Linux-Advocacy Digest #618, Volume #30 Sun, 3 Dec 00 00:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's? (jtnews)
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's? (jtnews)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Les Mikesell")
Re: WINDOZE is awful ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Netscape review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Netscape review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version (Ed Allen)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 23:11:29 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Once again, I repeat, yes they offer systems with RedHat, but they are
NOT
as cheap as the ones you can get configured with Windows!
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:26:18 -0500, jtnews wrote:
> >How come Dell bundles Windows with every PC?
>
> They don't. http://www.dell.com/linux
>
> >Same goes for all the other manufacturers.
>
> http://www.aslab.com
> http://www.penguincomputing.com
> http://www.thelinuxstore.com
> ....
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
====== 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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 06:07:54 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:0gjW5.29050$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90at4a$ghie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > Win2k handle the biggest site in the world, and the second most
> popular.
> > >
> > > With help from load-balancing equipment that hides the dead ones,
> > > protects them from pings, and the like.
> >
> > If you linux on those machines, would they be able to do the same
without
> > load balancing equipment?
>
> No but they generally don't need to hide the dead ones and a fairly large
> scale
> site can run on a single machine if you don't expect it to crash. For
> example
> ftp.cdrom.com (aka ftp.wcarchive.com) has claimed at times to be the
largest
> single source of data going onto the internet. This may no longer be true
> but
> it probably was a couple of years ago. The site was powered (and may
> still be) by a single freebsd server.
Static content, isn't it?
And several years ago.
On what hardware? What connection to the net.
Currently, both Apahce & IIS usually waste CPU cycles even if they are
bombarded with requests with static content, because the bottleneck is no
longer hardware or software, but bandwidth.
Please show me a site half as big as microsoft, which use dynamic content
for most of its site, on comparable hardware, and use a single server.
Microsoft.com is on of the biggest sites in the world, if not the biggest.
Fairly large scale site means exactly what to you?
I'm interest to know, because I would never use a single machine to run a
large scale site. Mainly because of single point of failure, which may be
acceptable in my home site, or a very small bussiness site, but not on a
large site.
Certainly not in a commerce site, where your competitors are just few
keystrokes away.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 23:24:13 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: how come Dell makes you buy Windows with all their PC's?
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:55:07 -0500, jtnews wrote:
>
> >but, the trouble is every single one of those machines are the more
> >expensive
> >models. Look at their cheapest Dell Dimension series, all Windows, with
> >no
> >option to buy them without Windows, at an even cheaper price.
>
> The Dimension is available with Linux.
>
> You can't get the ultra-cheap models because the ultra-cheap
> machines tend to use crap onboard components that aren't Linux
> compatible.
Not true! I bought a Dell Dimension V400c last year.
And it worked perfectly with Linux. The only mistake that Dell made
was using the Yahmaha YMF724 audio chip. But eventually a free sound
driver was available via www.alsa-project.org so I have no complaints.
If you notice now Dell doesn't use anymore Yahmaha chips, yay for Dell!
But I did have to buy Windows 98 SE along with it, and had to pay the
Windows
tax anyway!
This continued mandatory bundling of Windows along with hardware with
the
cheapest models is an anticompetitive practice that artificially
inflates
the cost of hardware for Linux users and further discourages software
development with Linux, especially for users who are extremely price
sensitive.
====== 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: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:27:58 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7j_V5.666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Practically any, duh.
> > > There is such a thing called *Viewers*.
> > > They are *free*.
> > > No need to upgrade, no need to pay anything to anyone.
> >
> > Note that (a) these things didn't exist for some time after office97 was
> > already on everyone's desk who got a new PC, and (b) it looks like
> > all the things you mention only run under windows.
>
> Not true. The Office 97 viewers shipped *WITH* Office 97. They were on
the
> CD, along with an import filter for Office 95 apps to import the Office 97
> files into the old program (At least for Word and Excel). They were also
> available for free download.
The only people I know with office97 at the time got it pre-installed and
probably never looked at the CD if they even had it. I think you are wrong
about when the import filters became available for free downloading.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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, 03 Dec 2000 04:32:20 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 03:24:48 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:svYV5.31493$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> No contradiction. The driver needs to communicate with the BIOS for
> >> proper power management. Not all BIOS's are equal.
> >
> >Hmmm, weren't you the one saying it was a Linux problem when a bad
> >bios reports the wrong amount of memory?
>
> I think that was Chad Meyers. The dim Chad.
Yes, sorry. I came to that conclusion myself not long after hitting 'send'.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WINDOZE is awful
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:35:42 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Lr2W5.4725$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam Majer wrote:
>
> > Then if you want 95 and 2000 and linux and dos on the same system (what
> > I have :), win2k will again overwirte MBR of the A disk without asking
> > you.. And dos will not start at all unless it is on first partition of
the
> > first disk.... You can't put lilo to MBR or otherwise you'll loose all
of
> > the boot information for Windoze when you install lilo again.
>
> Funny, I have LILO in the MBR. It boots both Windows 98 SE and Linux just
> fine. What are you doing wrong?
If you load windows after linux it will clobber the MBR. All you need to
fix it is your boot floppy to bring up linux, then add the new bootable
partition to /etc/lilo.conf and run /sbin/lilo. If you load linux last,
at least Redhat and Mandrake will figure this out for you.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:42:26 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90at4c$ghie$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > It isn't broken. You can surf to it with any browser that you would
> like.
> > > It's optimized to IE, of course, but netscape would do just as well.
> >
> > It works now, but in the recent past the page did not display at
> > all under Netscape, either windows or linux. I don't think anyone
> > is going to admit whether this was intentional or they just used
> > their own tools that encourage that to happen.
> >
> > > If you had done some advance HTML-authoring (java-script, dhtml, css)
> you
> > > would realize that it is a nightmare to try to do it for netscape.
> >
> > You mean using the MS tool set that only works right when viewed
> > with IE?
>
> No, I'm meaning hand coding, as in using notepad or other text editors
> (recommended by me is CuteHTML, because of the reference)
> Doing this kind of stuff for netscape can be a PITA.
> Doing that kind of stuff so it would work on both NS & IE is a herculian
> task.
> And updating this kind of page is impossible.
> Either you break IE compatability, or NS compatability, and usually both.
If there were any viable competition, this would have been standardized
long ago and it would only be the very newest features that you would
have to worry about. Promoting Microsoft as the only choice just
encourages them to continue to ignore standards and make it difficult
for anyone trying to follow them.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:43:48 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:37:17 GMT
> <1SrV5.102$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:905e4n$npr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:C5qV5.88$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> > You have to remember, Ayende, that a lot of folks still play games
that
> >> were
> >> > written before Win95.
> >>
> >> I know, GoldenAxe is my favoraite old time game.
> >> I can still play it, your point?
> >
> >Simply, a rebuttle to the "...only possible with DOS" and "Because not
even
> >a moderatedly successful game came out in the last three years or so that
> >didn't run on windows?" portions of the thread.
> >
> >If you want to have fun with an old DOS game, find the original IBM-PC
port
> >of Centipede and play it on a modern machine. It's hillarious!
>
> A few points here.
>
> [1] I have an old Defender clone somewhere (Stargate) that was
> originally for PC-XT era machines, on a 5 1/4" floppy. Forget
> about playing it on modern hardware, even if one can locate a
> floppy drive (it's possible but one has to hunt); the timers
> assume 12 megahertz, probably using old-fashioned fixed-value
> busywait loops. I suppose I could try to patch it, but why bother?
Centipede assumes 4.77Mhz and its' a riot to play on a 386, let alone a
Pentium (Read impossible)
I still have a handful of 5 1/4" Drives. Even a DEC Quad-Density drive in
the original bubblewrap. (A spare for a long dead DECPro 350) They're in
West Virginia lying either in a Garage or a Basement, I haven't seen them in
years.
<snip>
>
> [3] I still play DOOM (actually, BOOM) on a regular basis, especially
> with randomly-generated new maps from a tool called SLIGE.
> Not the most interesting environment, but it helps pass the time. :-)
Discovering Linux also meant re-discovering Doom. A great way to deal with
"Coder's Block"!
<snip>
--
Tom Wilson
A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 06:13:00 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XwjW5.29055$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:dy9W5.36188$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >>
> > > It works now, but in the recent past the page did not display at
> > > all under Netscape, either windows or linux. I don't think anyone
> > > is going to admit whether this was intentional or they just used
> > > their own tools that encourage that to happen.
> >
> > I've never had that problem. In fact 15 months ago I posted a code
snippet
> > from the Microsoft home page showing where they scripted different
> displays
> > for different browsers.
>
> The time I noticed it was within the last 2 months, and I don't know how
> long it lasted. I don't visit there often... But, since someone else
> brought
> the issue up I know it wasn't just me.
>
> > > > If you had done some advance HTML-authoring (java-script, dhtml,
css)
> > you
> > > > would realize that it is a nightmare to try to do it for netscape.
> > >
> > > You mean using the MS tool set that only works right when viewed
> > > with IE?
> > >
> >
> > IE works better, period.
>
> If you don't mind the virus exposure, the non-standardness, and the
limited
> platform where you can use it. Netscape probably could do as well if
> they replaced most of the system dlls like IE does.
We already had the arguement about the virus exposure, I hope we won't get
drag to it again.
But I can't agree with you about IE being non-standard.
Did you even check any web-standards body?
IE5 for Mac held first place for a long time.
Now it might be netscape 6 that hold first place, but I don't think that
this will be the case for long.
And there are some very good reasons not to use netscape 6.
IE would display pages just as well, has smaller footprint in memory, and
actually release memory when it's done using it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red Hat drops Sparc support with new Linux version
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 04:58:58 GMT
In article <WciW5.38048$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >The upgrade treadmill, as you call it is driven by the Hardware
>> >manufacturers.
>> >
>> Of course Microsoft added 30 million lines of code to NT to
>> transform it into W2K because the hardware makers forced them to.
>>
>
>No they did that to take advantage of the existing hardware and to benefit
>their customers.
>
So adding a requirement for megabytes of RAM and gigabytes of disk
was for my and the other customers benefit ?
>
>Yeah, right a software company is afraid of hardware manufacturers????
>
You are the one who said that the hardware manufacturers, not me.
So what does "driven by" but "not afraid of" mean ? What words
should I have used ?
>> NT ran great but had no apps because Microsoft did not port the
>> development tools they already had in third party hands for x86.
>>
>
>And that effects server sales how?
>
Since the apps we wanted were never ported I could not recommend
purchase of a non x86 server. I doubt I was alone.
>> >Wrong. HAL enabled a single source tree. Even the x86 versions were
>> >originally developed on MIPS.
>> >
>> So if Microsoft could have a single source tree for the Microsoft
>> apps which were bundled with NT why did they not recompile their
>> developer support tools and languages ?
>>
>
>They did. No market demand.
>
Again, Microsoft did not urge developers to port their apps. No
demand because nothing but Microsoft software was available.
>> I told earlier that I asked vendors why they only had x86 versions
>> available and was told, repeatedly, that it was lack of the tools
>> they were working with on x86.
>>
>
>Humph! Small talk was avail. cross platform, MS C++, Borland C++ what
>tools were they talking about?
>
I do not know. I can only report what they said.
>> >
>> >You should be talking to the CEO of SGI then. He refused to allow NT to
>run
>> >on SGI boxes. (Hint: MIPS became SGI in 993)
>> >
>> You mean the guy who almost drove SGI into bankruptcy, was kicked
>> out and now works for Microsoft ?
>>
>
>The very same. He adamantly, in 1993, refused to allow SGI to build NT
>boxes. At the time I worked for a developer that had a major partnership
>with SGI and we heard all about it from the inside. He did sell MIPS chips
>to a couple of manufacturers for development of NT machines but they never
>got off the ground.
>
>> I heard that he was spearheading the effort to run NT and can IRIX
>> but that the engineers kept coming up with these things that NT
>> would not do but that customers insisted they needed so customers
>> stopped buying and when bankruptcy loomed he bailed to his job that
>> friends had waiting at Microsoft.
>>
>
>Nope.
No what ? He was pushing NT ? He was not hired by Microsoft ?
I guess these people got it wrong too then:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0BCA/37_129/55780662/p1/article.jhtml
>
>> >No it was the fear of the UNIX manufacturers that hindered NT development
>on
>> >their platforms.
>> >
>> Not fear of the OS but of Microsoft extending their monopoly.
>>
>> Partnering with Microsoft being invited to dinner by Hannibal
>> Lecter. You have no idea when you are to be served.
>>
>
>In 1993 there was no monopoly....
>
Are you one of those people who believes that criminal activity
before a conviction does not count ?
This timeline shows that enough people knew about their monopoly to
start investigating it in 1990.
>> >> The world would not have needed to wait for Linux to return to
>> >> sanity.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Guffaw.
>> Sales of Microsoft OSes are almost totally flat overall.
>>
>> The growth in W2K is coming from conversions from NT.
>>
>> In two years that will be finished.
>>
>> Meanwhile Linux installs are still doubling every year. Next year
>> they should number more than NT and W2K combined.
>>
>> The year after that even you will realize that the end has come.
>>
>
>Not. The old kludge that is UNIX is doomed.
>
It will not be everywhere but neither will Windows.
Software which still performs a useful function is not worth
replacing.
We still have Cobol, Pascal, Postscript, OS/390. Seems to me that
lots of things hang around the IT industry because they are useful.
Linux is Unix in every way except the trademark.
Linux is collapsing the artificially high prices of every software
niche it touches.
I have recompiled source code from AT&T Unix eighteen years old on
Linux boxes today and it works faster than I ever dreamed back then.
Software does not need to be repurchased, just recompiled.
Microsoft bloats the software to "encourage" you to get a new
machine because that new machine will come with another copy of the
OS+Apps bundle. Lots of people would balk at the price and insist
on drivers for the new hardware only if it was not tied to the
new machine so it never appears as a visible cost.
The hardware vendors are not about to complain that you are buying
another OS when you only need drivers. Welcome to The Upgrade
Treadmill.
The landscape will be totally different in two years.
The breaking up of Microsoft will only speed things up for everybody
else.
--
"Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
-DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
