Linux-Advocacy Digest #637, Volume #29 Fri, 13 Oct 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Astroturfing ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("James A. Robertson")
Developers needed for Distributed Computing Start-up -- Part-Time & Telecommuting
("Keith Donaldson")
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: Magnetism (Gregory L. Hansen)
Re: Magnetism ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:39:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said westprog 2000 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <LjyE5.125555$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> wrote:
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> > Said Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com> in
>> > [...]
>> > >I'd have to conclude that it's the WINE programmer's fault in not
>> > >understanding the
>> > >CreateWindow() interface and how to properly create a default
>> > >window class of "EDIT".
>
>> > Whatever. That's simply more detailed evidence of how crappy Win32
>> > is,
>> > if the WINE programmers can't even get these rudimentary things to
>> > work correctly.
>
>> How did you "conclude" this?
>
>I would be interested to see the mental process involved.
Making no assumptions about anybody's 'technical expertise' or
'development capabilities' or 'technical value' in any way, if one set
of programmers is having a great deal of difficulty replicating the
results of another set of programmers, there are two contradictory
possible explanations. The first is that the original programmers are
pre-eminent in the very things that we are trying to avoid assuming.
The second is that there is some non-technical (or non-obvious in a
technical sense) issue which prevents them from success.
This alternative itself can be considered in the dichotomy (I try to
avoid them, generally, but I'm trying to keep the explanation simple)
that either there is some extra-special secret the second group is not
aware of, or the results of the original programmers is not constructed
in a reasonable fashion, so that programmers attempting to replicate its
behavior would have to so bungle the job of being competent programmers
to match the arbitrary behavior, inexplicable construction, and/or
inefficiencies of the original that it is more of a crap-shoot than a
matter of skill.
These two alternatives are unified again when examined in light of free
markets and monopoly market behavior. It is not only possible, but
almost inevitable, that a company which, as Microsoft has conclusively
proven to do by revelation of internal communications providing clear
and direct evidence of the fact, attempts to use development of their
product to further anti-competitive strategies in support of monopoly
power will benefit financially from making their product 'new', and
purportedly functional, but developing it in such a way as to make it
less operationally useful. This enables the monopolist to avoid having
to support the more problematic parts of their design, as the
already-troublesome matter of just getting the more routine parts, which
regularly change for the primary reason of preventing other's from
catching up. It also increases the demand (from the locked-in market)
for the next version.
Thus, in considering whether Win32 is either too well designed or too
poorly designed to be easily duplicated by the WINE effort, it seems
fairly obvious that the latter explanation is consistent with the fact
that Microsoft is known to act anti-competitively, regularly and
willfully, to prevent competition. The DR-DOS/Caldera case, the Win98
anti-trust case, the Blue Mountain Greeting Cards case, the Sun Java
case, all have one startlingly obvious thing in common: documentary
evidence, provided by Microsoft itself, that their intent was to
restrain trade and monopolize, and protect their locked-in installed
base while extracting regular (and as high and unrecompensed in value as
possible) licensing fees.
According to The Road Ahead, by Bill Gates, and other statements he has
made in public, his plan is to continue doing this until he can charge
for every use of program code in the world, and then to start using that
power to start charging for every use of content/data. From there, the
results are obvious: he becomes emperor of the world, and eventually the
majority of people need to rent everything they have from him, and will
never own anything. This would seem to be the ultimate extension of his
desires, even expectations, and I'm sad to say that he's appeared to
support this potentiality; I believe he is simply a megalomaniac.
Ballmer is probably simply outrageously greedy, and the fact that Billy
was able to become the Richest Man in the World is probably due to his
ability to recognize the value of a megalomaniac who knew how software
could be used anti-competitively to extract billions of dollars in
misbegotten profits in a way which is so difficult to recognize that it
can't even be comprehended unless you understand quite a good deal about
the facts.
You don't have to agree with this obviously radically excessive
hypothesis, however, to recognize that Microsoft's Windows APIs are used
anti-competitively. They've all but admitted it, in many ways, and
proved to be dishonest in generally as necessary to maintain their
illegal monopoly. Honesty leads to free markets, and free markets don't
support monopolies.
>> If the WINE programmers can't get these (very
>> NON-rudimentary) things to work correctly then I think they have not
>> done their homework.
>> Feel free to have them mail me. I can explain the splendid logic of
>> the WndClass.
>
>It is precisely because it is so easy for a Windows programmer to write
>a Notepad equivalent that it is hard to provide the same functionality
>with an emulator. If all that Win-32 provided was the ability to draw
>dots and lines on the screen, emulating it with X would be trivial. It
>is because Win32 provides so much functionality that it is hard to
>emulate.
>...
And this is why extending those APIs to encompass as much functionality
is possible (thus making all of these non-competitive 'developers'
lives' a lot easier, with the cost in reliability, performance, lack of
diversity, innovation and development, and overall equivalent 'churn' in
trivial and unimportant details without benefit, a cost born by the
consumer) is an anti-competitive practice that works, as long as you
have a monopoly. If they weren't a monopoly, they would have to make
sure it actually isn't crap, in order for anyone else to bother with it.
[...]
>I'd be interested to see what the undocumented Win32 api calls actually
>are.
There are books on the subject. I don't personally own one, yet, but I
guess it might be worthwhile, at this point.
>...
>> > make it all but impossible to support the Win32 API,
>
>> You seem to ignore the fact that most software companies do support
>> this "impossible" API
>> :-)
>
>I do find Win32 unnecessarily complex and messy. I find the use of
>parameters such as WPARAM and LPARAM lazy and unhelpful. I can't see
>why the file operations should be lumped in together with the GDI
>operations. However, I don't find Posix any improvement, except in so
>far as it provides less functionality and therefore less scope for
>confusion.
But POSIX is intended, as per my recent post, to be a 'not necessarily
functional' mechanism. It is acknowledged by all concerned to be a
'lowest common denominator', allowing the government to be at least
theoretically free of extortion by any one software developer. You can
always get access to the data through the minimal paradigm of POSIX
structures, whatever they might be, is the thinking. Yes, the whole
idea is as you describe. Thank you for your post; it was the general
opinion of developers like yourself which I've talked to which I was
trying to communicate to mike.byrns.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:37:32 GMT
Under Linux I like either StarOffice or Wordperfect.
Star is a bit bloated and WP runs under Wine, but hey, the price is
right and they are certainly far, far more advanced than my Word
processing skills :)
I'll never use MSOffice under any platform.
claire
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:24:44 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> I like your signature :)
>>
>> Only MS products I use are Windows and Flight Simulator.
>> I tried Office once and spent a week trying to extract it from my
>> system.
>> Never again.
>
>If you *need* it, it runs well on wine (except printing*). Can't do any
>damage from there...
>
>*I'm on a 6 month old build.
>
>Microft Minesweeper seems about OK :-)
>
>
>-Ed
>
>
>> claire
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 19:06:57 GMT,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>>
>> >Most of the vocal and insulting Linux advocates don't use their real names
>> >- are you saying they should be ashamed of themselves too?
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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 20:42:02 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> >How did you "conclude" this? If the WINE programmers can't get these (very
> >NON-rudimentary) things to work correctly then I think they have not done their
>homework.
> >Feel free to have them mail me. I can explain the splendid logic of the WndClass.
>
> They are only rudimentary for Microsoft; they are arbitrary to everyone
> else. Obviously, MS didn't do them it in a very understandable,
> efficient, or even explicable fashion, if professional developers
> attempting to duplicate the behavior find it impossible. You can
> explain the 'splendid logic' of the WndClass, but you can't clone it,
> can you?
>
Wait a second here - are you trying to say thatan arbitrarily complex
library ought to be easily emulated with only the public api available?
Good gravy, do you even write software for a living? If so, how can you
believe this?
The win32 API seems to have little in common with the X Windows system,
thus making any emulation that much more difficult.
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: "Keith Donaldson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Developers needed for Distributed Computing Start-up -- Part-Time &
Telecommuting
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 20:43:41 GMT
Hello:
My name is Keith Donaldson. I am President/CEO of an Internet start-up
called Cabal'i. Cabal'i, Inc. is a pioneer in the $25 billion Application
Service Provider (ASP) market. We are well funded, with office space near
MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. At this time we are looking to build out
our development team.
We are a MIT start-up that is creating a technology that will revolutionize
network computing. Our mission is to build a scalable infrastructure for
ASPs. We are building a set of scalable and reliable services for networks,
which will function as the building blocks for higher-level applications.
This is the next generation of Internet computing.
We are looking for C++/JAVA developers with knowledge client/server
technology and distributed computing. If interested , please email (RTF
format preferred) or fax your resume:
Thanks for your time and consideration.
*************************************************************
All resumes received will be held in complete confidence.
*************************************************************
___________________________________
Keith D. Donaldson, President/CEO
CABAL'I, INC.
87 CHERRY STREET
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
617.945.1860: TELEPHONE
617.945.1870: FACSIMILE
617.403.0288: MOBILE
http://www.cabali.com
~ enabling the evolution ~
___________________________________
------------------------------
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 16:53:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"John Lockwood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >DOS rarely crashed *AT THE COMMAND LINE* too. So what?
>> >
>>
>> So what to which part? :-)
>
>You mentioned that Linux was pretty stable as long as
>you didn't enter XWindows (which is correct).
>
>I was attempting to say "so what have you gained then?".
>
>Linux is a really stable beefy version of DOS, essentially?
>heh
>
>Command-lines are at their most useful when they compliment
>a good GUI. Maximum productivity is acheived, despite what
>the Linvocates would argue to make themselves seem more
>important.
>
>If I want cmd-line that doesn't crash much, I could
>use DOS too, so what have I gained besides having a little
>bit better hardware support?
Without getting into the non-user implementations like servers, (Andrew
Carpenter discusses this in a separate response), I'd like to say that I
think the point, Chad, is that you are confusing the metaphor of the GUI
for the abstraction of a command line. The truthful answer to your
question of "so what?" is that Linux is still superior to Win/DOS at the
command line, as well, and much power lies there-in, in fact. While for
you, who'm I'll assume is competent at the DOS command line, for a
Windows user, think of the command line as some 'alternate shell'. But,
in fact, in both cases, Win/DOS and Linu/X, 'the command line' is
actually the operating system, and the entire GUI merely a shell on top
of that. The difference becomes clear, still, within that GUI, as the
Linu/X allows you to run true shells within the GUI, with multiple or
combined environments as necessary, with a great deal of configurability
and diversity as well as power, and Windows just gives you a DOS prompt.
And even with that, saying that Linux with X is as unstable as DOS with
Windows is an almost laughable statement. A Linux computer is much less
stable when running X than not; I will grant that. Any Unix is going to
be less stable, with that particular load. I'd just as soon see the
whole thing revised, to provide what back-end mechanics are necessary to
maintain the network transparency of X while specifically supporting the
GNOME/KDE-type 'desktop' environment. It is, after all, what would have
developed naturally in the industry, given Apple, IBM's, and Unix's
parallel evolution, whether Microsoft did it with Win/DOS or not.
But maybe I just see more of the ragged edge of Microsoft software,
visiting dozens of major carriers, enterprises, and dot.coms every year.
Linux couldn't be as bad as Windows if it tried, X or no X.
--
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 17:00:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Fr�d�ric G. MARAND in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>www.ptc.com
>
>Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message :
>wZIE5.163773$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Fr�d�ric G. MARAND" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8rv1g4$59b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Quite simple. Install PTC ProductView. Use a VGA driver, an MS mouse.
>Then
>> > start the Engineering Data Server service. BSOD. And it's not a driver,
>> just
>> > a very "applicative" application.
>> ... and one that I've never heard of. Links?
Oh, yea. Go track that one down, Simon. ;-D
--
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 16:59:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Andrew Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> > If I want cmd-line that doesn't crash much, I could
>> > use DOS too, so what have I gained besides having a little
>> > bit better hardware support?
>>
>> Would you run a server using DOS?
>>
>> Consider the range of uses Linux is good for without even having a
>> monitor attached, let alone running a graphical shell, it strikes me as
>> a pretty thin argument.
>>
>> I don't see why a [ firewall | router | web server | file server |
>> etc... ] would be any more useful with a GUI running...
>
>Try running NT with the certified drivers, and a VGA video driver. Then try
>crashing it. You'll find it very difficult.
Well, I don't generally have much patience, but I wouldn't call
operating a computer and waiting until it inevitably crashes, in an in
determinant and non-deterministic manner something that's necessarily
'difficult'. Not every NT installation crashes, not by any means. But
any NT installation could crash, and many of them do so often.
But if you mean doing something other than trying to use a lot of
different pieces of software on an OS, and being patient, then you are
right. It is probably as difficult to get NT to crash purposefully
without programming tricks as it is to get it to stop crashing once it
starts doing so, without having to reboot several times and sort out
some facet of difficulty with monopoly crapware, if you're lucky.
And this only because MS has been able to make Win/DOS itself so
piss-poor that the consumer base is forced to pay for the new version of
the NT-based W2K. Does anybody have any real info on how much OEMs are
paying and charging buyers for on this stuff?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory L. Hansen)
Subject: Re: Magnetism
Date: 13 Oct 2000 20:59:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That sounds like something you should be able to find that runs under
>Linux.
>
>claire
I couldn't, but I was hoping someone else can. Because commercially, this
type of software seems to go for about $10,000 and up.
>
>
>On 13 Oct 2000 15:53:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory
>L. Hansen) wrote:
>
>>
>>What are the odds of finding a GNU project for the design of magnets and
>>magnetic shielding?
>
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Magnetism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 21:07:55 GMT
Ok, I was poking a little fun at how Linux has all kinds of technical
(geek) applications but not so many average Jane type applications and
you caught me :)
I'm stepping out of the loop on this one because you have a need and I
don't have an answer for you.
Maybe one of the Linux guru's around here would care to help this guy
out?
claire
On 13 Oct 2000 20:59:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory
L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That sounds like something you should be able to find that runs under
>>Linux.
>>
>>claire
>
>I couldn't, but I was hoping someone else can. Because commercially, this
>type of software seems to go for about $10,000 and up.
>
>
>>
>>
>>On 13 Oct 2000 15:53:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory
>>L. Hansen) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>What are the odds of finding a GNU project for the design of magnets and
>>>magnetic shielding?
>>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
