Linux-Advocacy Digest #418, Volume #30 Sat, 25 Nov 00 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft Encouraging OEMs to "protect" customers from pirate (Glitch)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux for nitwits (Glitch)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:13:29 +0000
In article <jrWT5.209$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <LIeT5.344$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
>> >> >NetBIOS. Or does not, depends how you set things up.
>> >>
>> >> Which standards body is it standardised by?
>> >>
>> >
>> >"Microsoft is making sure that CIFS technology is open, published, and
>widely
>> >available for all computer users. Microsoft has submitted the CIFS 1.0
>> >protocol specification to the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) as an
>> >Internet-Draft document and is working with interested parties for CIFS to
>be
>> >published as an Informational RFC. CIFS (SMB) has been an Open Group
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> What exactly is that? I'm guessing it's something that you have
>> to pay Microsoft for to use, ie., not a real open standard at
>> all, but a published proprietary spec. I could be wrong,
>> and I'd rather be, but I suspect I'm not.
>
>I have to say that I'm a bit dissapointed. Know what an IETF RFC is? Also
>generally known as RFC? Like:
>
>0977 Network News Transfer Protocol. B. Kantor, P. Lapsley.
> Feb-01-1986. (Format: TXT=55062 bytes) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD)
>
>2980 Common NNTP Extensions. S. Barber. October 2000. (Format:
> TXT=57165 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
>
>Now go, my son, and extrapolate from the status field, what an "informational
>rfc" is, and then figure out how much you have to pay.
>
>www.ietf.org propably will accept your donations, if you feel that you have
>to pay something. Like next time you post something here using the "not real
>open standard" NNTP.
So you don't know what 'informational' actually means, then?
>
> > >(formerly X/Open) standard for PC and UNIX interoperability since 1992
>> >(X/Open CAE Specification C209). "
>>
>> I didn't think X/Open was anything other than a manufacturer's
>> consortium.
>
>Standard bodies usually are manufacturer consortiums. Try looking who runs
>committees for telecommunication and broadcasting standards, for example.
I was a rapportuer at the UN for 10 years doing ITU work for
Telecommunications. I have personally managed and run the development
and publication of several ITU M.2xxx series recommendations.
The ITU is a Governmental body, *NOT* a manufacturer consortium.
I have also had strong involvement with ETSI (the European
standards body) - ie., attended meetings, contributed etc. Again,
this is a governmental body *NOT* a manufacturer consortium.
The BSI in the UK is a governmental body, *NOT* a manufacturer
consortium.
I think I have 10 years more experience in standards production
than you have.
I still want to know what the significance of 'informational'
is.
Do you know?
It has been pointed out that the CIFS information is very
incomplete and merely documents what has already been reverse
engineered. This suggests that 'informational' may mean
or imply that the information is public domain. Or it might
not. This seems a simple enough question.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:14:08 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>mark wrote...
>> >He called me, asked for advice, I told him to search for the file in the
>> >registery, search in the cab dir on win98 for the file, and extract to the
>> >path.
>>
>> Ah, search the registry and then extract something from cab on win98.
>> Win98 on what, exactly?
>
>The Win98 installation CD.
Oh dear, now there's a bugger, 'cos apparently, it was corrupted.
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 23:57:12 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vp2pd$3prmn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> It became market leader because it was given away by the monopoly
> >> with the monopoly OS. That's what monopolies do. I think that's
> >> also what the court found.
> >
> >No, actually, the court found that even thought IE was bundled with
Windows,
> >it didn't stop Netscape from competing.
> >It was that IE was a better browser that cause the shift.
>
> No - it was because IE was shipped with the OS. There was no shift,
> there didn't need to be, who would bother to download if there's
> something already there? This is leveraging a monopoly.
Because if Netscape would indeed be superior, you would get something of
better quality?
> > but when the 4s came into
> >play, Netscape was bloated, heavy, and buggy compare to IE.
>
> As I recall, the early versions of IE were pretty awful.
Very much so.
> I've never been particularly impressed with Netscape 4. I'd still
> rather use it than IE, though. At least it doesn't phone home.
Neither does IE, it checks for updates, and you can turn this off.
> > No to mention
> >that at the time I'd a couple of low-activity email boxes, to get mail
from
> >them I had to restart netscape.
>
> That's not necessary on my copy of Netscape 4, or on any version
> Netscape 4 that I've used.
Really? I never could force netscape 4 to read more than one email per
profile. How did you do that?
> >With IE, I could get all the mail from all those email boxes with no
> >trouble.
>
> As can I with Netscape 4.
No, you couldn't.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:00:16 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vp2pl$3prmn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> Therefore your claim that partition handling is a problem for
> >> storing registry information in a separate partition is
> >> specious.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's what I was saying. Hope that clarifies for you.
> >
> >What exactly is it that you are propusing?
> >Another partition with a FS on it, or a raw partition?
> >I think we were talking about different things here.
> >
> >
>
> Whatever you'd like. Personally I'd choose a reliable
> filesystem design, but you can design your own if you'd
> prefer.
No, thank you.
I don't intend to add another FS to the many that already exist.
Not that I think that I can, without some major studying.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:04:28 +0200
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The NT4.x and 9x EULAs specifically prohibit ANY customer statement
> which is damaging to Microsoft in any way.
Can you point me out to where those statement are?
I can't see how this is true, because when ME came out (and 95/98 too, for
that matter) a lot of magazines said something like: "You buy a new
computer, get it, otherwise, keep your own OS" Which is clearly damaging MS
http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm is taking apart several of MS
application.
Two examples out of the millions I could've given.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:18:45 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vp1hb$53rhs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > BTW, Outlook Express has crashed twice this evening and I'm trying as
> >hard
> >> > as I can to keep off-color vernacular out of my MS related posts. <g>
> >>
> >> As a professional MCSE (morbidly cynical software engineer),
> >> I recommend you slick the disk and reinstall everything from
> >> scratch. Bring along a good book.
> >
> >That is just the attidue that I hate when people talk about windows
> >instability.
> >I just came back from a very frustrated linux user who called me and
started
> >cursing windows.
> >Why? His linux would refuse to run (he pull the plug on his system after
the
> >system refused to respond to halt & reboot commands, and his file systems
> >are now accesible in read mode only, and only by root), he didn't have
any
> >linux installation disks, but he did have a spare HD and a win98 cd.
> >It would be easier, he figured out, to just install windows, find out on
the
> >web what the problem was, and fix it.
>
>
> This is a ludicrous scenario. A root disk will enable reading of
> linux partitions (eg., tomsrtbt, or the debian install disk). Win98
> *cannot* read linux filesystems, although Linux can read win98 ones.
He doesn't have a floppy drive.
And there are tools for win98 that can read ext2 fs.
> No vaguely technically knowledgable Linux user, especially not a
> slackware user (as you later claim) would make such a fundamental
> mistake as you've done here.
No, when we finally gotten windows to dial up, I d/l an ext2 reader, and
copied all the files to the fat32 partition, and burned them.
> >Win setup complained about a file missing, but kept installing.
>
> Well, seems a bit clunky - why didn't it stop?
Because it wasn't a very important file and windows could function without
it.
And because it was told to "skip" this file.
> >On loading, windows complain about a vnetbios.vxd missing, and he
couldn't
> >get windows to dial up.
>
> Dial up what? Whatis vnetbios.vxd - can't you get it from somewhere
> else - didn't the install tell you what it meant? Didn't the
> readmes tell you what to do?
Dial Up Networking.
I can probably get vnetbios.vxd from plenty of places, but why bother?
I simply extracted it the cab file it resided on, and put it where it should
be.
Why would I read the readmes? I *know* what I'm doing.
> >He called me, asked for advice, I told him to search for the file in the
> >registery, search in the cab dir on win98 for the file, and extract to
the
> >path.
>
> Ah, search the registry and then extract something from cab on win98.
> Win98 on what, exactly?
You search the registery for all the apperances of the file, and you check
where it should be, you write this down.
Then you go to the Windows98 Installation Cd, and find the directory where
all the cab files reside.
You do a search on file content, looking for vnetbios.vxd , I find the
vnetbios.vxd inside the cab file, and extract it.
Then, knowing that in the registery, it appeared without path, I put it in
windows\system\
Removing & Adding TCP/IP & rebooting solved the problem
> >Apperantly, it was too difficult for him, so he just format and
reinstalled.
> >Same problem. (bad cd)
>
> Well, windows doesn't really provide many choices, does it. One of
> the great things about debian is you can pull _all_ of the install
> pieces off the web - no possibility of trying to install with
> damaged pieces. Microsoft really should be able to provide a working
> functioning CD which it's possible to install from without errors.
You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
We are talking about *read* error.
The place where the file resided was damage, neither linux nor god can save
you then.
> >He called me, asking me to come over, and in the mean time, did it
*again*.
>
> Well, what were you going to do, err, perhaps, err, reinstall windows?
No, I didn't.
That was the *whole* point.
That I didn't have to.
He was an idiot because he did so.
> >I came to him and had to wait half an hour to the installation to be done
> >with, and then it took me five minutes to fix the problem.
>
> It takes half and hour to stop a windows install?
No, it take half an hour to finish the installation. The idiot formated his
HD.
> h, and one reboot, because you'd to de-install & install TCP/IP
>
> Well, it's windows, *of*course* you have to reboot.
No, it's win9x, there is a difference.
> >All in all, he wasted a day (multiply installation plus the applications
he
> >installed on windows that would now have to be reinstalled) that
could've
> >been solved in less than 5 minutes.
>
> I still don't understand what he did wrong? Trusted Microsoft's CD?
No, reinstalling when he didn't need to.
> >And that is a regular user of slackware 7.1
>
> Frankly, I just don't believe this.
Neither could I, but that is what he is.
> >I excpected more from him than the average user.
> >
> >Rant off, I'm having a bad day with linux & its users.
> >
> Hmmm. Maybe you're just having a bad day in the advocacy arena, and
> thought of something which might save the day?
>
> You haven't said what was wrong with his linux, why it 'refused
> to run' (I quote). You haven't fixed anything, but have told us
> that Microsoft provide CDs from which it's impossible to install.
I wasn't *talking* about Linux, I was talking about why you don't need to
re-install windows.
Microsoft provide CDs from which it's very much possible to install.
But CD has a tendacy to get unreadable if you threat them wrongly.
> I would strongly recommend anyone even considering installing an
> OS to avoid anything from microsoft (see this example here from
> a genuine microsoft advocate of how difficult it really it) to
> install debian GNU/Linux instead.
Hard? The system worked, the only thing that didn't work was the DUN, and
that was fixed in five minutes.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:41:44 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Encouraging OEMs to "protect" customers from pirate
mark wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >The best excuse I have heard Microsoft said about why they dislike piracy
> >is when the said "When you download pirated software you donot know
> >whether it has patched beta code or a virus", I would rather take my
> >chances with pirated software (though I donot use it) because at least if
>
> don't you mean 'when'?
>
i hardly ever download something that doesn't work. I got over 15 CDs
worth of programs (with the correct serials) that i've downloaded,
tested, and use. Some things I got just to say I have them but don't
have a use for, like AutoCAD R14. But they almost always work. I'd say
there is a 90% chance the program will work which is very good. Besides,
even if it doesn't all you lost was your time to download it. It's not
like you paid for it and have a reason to complain.
> >it stuffs up, it will do it at the same rate as legit stuff, hence no
> >money lost
> >
> >
> >kiwiunixman
>
> Mark
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:29:55 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vp23h$58vlq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vnubl$4ujgg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >
> >> The interesting question is 'with linux, how many times has
> >> your /etc directory been rendered unusable?
> >
> >Five times, two power failure related, one with the system hanging so I'd
to
> >do a reset, one with 'rm -f', one when upgrading.
> >That is just my personal experiance, you know. And I don't deal with
linux
> >extensively.
>
> I find this absolutely unbelievable. You are claiming the
> complete and total destruction of a whole directory containing
> 10s to 100s of files on the ext2 filesystem. Upgrading has
> no impact on this filesystem at all - this is not windows!
> rm -f suggests that you're not fit to be in charge of a
> lawnmower, let alone a computer. (My 6 year old is allowed
> to drive my mini tractor, he's safe with it).
> Your claim to not deal with linux extensively is the _only_
> thing in this post which rings true - the rest reads like,
> well, fantasy, really.
rm -f was indeed my fault, what is your point here?
upgrading was also my fault, I choose server install in redhat 6 and it
wiped my system. (I used to do custom installs, and intended this to be a
test to RH6 until I would decide if it was good enough to move to, which is
why I didn't choose upgrade, I intended this to go to another HD, but choose
to do a server install instead of custom one, and it wiped the system.
Documented, but unwarned from.)
> Resets do not have this effect, nor do power failures. Please
> provide more information about any of these claimed events.
The HD didn't boot, fail to mount on linux systems, fail to be read on win
ext2 readers.
> >> The correct answer is probably never in the whole of the
> >> history of space and time for a production machine, but
> >> maybe if you look really hard, you might find one, somewhere,
> >> but it seems very very unlikely.
> >
> >User & Admin mistakes, faulty programs, ignorance, power failures, hard
> >drive failures... the list is endless.
>
> Admin mistakes? Ayende - where did you learn your trade?
> Surely even MCSE can do better than this?
If you think that an admin is beyond making mistakes...
Well, we will leave it at that.
Is that the
> To make a complete directory structure unusable - no, even
> Windows has never done that on me. Please provide some
> credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
FAT & NTFS are indeed more robust than ext2 in this regard.
> >> The registry is well renowned as a major weakness in the design of
> >> windows.
> >
> >It takes a *lot* to corrupt the registery, usually a hard drive failure.
> >Currupting the data *inside* the registry is another matter, and can
cause
> >system instability, just like putting invalid data in the files in the
/etc
> >dir.
>
> Err, text file damage is a minor problem - binary file damage is a
> massive problem, especially if it happens close to the start of the
> file.
Please provide more information about any of these claimed events where the
registry was damaged that badly.
> *That's* why the registry is a bad design decision making for a
> weak OS.
Please provide some credible evidence of these ludicrous claims.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:31:13 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
> >mark wrote...
> >> >He called me, asked for advice, I told him to search for the file in
the
> >> >registery, search in the cab dir on win98 for the file, and extract to
the
> >> >path.
> >>
> >> Ah, search the registry and then extract something from cab on win98.
> >> Win98 on what, exactly?
> >
> >The Win98 installation CD.
>
> Oh dear, now there's a bugger, 'cos apparently, it was corrupted.
You've multiply copies of the files on the cd.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:32:20 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vpb92$5c60s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> mark wrote...
> >
> >
> >> > Linux at some undetermined point after 1996 and
> >> > up to and including today, (wonder which version & which
> >> > distro?), and now Win2k with its somewhat restricted set of
> >> > available apps?
> >>
> >> Restricted apps for Win2k. Hehehehe. What apps are you looking for that
> >> gives you this impression? Or is this second hand information that
you're
> >> stating?
> >
> >There are all too many application that are written by lazy/idiot
> >programmers which assume 95/98/ME and full access to the registery.
>
> The thread was about a claim of some applications which were
> available in 1996 for win9x, had some functional equivalent at
> the same time for OS/2, had some functional equivalent at
> some indetermined later date on Linux and also have some
> functional equivalent now on Win2k (or they've been ported).
>
> Please read the thread before you post.
I read it, I wasn't referring to the thread, I was referring to the post
which I answered to, he asked about applications that aren't working in
Win2K.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:34:51 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vp23m$58vlq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> The actions of a monopoly
> >
> >No, the actions of a company whose interest is in profit.
> >It wasn't worth it to localize Windows, because most of the people could
use
> >the english version.
>
> No, the actions of a monopoly do not fail to co-incide with profit,
> they exactly align. If pleasing a customer can be avoided, then
> a monopoly will avoid doing it. Microsoft will try hard to avoid
> that if they can.
"It's the evil empire!" cries are getting tiresome.
> I believe that some Government pressure in the
> end caused them to change their minds.
IIRC, it was that they were offered by Iceland goverment to get paid for
doing the localization.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:47:25 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
mark wrote:
>
> In article <mCxT5.10916$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jose Mirles wrote:
> >Nutty Professor wrote:
> >
> >> As one of those Linux nitwits, I have to disagree. I own a ThinkPad
> >> 701C notebook. The 701C comes with an external floppy drive and no
> >> CD-ROM. This means that in order to install Windows 95, I must
> >> create dozens of floppy disks, then spend hours inserting them into
> >
> >-- snip --
> >
> >As an average user of both Windows and Linux, I think that Linux
> >still has a ways to go to catch up with Windows. While I had no
> >problems with the installations of Linux (Redhat 6.1/7.0 and Mandrake
> >7.1/7.2), I have seen too many people quit after being confused with
> >the questions asked during installation.
> >
>
> I've never seen a newbie install windows from scratch. It
> would be interesting to give, eg., my folks a PC with linux
> on it and a windows Cd and see how far they got.
>
> >Heck, at work we give out a small application called Packet PC,
> >designedto offer a quick means to call in and connect with or
> >mainframe applications. It comes on two diskettes and we have people
> >that can properly install that! It's just a small Windows app, type
> >"a:\setup" in the RUN option and it does the rest.
>
> Exactly, they can't manage to run a simple DOS program, let alone
> something complex like a windows one.
>
> >
> >I have seen tons of people in Best Buy and numerous PC shops with
> >simple Windows problems. Frankly, I am surprised by some of the
> >things I have seen people bring back their PC for. I have come to the
> >conclusion that some people just want a simple looking, simple
> >running OS to use. They don't care about the problems, securities,
> >etc. The average Joe and Jane will not use MS's Windows update or
> >install any patches. I can't even count the times I have heard users
> >complain of a virus and they are running a AV program with a year old
>
> Err, year old what?
>
.dat file. Your virus definitions. Each virus has a signature that an
antivirus looks for. Each signature for every virus is stored in the
.dat file. It obviously gets bigger over time as more viruses are
identified. This is the file that needs updated as it is what really
powers the AV program so that you can find and eradicate the newest
viruses. If you have an old .dat file from a year ago you might as well
not have an AV program running as it just about defeats the purpose of
having it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 22:54:15 +0000
In article <8vpegc$52a0r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vp2pd$3prmn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> It became market leader because it was given away by the monopoly
>> >> with the monopoly OS. That's what monopolies do. I think that's
>> >> also what the court found.
>> >
>> >No, actually, the court found that even thought IE was bundled with
>Windows,
>> >it didn't stop Netscape from competing.
>> >It was that IE was a better browser that cause the shift.
>>
>> No - it was because IE was shipped with the OS. There was no shift,
>> there didn't need to be, who would bother to download if there's
>> something already there? This is leveraging a monopoly.
>
>Because if Netscape would indeed be superior, you would get something of
>better quality?
For folk like my younger brother, he didn't even know that there
was an alternative until I showed him. That is the power of
monopoly.
>
>
>> > but when the 4s came into
>> >play, Netscape was bloated, heavy, and buggy compare to IE.
>>
>> As I recall, the early versions of IE were pretty awful.
>
>Very much so.
>
>> I've never been particularly impressed with Netscape 4. I'd still
>> rather use it than IE, though. At least it doesn't phone home.
>
>Neither does IE, it checks for updates, and you can turn this off.
But the default is on, and for people like my parents, unless
someone like me tells them so, they get packages which phone
home. That is not good from at the very least, a civil
liberties viewpoint. What else is it doing, I wonder?
>
>> > No to mention
>> >that at the time I'd a couple of low-activity email boxes, to get mail
>from
>> >them I had to restart netscape.
>>
>> That's not necessary on my copy of Netscape 4, or on any version
>> Netscape 4 that I've used.
>
>Really? I never could force netscape 4 to read more than one email per
>profile. How did you do that?
I can just add as many as I want. Is there something wrong with
the windows version?
>
>> >With IE, I could get all the mail from all those email boxes with no
>> >trouble.
>>
>> As can I with Netscape 4.
>
>No, you couldn't.
Err, yes I can.
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
