Linux-Advocacy Digest #193, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I don't see how. If they misjudge the market, some
> >other vendor will get those sales.
> >
> >It's not like every vendor signed up to those
> >per-processor OEM licenses. Some obviously
> >saw things differently than Compaq.
>
> Please name the top 20 OEM that does not have a ppl.
Oh, I don't think there was one- Compaq was, in my
humble opinion, *right* about this. A top 20 OEM that
tried to foist lesser operating systems on their customers
would not be top-20 for very long!
> >> By the way, signing contract to EXCLUDE other vendors is illegal.
> >
> >Nobody is claiming MS did this, you know. Even
> >you have not, not that I've seen.
>
> I'm afraid you're wrong; we just aren't foolish enough to expect that MS
> did it directly. Not that we can be sure, given the thickness of the
> NDAs.
Then I suggest you are being sloppy with your accusations; you
know full well that MS never excluded anyone. At their *worst*
they want you to sell *their* product, whatever else you may sell.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> [...]
> >My point is that Microsoft's competition is
> [...]
>
> Not the issue. The issue is Microsoft's anti-competitive activity.
My. That's the editing equivalent of a crew-cut, isn't it?
:D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:44 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Well, sorta. Even Windows 1 did provide
> >its own memory manager of sorts.
>
> No, it didn't. It attempted to provide task-switching. That isn't
> "memory management".
That too. But, you see, the GlobalAlloc and LocalAlloc APIs
date from Windows 1, and that version would try to manage
LIM memory for you in its way.
It certainly is memory management. It wasn't terribly good,
but it was memory management.
> >As you go down that list of OS, Windows
> >subsumes more and more of DOS's functions.
> >There's not a lot left in Windows 98.
>
> Or, rather, every version MS pretends that more of it is Windows and
> less of it is DOS, because they want Windows to be thought of as the OS.
You are saying that Microsoft's claims are not true? That the things
they say are done in 32-bit protected mode are really done in real
mode DOS?
> Despite the obvious fact that it is being tied to the DOS OS that makes
> Windows98 what it is; an albatross.
:D
> MS is putting MASSIVE money into
> trying desperately to migrate their customers to non-DOS OSes without
> losing the DOS monopoly. Not as easy as it sounds, obviously, based on
> their lack of success.
Yes, my heart bleeds for Bill, too. :D
> Its kind of tough to look at the price tag (and
> the potential for having to pay it over and over at Microsoft's sole
> discretion) of W2K or XP and then consider Linux, and come up with the
> brain-dead idea that its a good idea to stay locked into a monopoly, no
> matter how locked in you might already be. No sense getting even deeper
> in the hole.
>
> When you're in over your head, the trick is to stop digging.
It doesn't look like a hole. Today we have the best desktop
software we have *ever* had. And it keeps getting better.
If this is being in a hole, I say lets break out the shovels!
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:45 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
[snip]
> >> Grinning when you say something stupid and insulting ever get you
> >> punched in the face in real life, troll?
> >
> >Oh, I don't grin: I pronounce ":D".
> >
> >It doesn't get me punched. Confused looks, sure, but
> >that's something else. :D
>
> The phrase "gibbering idiot" comes to mind.
I prefer the phrase "blithering idiot", thank you very much.
[snip]
> >> Reasonable men agree in reasonable circumstance.
> >
> >Fortunately, you won't find too many of *those* on
> >these newsgroups! :D
>
> I find lots of them. Apparently, pointing out how pathetically wrong
> jackasses like you are is quite a popular past-time, if something of a
> guilty pleasure.
That would appear to make you, Rick, and Aaron Kulkis the
"reasonable men" of whom there are lots. Right?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:45 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> >I hope that even you can admit that any
> >law that consigns us all to DOS forevermore
> >is a bad law. :D
>
> That's pathetically moronic, Daniel. I can't believe you put your name
> to such silly comments. Do you think we'll believe you're being
> light-hearted, and somehow forget you're trying to excuse criminal
> behavior?
You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
product for sale.
It's odd. Does it not occur to you that perhaps the law
might not so good?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:46 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cv13q$m7m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:p7jI6.3490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I may say this isn't the first time I've been called
> > a "passive agressive" troll.
> >
> > What the heck does it mean? Is it a bad thing?
> >
> > The "passive agressive" part, I mean. I know
> > all about trolling. :D
>
> Damn it, you just make this group *much* more attractive.
Hmm? "Passive aggressive" trolling is *attractive*?
Am I about to be swarmed with dames?
I wouldn't have thought so, from Maxing posting...
What is this "passive aggressive" thing, anyway?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:47 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cuvak$jv3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:hOzI6.4294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It does not have structured storage.
>
> What is structed storage?
An OS service; it provides for structured
documents that can recursively contain other
documents, with transactions and stuff like
that.
> > It has a standard help engine, but that engine is 'man'.
> > Need I say more?
>
> Yes, but I'll let GNU guys tell you this:
>
> "The GNU project regards man pages as obsolete and should not let them
> take time away from other things."
> Qoute: man gcc
The GNU project is right. :D
> > The way the doublecrossed IBM was classic.
>
> Do you have any details about it?
It's legend. No doubt if I get any details
wrong, someone will correct me.
Around 1990, Microsoft and IBM were working
on OS/2; it had all the buzzwords, but it was not
succeeding in the market.
Microsoft had been working for years (since at least
'83) on a product called Windows which would put
a GUI on DOS. Just like the Mac had. It was
not succeeding terribly well either.
Microsoft was also working on the beginnings
of an all new, *portable* operating system that
would be able to emulate the APIs of many earlier
OSes. This was OS/2 3.0.
In 1990, Microsoft released Windows 3.0, and
it was the first product to cross the threshold
of 'good enough', and appeal to the mass market.
It flew of the shelves; it was a smash hit.
Microsoft at this point decided they had had
enough of IBM and informed them that they
no longer wished to collaborate. They wanted
to pursue Windows instead.
They knew a good thing when they saw one, and
they weren't about to go down with OS/2, no
matter what they'd said about it in the past.
At this time IBM and MS had their intellectual
properties rather tangled up, but they sorted them
out, assigning bits to each company.
One gets the feeling IBMs lawyers were asleep
at the switch on this one. You're not going
to believe how they split this stuff up.
IBM got OS/2 1.x and the still unfinished 2.0 but
would pay royalties to Microsoft for the various
code MS had written for these products as long
as they continued to use this code.
This included the file system and the graphics
subsystem, and it totalled up to a few hundred
dollars a box.
MS agreed that they would license Windows
source code to IBM for a pre-arranged royalty,
which would increase every year. These royalties
were pretty low though- around twenty
dollars a box, or so. IBM was allowed to
tinker with the code, too.
MS got the OS/2 3.0 code they had been working
on lock, stock and barrel. It would become
Windows NT in a few years time.
IBM and Microsoft then went at each other
great guns. But that's another story.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:48 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> >I think you'd be well advised to keep you, uh,
> >"reason" under wraps. It does not enhance your
> >credibility much.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I'll bet you expect me to believe that, too. :-D
Like Alice, I try to believe six impossible things before
breakfast. :D
BTW, aren't you against smilies? Or is :-D the approved
form in your view?
[snip]
> >I may say this isn't the first time I've been called
> >a "passive agressive" troll.
> >
> >What the heck does it mean? Is it a bad thing?
> >
> >The "passive agressive" part, I mean. I know
> >all about trolling. :D
>
> If you don't think being a troll is a bad thing (which I assume you
> don't since you're a troll),
Oh, come now. In our heart of hearts, aren't
we all just a little bit green, just a touch scaly ...
... you know, deep inside?
Don't we all need to get out from
under the bridge once in awhile?
Eat a few goats?
C'mon. You get the urge too. Admit it. :D
> I doubt you'd consider being passive
> aggressive a bad thing. It's really very similar, involving being
> annoying on purpose due to lack of self-esteem.
It "involves" doing that? What *is* it? C'mon, I'm
curious. Can't I get a straight answer?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >> "Risk getting anal"? They didn't have any ability to extend the DOS
> >> monopoly until Win3, no.
> >
> >They waited for several years after *that* before
> >bolting Windows and DOS together.
>
> They bundled it immediately.
They still offered an unbundled verison, just
in case, until 1995.
> >Clearly they were taking no chances.
>
> We've been through this before. There's nothing "chancy" about
> anti-competitive strategies unless you don't have monopoly power.
Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural
powers you attribute to them.
They did face risks. They do even now. They
would *need* magic to avoid this.
> >> The first two versions weren't just crap: they
> >> weren't DOS extensions.
> >
> >How do you figure?
>
> What can I say? They just weren't.
Why not?
[snip]
> >But they do keep trying. Persistance, that's what
> >you've gotta love about Microsoft. :D
>
> Repeating criminal behavior is somehow to be admired in your brain-dead
> world? You are laughable.
No, no, persistance!
> >By the way, what sort of smilie do you prefer? :) ? :> ? ^v^ ?
>
> None, thanks. It shows your passive-aggressive insecurity, and makes
> you look even more pathetic.
So I'm a passive-agressive troll with a passive agressive
insecurity, then?
Well, at least me and my insecurity *match*! That's
gotta be worth something!
[snip]
> >> No, they'd sell DOS, and try desperately to get someone to buy Windows.
> >
> >I don't think they were really desparate, do you?
>
> I don't think you're interested in an intelligent conversation. Or
> perhaps you are just incapable of one.
Of course not! I'm talking to you, aren't I? :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:50 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >I've got an old copy of the July 1990 PC/Computing
> >magazine, which had a review of Windows 3.0. It's
> >really, really effusive in its praise for the product. Bill
> >Gates musta blushed, if he read it.
>
> Guffaw. Bill Gates probably wrote it.
No, Paul Bonner wrote it.
> >They show screenshots of Word for Windows running
> >under Windows 3.0; but it has 2d (black and white)
> >scrollbars and so on. Just like Windows 2 had.
>
> Which part did you miss? Word 1 was available for Win3.0.
Maybe, I couldn't say. Very odd that it would
use controls that look like Windows 2 controls.
> >I find this fact difficult to explain if, indeed,
> >it never ran on Windows 2.
>
> You're laughable.
How would you explain the strange appearance
of Word 2 when run on Windows 3, then?
> >I really think you are mistaken about this.
>
> I am really sure I am not. Is that enough for you?
No. I've tendered some evidence. I'd like you to
do as much, if you can.
> Believe me, I paid
> a lot of attention to every new version of every major wordprocessor at
> the time; it was part of my job. I'm not infallible, of course, but
> you're the first person to claim otherwise.
I'm surely not claiming you are infallible! :D
> Based on a screenshot in a
> PC magazine? No, you're simply mistaken.
Am I?
> >> (Those weren't "cut-down" versions at all, BTW, they
> >> were just the regular Win2 or Win286/386 (mostly the latter) that were
> >> bundled with apps. It was called "run time", but it was simply
> >> Windows.
> >
> >Well, that's what Windows was at the beginning.
>
> And at the end, too.
I agree. Microsoft is in the development tools business;
they just have a funny way to collect royalties.
> The technical relationship between Windows ME and
> DOS is essentially identical to the relationship between Win386 and DOS,
> a decade ago.
Sort of. There have been changes, of course, but I suppose one could
say this and be mostly right.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:15:54 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
> >> Too bad you missed 99% of what Borge taught.
> >
> >That's true, I was never again good with a piano.
>
> You forgot the smiley, moron.
No, that time I was serious. I really can't
play the piano worth a damn.
And the thing about phonetic pronunciation,
funny though it was, was a very small part
of Victor Borge's act.
I honestly did miss 99% of what he 'taught'.
No joke.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:19:10 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > You say that, but you don't say they excluded anyone- nobody
> > is saying that.
> >
>
> Those licenses exluded other OS's from being installed instead of
> Windows.
Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
But no credible source says that.
[snip]
> > The recent farce was about bundling a browser with the OS.
>
> The last action, which ended in a Consent Decree supposedly stopped
> per-processor licenses because of their predatory nature.
Microsoft was not convicted of anything that time.
They just cut a deal.
[snip]
> > You mean not realise this, but the point of signing a consent
> > decree is often to avoid the whole "GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!"
> > thing.
> >
>
> No kidding? Thats whay they signed? To avoid a guilty verdict?
To avoid a lengly lawsuit. It's not like they needed
those licenses, anyway.
I know, it didn't work. But they no doubt
thought it would work.
[snip]
> > Yes, but of putting too many features in their OS, not of
> > restraint of trade as you seem to understand the concept.
>
> No. The guilty verdict showed that the "features" added to the OS were
> predatory and anti-competitive in nature.
Okay, putting in features that the Department of
Justice had not approved.
But really, you can't expect MS not to compete
just because the DoJ doesn't like competition.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:20:17 -0400
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> [...]
>>> An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
>>> does.
>> An API, is an API, is an API! It's always nice to have a documented
>> API, but whether an API is documented or not is absolutely exclusive
>> of whether the API is complete or not.
> A bunch of function declaration is not an API.
> You need to know *what* those function does for it to be an API.
> Sure, you can use a function declaration in your program, but I doubt that
> incorporating std::vector<char> XDdasSR433(int,double,std::string); into
> your code is going to be very helpful.
Actually, I have to disagree with you. Else there wouldn't have been dozens
of "Undocument Windows API" books in the last decade...
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:21:55 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Then you might want to eplain why Windows ran on top of DOS.
> >
> > Because users had lots of DOS apps and they
> > wouldn't switch if it means giving them up.
>
> SO, Windows DID run on DOS.
Oh yes. Most certainly. Even Windows 3 was
an orthodox DOS program, when in real
mode.
[snip]
> > Being a "better DOS than MS-DOS" is damning it with
> > faint praise. MS-DOS was *terrible*; DR-DOS was
> > only slightly less terrible.
>
> Note: no response. I will ask again:
> Since Windows ran on top of DOS. And DR-DOS was a better DOS than
> MS-DOS, how can you support your point? (See above point)
I have already supported it; I do so by poitned
to important features that Windows has and DR-DOS
has not.
Your commentary seems irrelevant to the point
I was making.
[snip]
> > Yes, those guys couldn't say "no" when Bill wanted
> > Windows apps. In the days of Windows 1 and 2, that
> > was important.
>
> They also had inside info. Thats waht landed M$ in trouble.
They may have done, for all the good it did them. But
it isn't what landed MS in trouble, as far as I can
see.
[snip]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
