Linux-Advocacy Digest #730, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Mar 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...) (Robert Donnelly
attglobal.net>)
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Bloody Viking)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Scott Gardner)
Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows?? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax) (Bob Hauck)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Donnelly <redonn2@<ZAP>attglobal.net>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computing Power to Peak SOON! (WAS: Moore's Law, continued...)
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2001 19:14:29 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <983qqf$9l0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I saw that thread, and realised that Moore's Law is coming close to the limit,
> though there's some life left. The writing will be on the wall when Intel
> starts selling CPUs that take liquid cooling resembling a micromini car engine
> cooling system, complete with radiator, antifreeze, fan, and water pump and
> little reservoir. Once the first overclocker makes that gadget for his CPU, we
> will be nearing Game Over for Moore's Law, certainly in terms of silicon or
> similar technology. (GaAs, etc.) It will be awful expensive to build a tiny
> "Joule-Thompson" liquid air machine to cool the chips. And I don't see the
> emergence of a liquid nitrogen delivery service like The Milk Man showing up.
>
>
Ahhhh! The return of OS/2!! No more big sloppy apps for M$.
Well guys, I finally had to give up OS/2. Bought a Dell Inspiron 3800, 600mhz
Celeron, 64 mb ram, 8 MB video, and Windoze2000.
Well this thing ran like a 286, under windoze. I had some files that I needed
so I created a partition and installed Warp 4. It ran like a jet in OS/2.
I bought another 128mb to feed the Microhog partition. Now it runs in 2000 like
my old 333 AMD, 128mb SD ram, 8mb of video ran in Warp, so I am satisfied.
Well, I must say the 2000 is very stable. Even more stable than OS/2, but that
is only after you consider the crappy driver support it had.
2000 is a much better product than Crash 9.x or Crash ME.
Well see you later guys.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: 10 Mar 2001 00:18:30 GMT
Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: The thing is, it doesn't matter if you have thousande of file formats as
: long as they are all open. If they're open, then anyone can write a
: converter to from one to the other.
Certainly an improvement to have the million formats open for all than the
present case. But I think a case of "keep it simple, stupid" being in order.
If you don't mind, I'll weigh in with my own file format. The specification is
utterly simple, the data must be in plaintext and in the simplest style
possible. Control character sequences are allowed. Unnecessary complexity is
not.
Example:
A formletter list whereby each recipient had 5 lines for the fields of data
for the snailspamware to read. The maddening obvious case is a spammer with a
list of email addresses. The spamlist falls under the .dta specification.
A row/column style is permitted and encouraged for things like spreadsheets,
or the hex of picture files.
The .dta format is meant to be "formatless" and always plaintext, such that
anyone can get the idea of how the data is put into the file easally. In the
case of the matrix of hex, the hex must be documented. Same with a markup
system like .HTML is now.
What is NEVER allowed is any binary crap that obfusactes the data in the file.
History shows that such ultrasimple formatting does work, with .HTML being a
real life example. In that case, you have a file format that is plaintext and
with a markup system that follows a standard that is readily knowable. The
.HTML standard is about the most open file format ever invented.
The beauty of simple open file formats is that ANYONE can code a util for it
without undue hardship.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:07:41 +0200
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98bebp$f5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : This is just plain silly. They would also need to own all the routers,
all
> : the everything else, and it would have to be *ALL* of them, 100%, or
there's
> : no way they can get away with saying "yes, we are no longer complying
with
> : the TCP/IP spec".
>
> And that is the ONLY reason they use the TCP/IP spec unmodified - they
> have no choice.
Are you suggesting a time when they *will* have a choice?
*shudder*
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:12:38 +0200
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:98bes2$f5a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Embrace-and-extend is a working way to make the original less useful.
> Consider HTML. MS originally opposed the internet and web browsing,
> preferring an AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve type of model for their MSN. When
> it became clear that it wouldn't work, they instead embraced and
> extended the technology, so that now there are some websites out there
> that don't work worth a damn if don't use Internet Explorer. They
> did this by glomming onto a fairly open protocol (HTML) and adding things
> that didn't improve it one bit, they merely made it incompatable.
Yes, MS embraced & extended this attidue from Netscape.
<BLINK>, anyone?
IE 5.5 was the most standard compliant browser when it was released, but you
don't bother to mention that.
The reason so many things works on IE only is Netscape's fault. The long
history of 4.XX drove people away from the platfrom.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:15:05 +0200
"Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "JD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Pat McCann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > (The GNU "free software" freedom is explained as the freedom of users
> > > to redistribute it , run it, view it, and publish modifications of it.
> > >
> > Note that the GPL freedom of redistribution is limited by enumerated
> > constraints in the license. Free software doesn't need those sorts of
> > constraints, since they are inconsistant with it (the software) being
> > free :-).
>
> What sort of constraints? I've not seen a software license without
> constraints (though I can concieve of them). Certainly not the BSDL.
What about zlib?
http://opensource.org/licenses/zlib-license.html
The only limitation are that you must give credit where it's due. On the
code.
It's appriciated if you acknowledge the source of the original code in the
final product, but it's not neccecary.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Gardner)
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:23:49 GMT
On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 04:22:41 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Just a thought - it would have been very easy to buy 100%
>linux compatible hardware, so you have to take some of the
>blame if Linux isn't liking some of your hardware.
>
I've said several times that I can't blame LInux for my hardware
choices, (especially for my Winmodem), but since I wasn't considering
Linux when I built my computer, I now have a barrier to running Linux
exclusively. Is it Linux's fault? No, but a lot of people are going
to be in my same situation if the try to install Linux on a machine
that they originally bought to run Windows. If people can't make a
switch from Windows to Linux without losing a large part of the
functionality of their hardware (as I did), then they are going to be
justifiable frustrated in their efforts, and come away with the
impression that Linux isn't quite "ready for prime time"
Scott Gardner
>Scott Gardner wrote:
>
>> You've been luckier than I have. I installed RH 7.0, and here's the
>> list of stuff that wouldn't work:
>>
>> Video Card - Diamond Viper II with the Savage 2000 chipset. Works,
>> but only as a standard SVGA card, and none of the whiz-bang 3D
>> capabilities are supported yet.
>
>And that's well known. There is a list of cards on which hardware
>3D acceleration is known to work, and that's not on the list.
>
>(However, it might be supported by 3rd party X server.)
>
Again, this would have been a great help had I bought the video card
*with Linux in mind*, which I didn't.
>> Sound card - I actually had two, one in the machine and an older one
>> lying around. Neither chipset is supported in linux (ESS Canyon 3D
>> and whatever the Diamond Monster Sound MX300 uses--it's slipped my
>> mind right now)
>
>I've had to look pretty hard to find a sound card Linux didn't like.
>If you want to be safe, stick with a sound blaster though...
>
See above. This wasn't a bargain bin sound card, and Diamond sold a
metric butt-ton of them, it just didn't ever get on the list of
hardware to be supported by the Linux kernel.
>> PIE SCSI Scanner - Color flatbed scanner on a proprietary half-card
>> SCSI interface. I could probably connect it to an honest SCSI
>> controller, but it doesn't work as is, and since all of the above
>> problems force me to boot into Windows at one time or another, in the
>> meantime I'm just doing my scanning in Windows.
>
>I made sure to get a good scanner - the hp 5200 C USB scanner
>works great here, sane supports it and I have a choice of apps.
>
>jjs
>
See above. I've never denied that I could hand-pick components that
would work perfectly with Linux, it's just that anyone looking to
switch from Windows probably didn't consider Linux when they bought
their hardware.
Scott Gardner
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows??
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 02:14:19 +0100
Bryant Charleston, MCSE wrote:
> There's a lot of flak going back and forth over the issue of whether
> Windows will ever truly be "challenged" in the "desktop" area by Linux. A
> HUGE benefit of Linux is that it's open-source, and therefore free... as
> are the applications that come with it. The biggest problems supposedly
> are: 1) it's (lack of?) ability to automatically detect hardware (which I,
> for one, have seen great improvement in, from dealing w/RedHat7), and 2)
> the lack of Linux applications, which are "reliably-compatible" with what
> everyone else (in the Windows "world") is using (this is why I personally
> was curious about Star Office 5.2's compatibility w/MS Office 97/2000, as
> far as being able to produce *.docs that could be read by Office 97/2000).
>
> 1) What do you folks feel about the Mac OS, as an alternative to Windows
> in the desktop arena? The Mac OS is obviously an "established",
> easy-to-use OS, and is chosen by many folks (over Windows) for various
> reasons. It appears to be Microsoft's biggest opposition in the home-use
> category, and there's plenty of industry support for it (software,
> downloads, etc), including even Microsoft software. No one can say that
> you have to be a "rocket scientist" to use it, which is one of the first
> excuses that a typical Microft advocate would say about *nix systems. What
> do you folks think about this?
>
As much as I hated Apple for the look-and-feel - stuff they did years ago,
they DID have decent hardware and a quite capable OS. Better than anything
MS could bring forward, that is.
> 2) Has the Mac OS ever been "ported" to run on an Intel CPU (other than
> via "emulation")? If it were, would the Mac OS stand a chance of
> satisfying those folks out there who have the "use ANYTHING but Microsoft"
> view?
>
Who cares?
The new OS-X is really a Unix (BSD) with a Mach-Kernel. Underneath the
hood there is just good old unix running. They finally got it right.
> 3) How does the Mac OSes stability compare to Unix/Linux? (never heard/saw
> any studies addressing this, so I really don't know).
>
See above. I guess, that with OS-X the Mac�s will be in the same league than
BSD / Linux. That means, way better than W2K / Whistler.
So, yes, Apple would be a not too bad alternative to linux.
Better than MacroShit is no big problem, I guess.
Peter
--
Microsoft's Product Strategy: "It compiles, let's ship it!"
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
Get the new Windows XP. Now with eXtra Problems included
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:46 GMT
Said nuxx in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 6 Mar 2001 15:03:44 +0800;
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:97miug$8dr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> Well, not everything is perfect on Linux. For instance yesterday,
>> >> >> while I was testing the NIC of a new laptop, it continuously
>> >> >> complaining about network being unreachable, instead of telling me
>> >> >> plainly that the network cable I was using was unplugged at the
>> >> >> other side. :-)
>> >>
>> >> > That's only because the your NIC manufacturer didn't include the Time
>> >> > Domain Reflectometer option . :-)
>> >>
>> >> They did but It(tm) is Only(tm) Avaliable(tm) under Micros~1(R) Windows
>> >> (tm).
>> >>
>> >> -Ed
>> >
>> > Well, I've not yet wiped clean the Win(tm) 98(tm) the laptop came with.
>> > Tomorrow I'll test in the same conditions with Micros~2(R) Windows(tm)
>> > 98(tm), and I'll let you know. After all, I had to pay for it, so I can
>> > use it.
>>
>> If you read the docs very carefully, you'll find that they haven't
>> implemented this new feature yet :-)
>>
>> As an aside, I don't know why NIC card manufacturers haven't put a
>> machanism on the crads to detect an unplugged cable. It shouldn't be too
>> hard since when plugged in, the cable is plugged in to a matched load, so
>> no reflections occur. When it is unplugged, the signals should get
>> reflected, which should not be too hard to detect.
>
>Win2k has this built in - disconnect the cable and see what happens. Works
>well.
Let me guess; it pops up one of those "is it modal or isn't it?" dialog
boxes, requiring clicking the OK button before you can do anything else
(except shift windows around) every one minute when it detects a link
loss.
Or maybe it just pops it up once, but thereafter there is no way at all
to tell the difference between the cable not being connected, the
hardware not working, or the driver failing.
Or else it says "someone may have unplugged the cable" for any link
loss.
I would be very surprised if it "works well", quite frankly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:47 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001 21:42:08 -0500;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 03 Mar 2001
>> >JS PL wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But your IQ theory only applies to those in the 50 to 120 range. Since
>I'm
>> >> 160 I can see the obvious. There's no possible monopoly when theres
>always
>> >> been a huge number of OS choices.
>>
>>
>> Monopoly is the ability to control prices (maintaining them above
>> competitive levels) and exclude competition. The number of "choices" is
>> irrelevant; just the fact that 95% of consumers are forced to buy
>> Windows.
>
>Only 95% are forced to buy windows? Why not 100%?? What is different about
>the five percent that they are exempt from being "FORCED" to buy windows?
They were not exempt at all; they paid the same price, as it were, for
Windows; they were merely more able to afford the cost, and still have
time, money and resources left to use something that doesn't suck.
>That's quite odd that only 95% of otherwise "equal" consumers are FORCED to
>buy Windows.
Why? People with more intelligence than you obviously have find it
quite obvious that those people are only ostensibly "equal". In case
you haven't the brains to find your dictionary and look up "ostensibly",
I mean to indicate that in the real world one can understand economics,
based on abstractions, as well as commerce, which involves real people.
The same person can be equal in theory, while still obviously being a
distinct person, with distinct and different desires and requirements.
>Do the other five percent get some kind of notification in the
>mail that they are exempt from being FORCED to buy Windows??
What are you, stupid?
>And on controlling prices - the OEM pays about $40-$60 for Windows9x/ME. I'd
>be pretty hard pressed to name much commercially available software that
>costs less than that. I'm used to paying in the $100-$500 range for my other
>software.
I suppose the answer must be "yes". Goodby, you boring waste of time.
>The funny thing is I gave someone a copy of Mandrake last month, he
>installed it all gung ho about how much better he had heard it supposed to
>be. I said nothing at all to sway his gung ho-ness, just stood there nodding
>and agreeing with all the bull he had heard about Linux. I talked to him a
>week later and he was asking how to reclaim the HD back to a DOS partition.
>It was the same old story, couldn't find any hardware, didn't have anything
>more to offer than Windows anyway.
>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:48 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 6 Mar 2001 10:54:14
>On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 07:18:51 GMT, J Sloan wrote:
>>JS PL wrote:
>
>>I don't know anybody who's had this experience.
>>
>>Are you sure we're not fibbing, just a little, now?
>>
>>2/3 of the people I've introduced to Linux are now
>>using it as their main platform.
>
>The problem is that "the set of people I know" is not a representative
>sample of the population. [...]
Neither is whatever suppositions you make in the remainder of your
comment, then, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows API (Was Re: Mircosoft Tax)
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:41 GMT
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 06:57:04 -0000, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Xlib, OTOH, is simply inadequate for GUI programming of any kind.
Makes sense. It wasn't intended for applications programming. It was
intended to be used to build widget sets.
> You really need that widget set. From here springs the great weakness
> of X as a user interface. We have GTK+ and Qt, and they don't look
> the same and they don't interoperate seamlessly.
Oh, it is much, much, worse than that. There is also athena, athena-3d,
motif (v1 and v2), openlook, tk, and probably more that I've forgot.
How will we ever manage?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:49 GMT
Said Scott Gardner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 08 Mar 2001 22:25:24
> Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:17:17 GMT, Giuliano Colla
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Even for free Windows is too expensive. And unless you get the proper
>>drivers from the PC manufacturer, hardware problems in Windows are
>>simply a nightmare. You don't spend a Saturday afternoon, but a full
>>week.
>
>Ah, but that's the rub--at least you can be relatively certain of
>GETTING a driver for Windows for a particular piece of hardware. It's
>usually pretty simple.[...]
Yea: throw away anything older than 18 months, and only buy name brands,
and get a whole new PC (with newest version of [full cost] Windows).
Then just plug and pray!
;-D
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:50 GMT
Said Scott Gardner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 09 Mar 2001 01:55:56
GMT;
>On 9 Mar 2001 00:17:03 GMT, Steve Mading
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Scott Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: This is a farcical example, I know, but a lot of potential
>>: linux converts already have computers, and those computers were likely
>>: built with Windows in mind, not Linux. Until novice users can go to
>>: the hardware manufacturer's web site and download self-installing
>>: drivers to make their hardware work under Linux, this will always be a
>>: barrier to Linux's widespread acceptance into the desktop arena.
>>
>>This is all very true, but what can be done to fix it? The
>>problem is that it's a technical problem that is being
>>caused by cultural marketplace forces. A technical solution
>>can't fix it. Nothing can be done TO Linux to change the
>>'political' situation: A large number of hardware manufacturers
>>are perfectly willing to forego smaller markets if that
>>means not having to put forth as much effort. (It's expensive
>>to pay a highly competent guy to program a driver, so unless
>>you know you are going to be selling a *lot* of units, you
>>have a hard time recouping that cost.) As it stands now,
>>what typically happens is that the hobbyists have to write the
>>drivers themselves, but they can't begin until the model is
>>already out on the shelves at the computer store. By then the
>>Windows driver has already been written in-house by the
>>manufacturer. It's a case of Linux being hampered by a completely
>>non-technical, non-programmer type of problem. Since most of
>>the people pushing Linux are of the programmer/technical bent,
>>they aren't really in a position to tackle this type of problem.
>>
>>I have no idea what the solution is. How do you program around
>>the "hardware companies are short-sighted" bug?
>>
>
>Amen, and I was never trying to blame Linux for the short-sightedness
>of the hardware manufacturers, or their need to spend their money
>where it will generate the most revenue. It is, however, a very real
>problem for anyone wanting to switch to Linux using recent hardware
>that they originally purchased to run Windows, which is what Linux
>needs to have happen to gain ground in any large numbers.
Pshaw. The only thing that is needed to "gain ground", quite
conversely, is for the illegal pre-load monopoly to be stopped. Then
Linux will quickly and easily gain all the ground it needs. The real
question is whether the "any large numbers" end up being several
hundreds or thousands of times more than most people realize (kind of
like the Internet, back in the early and mid 90s) or not.
> If someone designed the perfect car that never broke down,
>looked beautiful, and got 200 miles to the gallon, but had to run on
>blue-painted asphalt, I wouldn't be able to make very good use of it.
What a stupid analogy. I get your point, and you're trying to say that
it is the application barrier which maintains the monopoly, but the
pre-load lock-in that it is founded on. Still, its a stupid analogy.
;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:52 GMT
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 6 Mar 2001 12:34:34 +1300;
>> Apple has a decent and sizable chunk of the personal computing market.
>> The iMac has been very successful. Macintosh hardware maintains a sizable
>> space in both Best Buy and Circuit City among others. You could argue
>> that Linux's trival shelf space in the stores wouldn't count against
>> MS's "monopoly", but Apple's does. In the Circuit City down here,
>> Apple has about as large a space as the PC section does (not counting
>> laptops). It could be argued that MS may have a monopoly on the PC,
>> but that is irrelevant because the Mac provides similar functionality
>> and is a reasonable and readily available alternative and competitor.
>
>Apple used to run a monopoly of their own. Grossly inflated hardware
>prices, and no clones allowed.
They had a product. That isn't a monopoly. And if it is "allowed", it
isn't a "clone".
>I seem to remember at some stage they decided to let cloners clone their
>hardware... is this still happening? Who produces macpatible hardware?
They have considered it off and on since long before anyone had ever
heard of them. If those who contributed or enjoyed the 'controversy'
had half a clue what the hell they were talking about, though, that
wouldn't keep happening.
>[the Apple argument does not help software developers trying to fulfil
>their customers needs and deal with the monopoly at the same time... if
>90 or 95% of the population uses one sort of computer, advocating
>changing YOUR computer is of no use if you still have customers in the
>90-95%. Apple isn't going to break the monopoly]
Well, at least you understand that part, more or less.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:53 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 04 Mar 2001 00:43:48
GMT;
>On 3 Mar 2001 18:56:12 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> BTW, how many choices of OS were there on consumer laptops 3 years
>> ago? You couldn't buy one without paying for a Windows license. Not
>> from anyone.
>
>If I were being pedantic I would point out that Tadpole used to sell
>SPARC laptops with Solaris on them. Yeah, they cost over $10,000 but
>they were being sold. Thus, Microsoft did not have a monopoly.
<*COUGH*>
Almost got me with that one, Bob. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 00:43:54 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 3 Mar 2001 22:31:19 -0500;
[...]
>You forget, grain unlike software cannot be duplicated to infinity at almost
>no cost. If it could, there could be no monopoly on grain just as there can
>be no monopoly on software. Software isn't a finite resource.
How could we forget what doesn't have anything to do with the analogy?
YOU forget, if software were an infinite resource (apparently the only
alternative to being a finite one), then its value and therefore cost
and price would be zero.
>Two clicks from one of the most visited pages on earth is monopoly
>prevention:
> http://dir.yahoo.com/Computers_and_Internet/Software/Operating_Systems/
>and always has been.
So the answer to the question asked is, of course, "yes", you are really
so stupid as to believe this. And yet you got a high score on an IQ
test, we're told. Amazing.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
