show me a reference backing this absurd statement up!
>>
>> No.
>
>Then shut up until you can provide proof.
No.
[...]
>> I didn't say that was what made them newspaper publishers, that they
>> paid for content, did I?
>
>No, but you take a more insane stance that by exersizing their right to
>delete unwanted content they are suddenly liable for ALL the content that
>others post.
What does that have to do with your statement? No, they don't have a
"right to delete unwanted content". They have a right to 'good faith'
efforts to "restrict access to or availability of material that the
provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable." You might
think its the same thing as 'deleting unwanted content', but that's
hardly a convincing legal argument.
>> As long as they only practice 'good faith' exclusion of messages, rather
>> than blatant and intentional censorship.
>
>As long as *nothing*.. If you can't bring forth a single sucessfull
>censorship lawsuit or a single ordinance or law stating that the owner of a
>server has no right to censor content without taking on a "publisher roll"
You have a right to 'good faith' attempts to censor content as stated in
the law, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html, and that is as
far as it goes.
>Especially in the face of the existing law written specifically to convey
>the opposite:
>
>"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as
>the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information
>content provider.
>
>You arguing for the sake of argument again. Show proof or shut up.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States -
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and
other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that
presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer
services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize
user control over what information is received by individuals,
families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive
computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization
of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to
restrict their children's access to objectionable or
inappropriate online material; and
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to
deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and
harassment by means of computer.
I'll remind you that any reasonable person would recognize that you more
vigorously assaulted laws to punish stalking and harassment by means of
computer when you posted private information, and pointed out you'd
identified where I live, then I did when I said "I want to kill
'JS/PL'."
You're an anonymous idiot troll, 'JS/PL'. Yes, I'm arguing with you
simply because I find it amusing. I'll shut up whenever I feel like it.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
