Linux-Advocacy Digest #608, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 03:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure! (Baarod)
Re: In response to Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Rex Ballard)
Bell Monopoly (Was Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("2 + 2")
Re: KDE or GNOME? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Dave)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Rex Ballard)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Amphetamine Bob)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS websites: a tale of total and humiliating failure!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Baarod)
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 07:17:01 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<3a9ddec1$0$38473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Amphetamine Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "." wrote:
>> >
>> > > Every source that claims that MS tried multiple conversions of
>> > > Hotmail
>to NT
>> > > all reference the same *SINGLE* story published on less than
>> > > credible
>news
>> > > site with "unnamed" sources.
>> >
>> > Cnet - Sun->NT
>> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-344896.html
>> >
>> > ZDNet - BSD->NT
>> > http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/30/ns-17071.html
>> >
>> > True to form with the Microsoft web site, searching for something
>doesn't
>> > turn it up. Do you have a link to microsoft.com with their most
>> > recent official statement?
>> >
>> > > Meanwhile, MS themselves stated specifically that no conversion
>> > > was
>ever
>> > > attempted. Further, the claim was that MS tried to convert to NT
>within
>> > > weeks of purchasing Hotmail. It would have taken them months just
>> > > to familiarize themselves with the system enough to even begin
>> > > such a
>task, let
>> > > alone complete and fail within weeks.
>> >
>> > That's based on a false premise... MS would be quite capable of
>> > fucking up the conversion in just a couple of weeks. A sane
>> > programmer wouldn't attempt it without reading and understanding the
>> > source code, but sanity is a bit short in some areas.
>>
>> I believe that the most recent story was based on multiple (many)
>> sources, all current MS employees. They repeated the same statement
>> about MS not being able to run Hotmail on NT after multiple tries and
>> also stated that almost all of MS big websites are running on Unix,
>> even after numerous attempts to get them running on MS software. All
>> of the employees wished to remain anonymous.
>
>I believe this is utter bullshit. THis is based on multiple (many)
>current MS employees. They repeated the same statement about MS never
>trying to convert hotmail at any time. They stated that all of MS runs
>all of it's websites on IIS and have been doing so for many years. All
>of these employee s had no problem giving their names...
>
>
>>
>> Here are the facts from that article (from my notes).
>>
>> 1. Link Exchange. MS bought Link Exchange and tried to move it from
>> Oracle over to SQL. They threw a ton of their best employees into the
>> problem. After 2 months they gave up and put it on Oracle/Solaris
>> where it remains. :)
>
>Prove it.
>
>>
>> 2. BCentral. This site runs on Free BSD, BSD/OS and Solaris. MS
>> tried very hard to migrate it to NT and Win2K. They had to quadruple
>> the servers to pull it off and they decided it was not worth it! :)
>
>Prove it.
>
>>
>> 3. Hotmail. Sure there are a few Win2K servers there but 99% of the
>> site runs on Free BSD. :)
>
>Prove it - testing with netcraft proves that it all runs on BSD except
>the banner add servers.
>(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.hotmail.com&mode_w=on)
>
>>
>> 4. MSN!!!!!!! Yes, MS' own flagship site runs on Apache/Solaris! :)
>
>www.msn.com running IIS5 on Windows 2000.
>(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.msn.com&mode_w=on)
>
>>
>> 5. BCentral's ad server is 100% Free BSD. :)
>
>bcentral.com runs IIS5
>(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.bcentral.com&mode_w=on)
>but could care less IF the ad server is bsd or not. probably the same ad
>servers as those from hotmail. kinda tells you what MS thinks of banner
>ad servers.
>
>>
>> 6. WebTV is almost completely run on Solaris. :)
>
>www.webtv.com IIS5
>(http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.webtv.com&mode_w=on) -
>besides, MS bought webtv, they didn't build it. YOu don't just gut
>something and convert it overnight if it's up and running. ANYONE could
>tell you that.
>
>>
>> 7. An interesting tidbit: When MS announced the release of Win2K, MS
>> issued a memo to all of its employees telling them to not even think
>> about using it for production because it was too unstable!!!!!!! :)
>
>Complete utter bullshit from someone who's been inside and knows people
>inside today. In fact, as of RC1 people were activily encourage to use
>W2K and today everyone uses it (except those that obviously would not,
>like those supporting ME and those building Whistler). You are lying and
>I challenge you to prove your claims.
The linux appologists (read that SUN developers :-) cannot. It's just a FUD
counterattack done wrong. Look at Apache.org and see that all the
developers are employed by SUN IBM or reliant consultant firms. It's just
one big company against the biggest company. In a way I'm glad that they
are "challenging" Microsoft. MS only does it's best work when running from
competition.
>>
>> Since the sources were all current MS employees, they had to remain
>> anonymous. Sorry but I forgot to write down the source of the article
>> but it was one of the bit computer ezines that is very pro-MS. ;)
>> Hehehehehe. This article came out, I believe, around November so
>> things might have changed since then.
>
>I challenge the sources to come forward and support their lies.
Don't bother. Asking linux appologists for facts is like getting blood from
a turnip. They won't give because they cannot. The best they will do is
post some slashdot bullshit thats just some other open source advocate's
opinion or a waffling IDC or other industry "anal-ist" opinion that's bought
and paid for by their proponents. Don't count on netcrap shit either. They
are a nix consultantcy. Actually don't depend on anything except the
reality that almost every computer in the world runs Microsoft products.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In response to Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 02:34:03 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============0E24C7E917FD4FA6B9A952A2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I just found out that the IDC report measured Linux' 2% in terms of
revenue. This paints a very different picture. Since Linux costs
1/10th the price of Windows NT, and costs less than 1/5 the price of
Windows ME, Linux is actually approaching somewhere between 5 and 10 %
of the market in terms of unit volumes. This would be much more in line
with other estimates.
Keep in mind that this would not include Cheap-bytes CDs, givaway CDs,
CDS included in books, or any other "Free" (unreported as license
shipments) version of Linux. This would also put the shipment estimate
closer to around 30 million copies shipped. Should be an interesting
year
for companies who are free to offer preinstalled Linux.
Rex Ballard wrote:
>
> This one was particularly interesting since it covers all servers, this
> includes Linux, UNIX, NT, and WindowsNT and includes file and print
> servers, e-mail servers, and web servers. Notice that Linux with 27%
> and UNIX with 14% adds up to 41% of the total server market. This also
> only includes servers not capacities. Solaris systems such as the E-10K
> have up to 64 nodes, and the S-80 has 64 nodes that are several times
> faster than equivalent netfinity nodes.
>
> Patrick McAllister wrote:
>
> > Just posted as an fyi.......
> >
> > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4979275.html?tag=owv
>
> --
> Rex Ballard
> It Architect
> http://www.open4success.com
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============0E24C7E917FD4FA6B9A952A2
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============0E24C7E917FD4FA6B9A952A2==
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Bell Monopoly (Was Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 02:24:50 -0500
"Note 3. Whether AT&T was really a natural monopoly at the time monopoly
status was granted is a matter of debate."
Ok. The Bell companies grew as a result of the invention of Bell, naturally.
Regulation was by states and even municipalities. The progressive view was
that efficiency dicated one carrier. State public utiliy commissions were
formed.
Federal regulation grew, but there was generally a split between local and
interstate. The efficiency arguments persisted, but by the time the bell
companies overall interstate monopoly was broken up into separate holding
companies for groups of local companies, low cost competition from MCI for
businesses, etc., had effectively disproven the efficency argument.
I think MCI had microwave towers to begin with. I remember driving past one
on a small mountain. Western Union, long after the telegraph>teletype/money
transfers got replaced, had a governmental service unit that contracted from
carriers like AT&T who were telecom "common carriers."
So when the ALIENS took over the New Mexico public utility commission, a
little known fact, after landing at Roswell, a known "fact," then . . . . .
. . . And the beat goes on.
Does anyone have a cite to United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F.
Supp. 131, 165 (DC 1982)?
2 + 2
Charlie Ebert wrote in message ...
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>
>>
>>Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>> >
>>>
>http://www.eetimes.com/special/special_issues/millennium/companies/bell.htm
l
>>> >
>>> > At first the research arm of AT&T, Bell Labs enjoyed a special
status
>>> > after its founding in the 1920s. Because of the monopoly granted
AT&T
>>> > by the government, in the interests of standardizing the telephone
>>> > system, the lab could both be part of a commercial operation and
play
>>> > the open role of a national laboratory.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I see this in print and I've read it.
>>>
>>> There is no record in congress of an actual vote nor bill passed which
>>> grants AT&T nor IT&T a monopoly that I've seen.
>>>
>>> Perhaps what they are refering to is some kind of excusive contract.
>>>
>>> But I can't seem to find support for where congress passed and the
>>> president signed any such bill approving a monopoly.
>>>
>>> However, I can show you the 1970's arguments from the appeals trials
>>> where the phone companies attempted to prove they had been granted
>>> monopoly status from the government and they failed to exibit proof.
>>>
>>
>>Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
>>
>>Interesting.
>>
>>
>>> That much I know.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>
>
>
>After having done some more looking I got lucky.
>
>http://china.si.umich.edu/econ495/writings/paper/potter.html#fn3ret
>
>Read thru this not forgetting to click on note 3.
>
>They claim it got started in 1934 and not 1920 as your article states.
>
>And indeed this appearently is the problem as nobody knows for sure
>when the notion of phone company monopoly started BUT,
>this article claims it started with Universal Service, which is a NOTION
>and not an actual law.
>
>Note in II. History we see Michael Schrage, writer for the L.A. Times
>quoted Al Gore in saying that the NOTION of universal service has been
>a part of American history since the day's of Ben Franklin's post office.
>
>Then we read at the top of the paragraph where they say "Universal Service"
>as a social institution was passed into a law in 1934, in that the
telephone
>companies must "PROVIDE THEIR WARES TO EVEN THE POOREST MEMBERS OF
SOCIETY".
>
>But to say this is a grant of monopoly is foolish as there is no market
>anti competition clause. It just says they have to provide everybody with
>phone service, that's all! Then it goes on to talk about FDR comming in
>later with the NEW DEAL to offer rural electric power.
>
>Then you read NOTE 3 and you know that there was never a monopoly granted.
>
>The phone company just thought they had one as they were told they
>had to server all American's rich and poor. But they were subsidised for
>that. Subsidised efforts don't construe a monopoly either.
>
>NOTE 3 again!
>
>As you go thru the entire document you see that "Universal Service" dies
>just 20 years into the program and is replaced with a voucher program.
>
>Again, no mention of a 50's era monopoly here either.
>
>It should be noted that the passing of the 1934 "Universal Service Act"
>is the actual birth of another well known organization known as the
>Federal Communications Commission, a regulatory agency.
>
>
>Then we jump to this link to read about the actual breakup trial.
>
>http://www.navyrelics.com/tribute/bellsys/decisiontodivest.html
>
>In 1934 the Communications Act was passed by the U.S.
>Congress and signed into law by President Franklin D.
>Roosevelt, creating the Federal Communications Commission.
>Part of its purpose was to regulate telecommunications "in
>the public interest"-a phrase that, incidentally, has no
>legal definition that can be cited as a yardstick. One of the
>FCC's missions was, in the words of the 1934 act, "to make
>available, so far as is possible, to all the people of the
>United States, a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide
>wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities
> at reasonable charges."
>
>
>All of a sudden you see the word NATURAL MONOPOLY used.
>You don't see legal or legalized MONOPOLY. You see
>natural Monopoly and phrases out of AT& T like this.
>
>
>Within AT&T, this explicit mission was reinforced by a
>corporate culture that evolved within the company under
>Theodore N. Vail, the business's general manager and its
>president from 1907 to 1919, whose philosophy became a
>corporate motto that stood for decades: "One policy, one
>system, universal service."
>
>In my next article, I will attempt to find the actual
>link to the trail in 1975 where AT&T argues to the Judge
>presiding that they were a LEGAL MONOPOLY and the Judge
>throws the argument out citing that the FCC has no JURISDICTION
>to CREATE ANY MONOPOLY.
>
>And then I will cite links which allowed the creation of MCI,
>SPRINT and also companies like FED-EX!
>
>I'm going to do this because I think it's NECESSARY READING
>FOR EVERYBODY HERE.
>
>Not just because they think I'm full of shit and need to be
>on the Art Bell program.
>
>I just feel it's good reading and it gives you the spirit
>to watch the Impending Microsoft Breakup when it hit's the
>Supreme Court.
>
>Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 20:26:19 +1300
Hi mysterious Unknown,
> It is not a case of better, but which you like.
This is partially true--those aspects of style, icon consistency, colour
schemes, etc. are all a matter of taste, and taste is largely subjective.
However it is possible to note that some people have somewhat more refined
tastes than others.
Where objective discussion can occur is with the feature set. And it is
likely that many people can agree that certain features are desirable.
Extensive use of component and interoperability technologies between
applications might be highly desirable for instance, and could be a point
of objective comparison.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 00:34:25 -0700
On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:15:01 -0800, Amphetamine Bob
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JamesW wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:00:07 +0000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote
>> (in message <bZSn6.383$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
>>
>> > That's not a better comparison. WordPerfect became a failure in the market,
>> > and was sold from company to company. They sell it for a fraction of the
>> > cost because nobody will buy it at it's full cost.
>>
>> WordPerfect was destroyed by M$'s OS monoply - BillG sold M$ Word at an
>> artificially low price subsidised by DOS and Windoze - until the majority of
>> users were using Word/Office and competitors couldn't compete (the
>> competitors didn't have an OS monopoly to fall back on).
>
>Not only that but he played horrid games with his stupid file formats
>that have harmed consumers and businesses all over the world and
>helped set computing back 5-10 years at least.
I vaguely remember some study that was done around 1996 or 1997, maybe
someone here can provide a pointer to it. After over a decade of using
desktop computers businesses still hadn't seen any improvement in
productivity, and most claimed that computers had in fact _lowered_
their productivity. Someone did a study to find out why desktops
weren't living up to their promise, and concluded that the downtime of
MS's operating systems combined with their marketing stategies and the
resultant constant employee retraining were to blame.
------------------------------
From: Rex Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 02:45:38 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
==============F9BE89D9B8E6D5987392A6FD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It's a mixed bag. KDE has lots of eye candy and a similar look and feel
to Windows ME
and Windows 2000 (which makes sense since Windows tried to emulate the
look and feel
of both CDE/KDE and Motif). Many of the applications are remarkably
similar to Windows,
and qt is available for both Windows and Linux. This solves several
problems for people
who want to support both platforms. Of course, there is a price to be
paid. The professional version licenses for $6,000 per platform per
programmer. That can be a nasty dent for
shoestring companies. It also makes it harder to get qualified
professionals. Still,
eye-candy sells and Mandrake, who defaults to a KDE desktop fully
populated with hundreds
of preinstalled applications, is the top selling Linux distribution.
GNOME has some really great features and offers dozens of different
themes and decorations. I'm rather fond of Ganymede, but others like
Window Maker, Sawfish, or any of the myriad other applications.
Martigan wrote:
>
> I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
> 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
> other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
--
Rex Ballard
It Architect
http://www.open4success.com
==============F9BE89D9B8E6D5987392A6FD
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
name="rballard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Rex Ballard
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="rballard.vcf"
begin:vcard
n:Ballard;Rex
tel;cell:908-723-4008
tel;work:973-723-4008
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
fn:Rex Ballard
end:vcard
==============F9BE89D9B8E6D5987392A6FD==
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 08:56:37 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martigan wrote:
>
>
> I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried
> KDE
> 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
> other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
>
Just a matter of taste. Try KDE 2.1 and keep using what fits your needs
best.
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 5.3 and SuSE 7.0
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 23:59:38 -0800
Dave wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:15:01 -0800, Amphetamine Bob
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >JamesW wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:00:07 +0000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote
> >> (in message <bZSn6.383$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
> >>
> >> > That's not a better comparison. WordPerfect became a failure in the market,
> >> > and was sold from company to company. They sell it for a fraction of the
> >> > cost because nobody will buy it at it's full cost.
> >>
> >> WordPerfect was destroyed by M$'s OS monoply - BillG sold M$ Word at an
> >> artificially low price subsidised by DOS and Windoze - until the majority of
> >> users were using Word/Office and competitors couldn't compete (the
> >> competitors didn't have an OS monopoly to fall back on).
> >
> >Not only that but he played horrid games with his stupid file formats
> >that have harmed consumers and businesses all over the world and
> >helped set computing back 5-10 years at least.
>
> I vaguely remember some study that was done around 1996 or 1997, maybe
> someone here can provide a pointer to it. After over a decade of using
> desktop computers businesses still hadn't seen any improvement in
> productivity, and most claimed that computers had in fact _lowered_
> their productivity. Someone did a study to find out why desktops
> weren't living up to their promise, and concluded that the downtime of
> MS's operating systems combined with their marketing stategies and the
> resultant constant employee retraining were to blame.
Yes, I can believe it. Actually, an excellent study concluded that
the MS monopoly has cost the computing world $10 billion. This is
pure wasted money that did not have to spent or wasted in this way.
What a waste!
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
