Linux-Advocacy Digest #666, Volume #29 Sun, 15 Oct 00 05:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech (unicat)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Astroturfing ("Boris Dynin")
Re: Ms employees begging for food (sfcybear)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (sfcybear)
Re: Claire Lynn (sfcybear)
Re: Suggestions for Linux (David M. Butler)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 03:30:14 -0400
From: unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Linux have to be such a pain to install? - A speech
I'm not sure that this is the answer to your query, but when MS went from
Win95 to Win98, they changed the spec for the PnP protocol.
About 10% of machines that ran Win95 would lock up and die when Win 98
was installed. To the point that you had to boot DOS 6 from a floppy and
reformat
the hard drive to recover.
When you said "turn off PnP" I thought of this problem. Claiming that Linux
is hard
to install because you have PnP turned off is like driving your chevy into
a tree
because you were trying to steer blindfolded, then blaming chevrolet for
making
the windsheild opaque.
Many motherboard manufacturers have supplied bootable floppy programs that
will upgrade their BIOS firmware for the PNP standard of Win98, and I
betcha
that if you upgraded your system BIOS and turned PnP back on Redhat would
auto-install like clockwork.
Also - www.tigerdirect.com is selling AT form factor motherboards with
300Mhz
Pent II's installed for $79.99 - why in the world are you p*ssing and
moaning
about difficulties with a 133Mhz system when upgrading the hardware
costs less than a box of MS Windows???
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've been reading all these messages around the internet about how
> easily people have been setting up their Linux distributions. I'm here
> to tell you that it is in fact, not easy at all to setup a Linux
> distribution onto an older machine. I'm a software developer in real
> life, and have been pushing my company to support more and more open
> source solutions. I don't know why I've been doing this now, because I
> have tried over the last two months to get my RedHat 6.2 distribution
> setup on my older Compaq 133mHz machine. It took me several tries to
> get it running, and a little personal help from a linux guru. After
> that, I could never get the damn thing to talk to the internet. Why?
> I don't know why, I have a 3C509B-TPO card, I guess I have to do more
> than disable the PNP etc, blah, blah, blah. I have a Linksys firewall
> in which it can talk to, but it refuses. I'm wondering why I don't
> just set up another windows os on that machine. It's easy, and it
> works. But, I HATE WINDOWS!! I own RedHat stock, I'm pushing for open
> source solutions, but admit it!!! Linux is NOT ready for primetime as
> far as a personal computer, desktop solution. Save the figures about
> Apache on the web, and SendMail, I'm talking about a home computer
> desktop solution!!
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 18:45:42 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
unicat wrote:
>
> At the risk of providing fuel for the Wintrolls, I am posting some
> friendly criticism of Linux and the Gnome/KDE GUIs.
> (Notice to Microsoft, you can't copyright any of these ideas,
> I am hereby copyrighting c2000
> them and placing them in the public domain)
Not only are you providing fuel for the Wintrolls, you are providing
fuel for Linux advocates everywhere!
> Linux will never complete its dominance of the computing world
> if we are simply striving to be "as good as" Windows. We must set
> our sights on an OS that is not just more reliable, but much much
> easier to use than MS if we are going to see continued adoption of Linux
Well, Linux is not just trying to be '"as good as" Windows'. IMHO in
most areas Linux already *is* as good as Windows, anyway!
> on the desktop. Along these lines, here are some suggestions:
>
> 1) We need to kill off the "Cult of UNIX" mentality.
> There are too many Linux advocates who are old-line UNIX
> gurus, who believe in the "users should have to earn the right to
> use a computer" ethic. You can see this in the LPI and Redhat
> certification, where the text command line rules supreme. The
> attitude seems to be "If you really want to use Linux, we'll force
> you to learn the bourne shell -bwah-hah-hah-hah!" This anti-social
> elitist mindset is CRIPPLING linux, and we desperately, desperately
> need to eliminate it!
Nobody is forcing you to use the CLI. Many people find it extremely
powerful and useful, however.
> 2) We need to completely eliminate the command line interface.
> That's right. Get rid of it. Anything that can't be done from a
> GUI isn't worth doing. Remove ed,vi,emacs,vim, telnet, rlogin, rsh,
> and especially getty from the distribution package completely.
> Run ppp on all serial lines by default. PCs are cheaper than VT100s,
> and we can use X-windows over ppp instead of curses. To
> replace telnet and rlogin, use an http link and HTML pages that
> use cgi to run commands.
You crack me up! IMO the CLI is extremely useful. When I had to check
servers, the CLI was what I used. Getting rid of the CLI is only
*reducing choice*! Many people like ed, vi, emacs and vim. Why get rid
of them?
Running X-Windows over ppp instead of curses? I do beleive that their
are apps that do this already.
You're suggestion to use web pages for telnet sessions, etc, has already
been implemented. I saw this in one of my sys admin magazines that I
regularly buy. Because of the way that http is designed, I beleive that
this idea, although it has it's merits, is rather daft. http is not
interactive, and it does not save state! Why bother?
BTW, how do you think cgi works on Unix? By the use of scripts!
> 3) We need to add superior functionality to the Linux GUI, like
> the "Halflife" game, with openGL and 3-D icons for linux functions-
>
> a) A restaurant. F'rinstance, you boot linux, and you see a first
> person view of yourself walking into a restaurant. You sit at a
> table,
> and tux the penguin walks over and hands you a menu. The menu has
> linux programs grouped on pages with clickaable tabs. You click a
> tab for
> say, graphics, and a page turns to all the graphics programs . You
> click
> on a menu selection to start up the corresponding function.
> b) An office building. You find yourself walking down a hallway,
> each door leads to either a room or another hallway. Rooms are
> directories with representational 3-D icons for files (like a TV
> for viewing
> animations, or a filing cabinet full of documents, each of which is
>
> a spearate manilla folder). Hallways are directories of
> directories.
> We could produce a tool like a .wad file editor to allow users to
> customize the 3-D environment.
Interesting idea. Have a look at 3Dsia at
http://threedsia.sourceforge.net/
> 4) DWIM, or Do what I meant -
> Instead of setting up a user interface with the goal of outsmarting
> the user
> and finding clever ways to keep them from doing what they want, make
> the goal
> of the user interface to figure out and implement what the user
> "meant" to do.
> a) Have defaults for everything - paths, settings, verbosity, etc.
> and always fill in the
> defaults for anything the user forgets.
> b) Always warn the user about doing stupid things, like when they
> enter
> * and .txt as spearate files to be removed, when they meant *.txt
> c) Never ever ever ask the user to provide the same information twice
> -
> keep everything they ever tell you in a KEYWORD=value file.
> standardize
> the use of keywords, and always check this file before asking the
> user for some fact.
> d) Run a background process once an hour to check the integrity and
> consistency
> of all configuration files - and fix them so they work.
Ah, configuration files are static. Why would you need to do this? "fix
them so they work"? You'll *know* if they don't work! Besides, I don't
want some brain-dead program second guessing my configuration files
(that's why I try not to use Linuxconf)
Besides, if we implemented your suggestions, we wouldn't *need*
configuration files.
> e) The ten year old test - If 90% of ten year old kids can use an
> application
> without training - it's user friendly enough to be DWIM.
>
> 5) Put all files in an associative index which provides the user with
> date, owner, subject,
> occurence of a text string, and filetype clues for finding files,
> which can be used
> instead of a file path whenever a file must be located.
Ever heard of locate? I think that you may be looking for something like
this. You can always do a find combination if you get really desperate.
> Easy to do? No! But worth doing if we really want Linux to win!
It's not really about Linux winning or losing. It's about using what is
right for you. Myself, I think that Linux is great, and I recommend that
people try it out. KDE and GNOME will be good for you, I think.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 18:45:55 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
unicat wrote:
>
> At the risk of providing fuel for the Wintrolls, I am posting some
> friendly criticism of Linux and the Gnome/KDE GUIs.
> (Notice to Microsoft, you can't copyright any of these ideas,
> I am hereby copyrighting c2000
> them and placing them in the public domain)
Not only are you providing fuel for the Wintrolls, you are providing
fuel for Linux advocates everywhere!
> Linux will never complete its dominance of the computing world
> if we are simply striving to be "as good as" Windows. We must set
> our sights on an OS that is not just more reliable, but much much
> easier to use than MS if we are going to see continued adoption of Linux
Well, Linux is not just trying to be '"as good as" Windows'. IMHO in
most areas Linux already *is* as good as Windows, anyway!
> on the desktop. Along these lines, here are some suggestions:
>
> 1) We need to kill off the "Cult of UNIX" mentality.
> There are too many Linux advocates who are old-line UNIX
> gurus, who believe in the "users should have to earn the right to
> use a computer" ethic. You can see this in the LPI and Redhat
> certification, where the text command line rules supreme. The
> attitude seems to be "If you really want to use Linux, we'll force
> you to learn the bourne shell -bwah-hah-hah-hah!" This anti-social
> elitist mindset is CRIPPLING linux, and we desperately, desperately
> need to eliminate it!
Nobody is forcing you to use the CLI. Many people find it extremely
powerful and useful, however.
> 2) We need to completely eliminate the command line interface.
> That's right. Get rid of it. Anything that can't be done from a
> GUI isn't worth doing. Remove ed,vi,emacs,vim, telnet, rlogin, rsh,
> and especially getty from the distribution package completely.
> Run ppp on all serial lines by default. PCs are cheaper than VT100s,
> and we can use X-windows over ppp instead of curses. To
> replace telnet and rlogin, use an http link and HTML pages that
> use cgi to run commands.
You crack me up! IMO the CLI is extremely useful. When I had to check
servers, the CLI was what I used. Getting rid of the CLI is only
*reducing choice*! Many people like ed, vi, emacs and vim. Why get rid
of them?
Running X-Windows over ppp instead of curses? I do beleive that their
are apps that do this already.
You're suggestion to use web pages for telnet sessions, etc, has already
been implemented. I saw this in one of my sys admin magazines that I
regularly buy. Because of the way that http is designed, I beleive that
this idea, although it has it's merits, is rather daft. http is not
interactive, and it does not save state! Why bother?
BTW, how do you think cgi works on Unix? By the use of scripts!
> 3) We need to add superior functionality to the Linux GUI, like
> the "Halflife" game, with openGL and 3-D icons for linux functions-
>
> a) A restaurant. F'rinstance, you boot linux, and you see a first
> person view of yourself walking into a restaurant. You sit at a
> table,
> and tux the penguin walks over and hands you a menu. The menu has
> linux programs grouped on pages with clickaable tabs. You click a
> tab for
> say, graphics, and a page turns to all the graphics programs . You
> click
> on a menu selection to start up the corresponding function.
> b) An office building. You find yourself walking down a hallway,
> each door leads to either a room or another hallway. Rooms are
> directories with representational 3-D icons for files (like a TV
> for viewing
> animations, or a filing cabinet full of documents, each of which is
>
> a spearate manilla folder). Hallways are directories of
> directories.
> We could produce a tool like a .wad file editor to allow users to
> customize the 3-D environment.
Interesting idea. Have a look at 3Dsia at
http://threedsia.sourceforge.net/
> 4) DWIM, or Do what I meant -
> Instead of setting up a user interface with the goal of outsmarting
> the user
> and finding clever ways to keep them from doing what they want, make
> the goal
> of the user interface to figure out and implement what the user
> "meant" to do.
> a) Have defaults for everything - paths, settings, verbosity, etc.
> and always fill in the
> defaults for anything the user forgets.
> b) Always warn the user about doing stupid things, like when they
> enter
> * and .txt as spearate files to be removed, when they meant *.txt
> c) Never ever ever ask the user to provide the same information twice
> -
> keep everything they ever tell you in a KEYWORD=value file.
> standardize
> the use of keywords, and always check this file before asking the
> user for some fact.
> d) Run a background process once an hour to check the integrity and
> consistency
> of all configuration files - and fix them so they work.
Ah, configuration files are static. Why would you need to do this? "fix
them so they work"? You'll *know* if they don't work! Besides, I don't
want some brain-dead program second guessing my configuration files
(that's why I try not to use Linuxconf)
Besides, if we implemented your suggestions, we wouldn't *need*
configuration files.
> e) The ten year old test - If 90% of ten year old kids can use an
> application
> without training - it's user friendly enough to be DWIM.
>
> 5) Put all files in an associative index which provides the user with
> date, owner, subject,
> occurence of a text string, and filetype clues for finding files,
> which can be used
> instead of a file path whenever a file must be located.
Ever heard of locate? I think that you may be looking for something like
this. You can always do a find combination if you get really desperate.
> Easy to do? No! But worth doing if we really want Linux to win!
It's not really about Linux winning or losing. It's about using what is
right for you. Myself, I think that Linux is great, and I recommend that
people try it out. KDE and GNOME will be good for you, I think.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Boris Dynin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 00:58:20 -0700
Is this talking louse or what? There are lots of lice on cola.
"ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39e7dfa0$0$35009$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <kGLF5.22916$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Boris
> Dynin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Blah-blah-blah.
> >
> > Asshole.
>
> Hmmm... unsurprising. Now why was this thread even crossposted to begin
> with?
>
> [Followup's set accordingly]
>
> --
> There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire
> become a great writer.
>
> When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that
> the whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a
> truly emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl
> in pain and anger!"
>
> He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 08:08:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8sbacc$n4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8sasjl$dho$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > neJ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 15:04:24 -0400, unicat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >A picture claiming to show former monoposoft employees
begging
> > for
> > > > food...
> > > > > >An image from a site dedicated to spreading the "truth"-
> > > > > >
> > > > > >http://www.nwlink.com/~rodvan/microsoft/street1.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Don't let this happen to you. Learn linux now ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > You sure that picture wasn't really of Linux investors??? Red
Hat
> > is
> > > > > down what, 90% from it's high?
> > > >
> > > > I guess your not bright enough to see the windows logos. eh?
> > >
> > > I guess your not bright enough to see that it's had a real bad
"fake"
> > job
> > > done on the original graphic. It probably did say Red Hat
originally.
> > And
> > > "Will write Linux applications for food"
> >
> > Pathetic, just pathetic. Can't you do any better than whine "is
not".
> > you sound like a 3 year old.
>
> Someone presents a badly doctored image from a site they say is
"dedicated
> to spreading the truth", then you come along and try to build on the
thread
> by insinuating that the image is real, and I'm acting like a three
year old?
Get a life.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[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: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 08:13:36 GMT
But Unlike that monolythic MS crap, we linux users can upgrade as parts
become availble. I'm now using Xfree4.0 and the final release canadate
for KDE. I get many enhancements that make it easy to wait untill the
kernel is truly ready!
In article <39e21211$0$5790$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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>
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Claire Lynn
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 08:16:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Whatever.
>
> Most of the Linvocates in this group can't advocate their collective
> ass's out of a paper bag. They may be technically astute, but their
> companies lock them away in rubber coding rooms far from the clients
> because they are so, well, geeky.
Now who's name calling?????
>
> They use a variety of tricks to worm and slither around an arguments.
>
> 1.Change the subject.
> 2.Don't even address the subject.
> 3.Drag other topics into the subject.
> 4. Play semantics.
> 5.Offer absolutely no proof when they are contested.
> 6. Out and out lie.
> 7.Compare current Linux to version a of Windows 95.
> 8. Resort to name calling when all else fails.
>
> A pathetic bunch of geeks infest this group. But you do serve a
> purpose. You guys have absolutely no idea how much slap-stick
> entertainment you provide for so many folks just looking for a laugh.
>
> Linux can be quite funny at times. Especially with a sorry bunch of
> fools advocating it.
>
> This group is the biggest joke on the entire net. It gets mentioned in
> the trade rags all the time as well as in user groups, at least where
> I live. We think it is hysterical.
>
> You are your own worst enemies because people wander into this group,
> take a look around and say to themselves, "These Linux people are a
> miserable lot". And they are.
>
> We got a guy who talks like Dr. Seuss.
> We got a guy who writes a dissertation to every question.
> We have a guy who can't use a spell checker.
> Another one who just makes up "facts" as he goes along.
> A couple of Sci-Fi nuts with this Tholen thing that goes on forever.
> A couple of developers, why the hell they are here is beyond me?
> Some nasty folks.
> People complaining when their 486 computer won't work.
> People who like to dissect every word all the time ignoring the
> context of the statement.
> You guys even have to kill filter your own advocates.
>
> Yes we have it all here in COLA.
>
> It's just like a Circus, only better.
>
> I have to wonder how many are kids either in High School or College.
> It's quite obvious that some have never seen the inside of a glass
> house.
>
> claire
>
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 22:56:52 GMT, sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >And you, claire, are the bigest joke here!
> >
> >
> >
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Pure entertainment. This collection of misguided, lost souls is one
of
> >> the most hilarious groups on the net.
> >> Nothing more nothing less.
> >>
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 02:15:46 GMT, "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> >I've been lurking around this group for a few weeks now, and I've
> >noticed
> >> >a large volume of posts being made by Claire Lynn. I don't have
> >anything
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Suggestions for Linux
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 04:42:40 -0400
unicat wrote:
> I hate to say this, old friend, but you'e pretty much the poster boy for
> the kind of user that is holding linux back from wider acceptance.
By advocating choice? I wasn't aware that people hated that... sorry...
> Doing away with the CLI would not kill Linux, and it wouldn't
> mean rewriting a thing. You would simply be invoking the current
> command set through icons and menus within X-windows.
Er... It WOULD kill Linux because the userbase would drop to 3 people. My
point was that there is absolutely no reason to remove the CLI... A desktop
environment can do everything you said without removing the CLI and pissing
off anyone who dislikes GUIs.
> To avoid a flame war, though, let me modify my original proposal.
> What if the CLI-oriented, vi-edited config file, mysterious,
> arcane, hard-to-configure Linux were left intact, and got distributed
> as "server" linux or "hard-head" linux.
> Then a new distro could be created that included a beefed-up gui,
> and automated config tools, called something like "friendly" linux
> or linux-"lite".
Well, it's open source, so enjoy making your goofy source branch...
meanwhile, the rest of us will stick with the main Linux kernel, and some
of us might even use the GNOME or KDE desktops (*gasp!*)
Mandrake comes with several GUI config tools... unless clicking on
checkboxes is too difficult for the average user.
> The no-life cultists who enjoy being intitiates into the secret knowledge
> of UNIX internals could still play with the "hard" version, and make snide
> comments about those too weak to use it.
Uhrm... maybe I'm missing something, but my Linux box took all of 5 minutes
to configure, none of which involved using the CLI. The installation was
automated and I didn't have to do anything arcane or secret to make
ANYTHING work.... is this what you're defining as a "no-life cultist"??
An additional comment... a few people were over for drinks tonight, and I
decided to engage the least computer-savvy of the crowd in a quick
discussion of your idea. She was excited because her mother from downstate
gave her a laptop computer as a gift. She has no clue how a computer works
or how to do anything besides AOL and Napster. I asked her first what she
thought about your ideas of the desktop (3d, etc.)... she thought it would
be excessively annoying, she just wants point and click. So, I took her
into my computer room and showed her my current Linux desktop setup. She
liked it, quite a bit. In fact, she managed to figure out how to get on
and browse a couple websites for some music she had wanted, without me
helping her at all. Now she wants me to install it on her computer. I
told her to wait awhile, as I personally believe that Linux should wait for
the mainstream audience. In any case, the point of all this is that I
wanted to find out if I was just severely biased, or if your ideas were
indeed quite ridiculous. Seems my bias wasn't clouding my judgement.
The most difficult part of Linux is setting it up. The most difficult part
of Windows is setting it up. Most people get their computers without
having to install the OS, and as such, don't really care how difficult it
is to set up. All they care about is that it's usable. (My friend thought
it was silly that you'd want to remove the CLI after I explained what it
was... she didn't understand how that would make her web browsing/email
checking/napster experience any different.)
Summation for ya: While making a CLI necessary may not be wonderful,
making it a choice IS. A 3d browsing OS would be a pain to most, this also
should be an optional feature (as it is). The end user doesn't generally
have to fuck with config files, just the individual installing the OS.
Providing a choice does not prevent Linux from becoming anything.
D. Butler
P.S. You still didn't answer... what is this "war" that Linux is
supposedly trying to win?
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 03:42:20 -0500
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Darin Johnson wrote:
>
> > "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Consumers have made a
> > > <choice> to favor Windows. One can argue that it was a poor choice (I
> > > would), but it was a freely made choice - mostly because other vendors
> > > cheerfully allowed MS to take the high volume/low price end of the
> > > market as they chose to take the high margin/low volume end.
> >
> > Maybe it's the boss that made the choice? Ie, the home user may have
> > decided what to buy, but the office user is told what to use.
>
> The office user is told what to use. He's told to use a system with an
> interface that he's probably already familiar with. One that works well
for
> almost everyone that uses a personal computer. It's probably the only GUI
> OS he will ever use and that does not seem to bother most bosses or most
> people. In fact, Gallup has shown that most Americans are against the DoJ
> position by an overwhelming majority. Reference:
>
> http://www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indMicrosoft.asp
In April, more people sided with the judge than MS (41% - 39%). The
pollsters changed the wording of the question subtly and in June, many more
people sided with MS (55% - 34%). A clear majority, but not really
overwhelming.
However, an overwhelming majority of people do have a favorable impression
of Bill Gates (69% favorable, 16% unfavorable) and Microsoft (65% - 18%).
Also, a clear majority oppose the breakup of Microsoft into two companies
(54% - 34%).
So people side with Microsoft in the DOJ case, have an extremely favorable
impression of Bill Gates and Microsoft, and are strongly against the breakup
of Microsoft. And yet...when asked if the breakup of Microsoft would help
or hurt <fill in the blank>, a clear majority believe it would help the
economy (48% - 32%) , consumers (46% - 37%), and the computer industry
(45% - 37%). All this is from your link.
Interesting stuff, huh? According to the poll you cite, people believe that
breaking up Microsoft would help the economy, consumers, and the computer
industry. But they're against it. Why is that, Mike? What does this tell
us about this poll? Does it tell us anything about Microsoft's PR machine?
jwb
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
