Linux-Advocacy Digest #453, Volume #32 Sat, 24 Feb 01 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: M$ doing it again! (Rex Ballard)
Re: M$ doing it again! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Windows guy. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: How much do you *NEED*? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:51:58 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martigan wrote:
>
> Well it seems that good Ol' Bill is doing it again, and the world does
> nothing!
>
> M$ Claims it has created a new environment for Whistler which allows
> users to customize their desk top...Like X ...now M$ is "claiming" partial
> opensource. To me this is scary!
This could be very interesting. The fact is that Microsoft has been
reverse engineering Linux and open source projects as part of the
Windows 2000 and the .Net and Whistler. The challenge of course is that
one would have to get court orders and subpeonas to prove that Microsoft
actually plagerized the Linux code.
Of course, Open Source code can be used to invalidate all patents,
patent applications, and possibly even certain nondisclosure agreements,
if it is possible to prove that Microsoft actually copied or plagerized
Open Source code. There are a number of ways to keep the Windows
developers from realizing that they are receiving Open Source code.
First, they have to be prevented from being exposed to any Open Source
products. Second, they have to be "Fed" by a "Genious" who gives them
unmarked comment-stripped source code. They think they are looking at
proprietary code which they are not allowed to discuss because of NDAs.
Their best friends might be working on the same project as an Open
source product, but they wouldn't know.
Of course, if the "inspiration code" can actually be traced back to
actual Open Source code, then the resulting code is a result of
plagerism. Due to the nature of the GPL, all code directly linked to
Open Source would also be Open Source. This might only result in some
DLLs being placed into GPL, or it could force the entire Windows 2000
Kernel into GPL. The fact is that Internet Explorer is legally Open
Source under the terms of the NCSA license under which it was originally
submitted.
> Laugh all you want BUT the average computer owner (whom shouldn't have
> one) thinks that Bill is such a great person to realize the importance of
> this.
Bill Gates is a brilliant strategist. He thinks in terms of a 20 year
timeline while most CEOs think in terms of 5 and most COOs remain
focused on the next quarter. Bill has repeatedly made offers that
averted a quarterly crisis in exchange for terms that could bankrupt the
company three years later. Much of the economic crisis we are
experiencing right now is a direct result of the fact that Gates offered
a 3 year waver of CALS in exchange for the equivalent of 2-5% of a
company's
equity value. Some companies had to pay cash, others simply paid with
stock. This deal was offered to keep companies from choosing Linux over
Windows NT 4.0. Linux was a rapidly evolving product while NT 4.0 was
pretty much fixed and Windows NT 5 (2000) was delayed nearly 1 year.
Ironically, the Linux 2.4 kernel was also delayed almost a year (any
thanks to Paul Allen?). But the less published and less well covered
breakthrough was the release of KDE 2.0 and Star Office 5.2 which made
Linux a direct threat to Windows
on the Desktop. Sure, you didn't have web-cams and you had limited
scanner support, but a Linux machine does what most corporate managers
want from a Staff desktop or laptop computer.
During the previous 3 years, these exclusive contracts were only
exclusive in terms of desktop and laptop machines. The server
environment was more speculative and Windows NT didn't fare very wall.
Linux has eventually grown to achieve a larger Market share than Windows
NT 4.0 in the Server market. In fact, Linux and BSD combined comprise a
larger share of the server market than either Windows NT and Windows
2000.
There is every reason to believe that if Microsoft were forced to
compete in a market it couldn't "Lock in" with illegal contracts, that
Linux could quickly achieve 30% of the laptop market. As well-known as
Microsoft is, they are also dispized by many. As much as users like
having a computer, word processor, and web browser, they hate the
frequent
crashes and lock-ups (remember, fewer than 5% of the desktop/laptop
market uses Windows 2000). Windows 2000 is very expensive software for
inexpensive hardware.
Linux could easily capture a significant share of the desktop
marketplace. The "low hanging fruit" would be the people who administer
the nearly 5 million servers. This could easily be 50 million or so.
Most of these people already use Linux, but often, they have to revert
back to Windows for applications that aren't supported by Linux.
Microsoft is also finding that Corporate customers are much more
concerned about standards these days. Not only did UNIX not disappear,
it has become the strategic cornerstone of most IT shops for internet,
intranet, extranet systems including B2C, B2B, B2E, and E2E
interactions. Many people are finding that their e-mail traffic is so
high that they need industry standard SMTP and POP clients such as
Netscape Messenger, Eudora, pine, and others. Many executives have
begun using Linux simply because it gives them the ability to handle
much more responsibility and the e-mail, newsgroups, and information
that literally swamps the average NT user.
IBM has even offered their Postfix e-mail system, which provides
plug-ins for security, encrypted transfer and interim storage, and
electronic signatures. When combined with Linux clients that can
exploit these capabilities, Linux users can get most of the advantages
of Lotus Notes without the frequent lock-ups.
> That fact is many people know about Linux, but they don't know WHAT
> Linux is!
This is perhaps the biggest problem. Many people have heard of Linux,
they've even heard really good things about it. They often know people
who use, or prefer to use Linux whenever possible. Many companies have
even found that they have to
support Linux to recruit and keep the most valuable IT talent. Many of
the top IT architects, designers, and programmers who provide the magic
for web sites in remarkably short time (they people you want to hire as
consultants or employees)
now insist on using Linux to "work their magic".
> Bash Bill as much as you want, but he has something's that the Linux
> Community doesn't...that is money and the power to push major companies
> around.
That only goes so far. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Ballmer have
been dumping Microsoft stock as fast as they can. Gates has sold nearly
200 million shares, and Paul Allen another 100 million. Microsoft stock
has gone from $120
to $42/share and has only "recovered" to about $60/share. Even if
Microsoft wins their appeal, they know that they have burned their
bridges with the courts.
Microsoft pushed OEMs into offering Windows ME exclusively and excluding
or ignoring Linux. They promised that if the OEMs picked up ME, that
they would sell more computers at Higher margins than they sold under
Windows 95. It didn't happen. Users weren't willing to pay $2000 per
machine for Windows ME. They didn't feel that there was enough benefit
to justify the extra expense. Meanwhile Linux was being sold in record
quantities even though the 2.4 kernel had been delayed.
In Europe, Japan, and China, Linux is outselling Windows ME and many
OEMs are offering Linux systems on retail store shelves. Many companies
are running Linux in a post-install session, and the demand for
Linux/UNIX consultants has been increasing dramatically.
> I have moved from windows to Linux, I love Linux since I can do what I
> want with it.
This is the bottom line. Once people reach a certain threshold of skill
(which is rapidly dropping since KDE 2.0 and StarOffice 5.2) people
really love Linux. Once they have a functional configuration installed
(more people are paying for
Licensed copies to get the help they need), and reach the point where
they can import/export MS-Office documents with StarOffice and access
the Internet using Konquerer and Netscape.
Microsoft is already finding that it must make it's products compatible
with Linux. Windows 2000 has been getting resistance because of it's
deviations on established standards such as Kerberos and LDAP. The
French government has no mandated that all documents be readable by open
source products. Germany has similar standards in less explicit terms.
> But the average computer user doesn't even know how to read
> HTML, C++ or Java!
Fortunately, most Linux users don't actually have to know how to edit
HTML with a text editor. There are at least 6 WYSIWYG HWML "word
processors" available for Linux. In addition, Word users can use "Save
as HTML" option on Office 97 or Office 2000 to get HTML documents. And
there is also a utility now available for Web servers that allows Web
servers to display (ugly) versions of Word documents by converting them
to HTML. Put simply, while Microsoft Word documents were very popular
when the primary "next step" was to print them up on a laser printer and
pass out copies, Word is much less popular for publishing documents
electronically.
> The few whom do know think I'm crazy, but do they talk to the average
> computer user?
Yes. Keep in mind that the "Average Computer User" changes radically
every few months. Back in 1993, the "Averegae Computer User" took it
for granted that his computer would crash 4-6 times a day and realized
that it was pointless to complain. Many people deleted the electronic
version of a document once the document was printed and the meeting was
over. Millions of documents were lost because the average desktop PC
only had room for about 100 word documents. Often, documents would
literally be lost because there was no effective way to index and search
the thousands of documents being published every day, let alone the
millions of documents being published every year.
By 1995, the avereage computer user had access to local area networks,
and many had browser access to the internet. By 1996, users were using
information gathered from UNIX powered WEB servers as a key resource for
critical decisions. By 1997, nearly every corporation was offering
interactive services (web forms) to users. By 2001, the "Avereage user"
was purchasing over $1 trillion via the Internet. Many people are
spending as much as 20% of their disposable income via the Internet.
Today, the avereage computer user spends nearly 80% of his or her time
gathering information stored on UNIX/Linux systems via the internet,
and onother 5-10% generating documents that will ultimately be stored
and published via a UNIX or Linux server. In many cases, they will
deliver a document via e-mail as an attachment that will be converted to
set of HTML pages, and will finally be published via an internal or
exters web server.
Today, the average computer user does have a personal web page on AOL,
Yahoo, or some other web site or ISP service,
and nearly every business has some sort of web site, whether it's a
simple shared host or a dedicated server. Most
of these servers (nearly 70%) are Linux, BSD unix, and UNIX servers.
> Does Linux have the praise from ZDNET, WIRED, CNN, or MSNBC?
ZDNET, CNN, and Wired offer a great deal of coverage of Linux, and offer
very positive feedback. MSNBC is owned by Microsoft who has a 25%
interest (controlling interest). Not only does Microsoft encourage
Linux bashing, but they
often publish "diversionary" content to keep the public eye off of
Microsoft. It was the MSNBC web site that broke
the Monica Lewinski wiretaps (something the general press would never
have published due to the illegal nature of
how the information was obtained). It was MSNBC TV who used 80% of
their "prime time" to cover the Lewinsky affair,
then the Elian Gonzales story (cute kid but 2000 HOURS of cute isn't
cute anymore). Then they went after the Ramsey family (an excuse to
focus on little girl dressed up like hookers?). Even today, while
Microsoft is on trial and probably facing a supreme court trial, MSNBC
gives less than 3 minutes/day to crucial events in the trial.
The richest man in the world, and what was once the largest largest
company in the world (in terms of market cap)
were on trial and convicted of multple crimes. During the trial,
Microsoft executives repeatedly confessed to
federal felonies in front of a federal Judge while justifying the acts
as necessary. As if "corporate self defense"
from a competitor who had less than 1% of the desktop market at the time
(Microsoft declared that Linux had 10% of
the desktop market, but no one bothered to object or challenge this
claim, it was known that Linux did have nearly 10% of the total server
market at the time).
> That's were the mainstream is.
The "mainstream" is a perpetually moving and shifting world. The
hardest is the first 10 million. Until you have 1 million, you don't
even show up on the radar screen of the mass media. By the time you get
10 million, the press is
split between those who think you're a fad and the folks who think this
will be bigger than television. By the time
you have 30 million, the investors are looking for a piece of the
action. By the time you have 50 million, your
competitors are depicting you as the devil incarnate (or communists
according to Steve Ballmer and Jim Alchin).
By the time you reach 100 million, people are talking about the product
as part of normal conversation. Typically,
about 1/2 of the adult population of the U.S. are using this. By 300
million, this "fad" is as much a part of
American life as Televisions, Automobiles, and telephones.
International globalization becomes critical to further
growth. By the time you reach 1 billion, as the Internet, Television,
and Telephone have done, any country that
does NOT have this technology or product is considered "primative".
Many people have 2 or 3 of the product.
Right now, Linux is pushing the 150 million license mark (grand total of
all licenses sold since 1996).
--
Rex Ballard
Information Technology Architect
Open Systems/Open Source Advocate
http://www.open4success.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: M$ doing it again!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:57:41 +0000
Martigan wrote:
>
> Well it seems that good Ol' Bill is doing it again, and the world does
> nothing!
>
> M$ Claims it has created a new environment for Whistler which allows
> users to customize their desk top...Like X ...now M$ is "claiming" partial
> opensource. To me this is scary!
>
Whistler is part open-source, it's just that M$ didn't mean it to be
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:51:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Oh pillock, you were the one that claim crashing apps don't harm the OS.
>
> Allow me to just jump in here for a quick reality check.
Your reality may vary from mine.
> Remember when I took the Pete Goodwin editor challenge?
> Several of the editors crashed, but the OS just kept on
> trucking.
And mine hung the system. Did you expect the same results?
> Netscape crashes at least once a day for me, but the
> OS is not affected, and I simply restart netscape to
> continue.
And so do I.
> So, yes, it appears that in general, crashing apps have
> absolutely no effect on the OS.
But it is possible for applications (without crashing) to take down the
OS.
> Nope, the system is still rocking, and the kernel compile
> finished successfully, remember?
Yours did, mine didn't.
> PS You have no chance to survive make your time.
Ha Ha Ha.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:53:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Give it up Pete.
No.
> Install PageMaker for Windows and come back to tell us about the
> printing on it.
I'd have to buy it first. Why should I buy something that is of no
interest to me?
> Certain layout applications use their own printer definitions so that
> WYSIWYG actually works correctly.
Maybe some do, but the ones I use don't.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:56:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > Because Linux's desktop has not caught up to Windows.
>
> Well, the Linux desktop is a lot cooler than Windows. It's a lot more
> configurable, but that's IMO of course.
It looks cooler, but a lot of KDE 2.0 apps crash a lot. The only stable
one I found was KNode, and that one crashed once.
> My main problem with the Linux console is that it's not as attractive as
> the Window's desktop. Reading aliased font all the time feels like I'm
> back in the Windows 3.x era. GNOME/Enlightment is a little better than
> KDE, and I heard they're in development for anti-aliasing. Until that
> happens I'll stick with Windows for gaming/browsing and Linux for real
> productivity.
'console' is hardly the desktop.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How much do you *NEED*?
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:57:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I use Linux for gaming and most real work, windows
> for when I have to edit a legacy word doc.
I guess if you restrict yourself to a much shorter list of games then
it's ok for you.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 18:08:05 -0500
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>> They want you to be a conformist little robot who offers ZERO
> >>> resistance to any of their decisions.
> >>
> >>Me having a gun would make no difference to a single decision the
> >>government has made in recent times.
> >
> > The lose of your rights comes one at a time, baby. Pull your head out,
> > and just say NO to those who want to take away your freedoms. It
> > doesn't matter if your a gun-owner or a communist or a flaming fairy.
> > Tell the government to leave intact your rights as a free American.
>
> I have a right to walk around and live my life with a negligable chance of
> getting shot.
That's why law-abiding citizens SHOULD HAVE guns....because
LAW-ABIDING CITZENS aren't the ones who would shoot you...but
their *IS* a good chance that one would shoot some thug who
doesn't give a fuck about the laws against murder in the first place.
> that is MY right as a free Englishman and I want to keep
> that right.
Clue for the clueless: criminals don't give a fuck about what you
think your rights are.
> Since guns are not commonplace here, letting nutters have them
> means oppression, not freedom for me.
1 nutter kills 20 people.
60 criminals, no longer fearing retaliation by disarmed law-abiding
citizens kill 1 person each.
Which pile of bodies is bigger?
Your problem is, you refuse to contemplate the trade-off....that by
letting a few nutters have guns, you also give the general public
the ability to defend itself against habitual criminals.
Should we outlaw cars because sometimes there are accidents--
completely disregarding that fact that cars save more lives than
what they take (quick, sheltered transportation allows people to
maintain a higher standard of living, thereby avoiding malnutrition,
disease, hypothermia, etc.)
>
> >>> You see...incidents like Dunblane are HYPED so as to brainwash you
> >>> into surrendering your BASIC HIMAN RIGHT to self defence.
> >>
> >>I didn't own a gun anyway. The new legislation stopped nutters getting
> >>guns. Almost noone in the UK (barring criminals) owned hand gund. The
> >>legislation won't affect criminals and it won't affect non gun owners,
> >>so it has affected almost noone. Besides, if you still are hell bent on
> >>protecting your home, then you can get a shot gun, since they are still
> >>allowed.
> >
> > What's that story again? Something like "they came for the jews, and I
> > didn't say anything because I wasn't a jew" and some other similar
> > phrases, and at the end, "when they came for me, there wasn't anyone
> > else to say anything."
>
> To be quite frank, guns or no guns, if they come after me, I am a dead
> man.
Spoken like a true coward.
Over here in the states, 80-year-old grandmothers regularly
turn punks into swiss cheese....
> Like I said, they could kill me before I knew they were after me.
And so, on that basis, you would deny everybody else a chance to
defend themselves.
By that logic, your neighbor should prevent you from having a computer
because he can't figure out how to use it effectively.
>
> >>If the government wanted to turn on us and guns were legal, it would cut
> >>off the supply first, as well. Any stocks of ammo wouldn't last very
> >>long. Again, having a gun wouldn't help much.
> >
> > Bad logic. "Your tool might not last forever, so why have the tool at
> > all?"
>
> I don't think the tool would last for a significant amount of time. What
It only takes a moment.
> would stop that govt. shelling the house of someone with a personal
> arsenal?
A concerted response from the entire neighborhood firing upon
the gun crew.
> Meanwhilst, I am more free out of a gun culture than in one.
You are trapped in an adolescent state of mind concerning your
own security. Thus, you have been successfully "tamed"...just
like a sheep, or a dog....unwilling to do for yourself, because
you can't even imagine how you would do it.
Thus, you prefer to *bribe* someone else to do it, because you
are unwilling to take responsibility for your own well being.
"Those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither"
--Benjamin Franklin
And history shows us that "neither" is exactly what they get.
>
>
> >>And the government forces have avaliable guns of far higher precision
> >>and power than I would be able to afford. I may as well just use a bow
> >>and arrows for all the help a hand gun would be against trained army
> >>forces with fantastically expensive weaponary. Again, me owning a gun
> >>would do very little against a dictator coming in to power.
> >
> > If my little pistol is so weak, why do you want to take it away from me?
> > You can't have it both ways, buddy!
>
> It is strong against me. Try using it against a mobile gun shelling you
> from 60 miles away.
>
>
> > Hell, I can see handgun stores opening all over in China right now!
> > After all, they pose no threat to the government and all it's scary
> > weapons, right?
>
> The Chinese army versus an army of untrained civs armed with hand guns.
> I wonder who would win.
Considering that the PLA is a conscription force, I can guarantee
you that there are very few "untrained civilians" who are male and
above the age of service.
No...the Chinese have a prohibition against the private ownership
of firearms (other than for party elites....there's that FEUDALISM
again) PRECISELY because they know that a widespread popular uprising
is more than ANY army can take on.
If your army only has 10% of the adult males, and of the remaining
90%, 85% are downtrodden prior-service conscripts....guess who's
going to win?
85 to 10 are overwhelming odds in favor of the civilians.
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> | u98ejr
> | @
> Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
> | .ac.uk
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: "meow" is yet another anonymous coward who does nothing
but write stupid nonsense about his intellectual superiors.
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shelala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
