Linux-Advocacy Digest #224, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 18:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("JVercherIII")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux books ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Tim Robinson")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (SoneoneElse)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:51:23 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
> >"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.
>
> No, not "that too". Guffaw!
>
> Try to scare up some documentation of this "API" claim, without the
> obvious tap-dancing that such phrases as "in its way" indicate.
Hmmm. I have *another* old magazine that talks about
it. It's The February 1987 issue of PC Tech Journal,
and it has an article about the "Windows Development Kit".
It has a discussion of "memory management" that
talks about GlobalAllloc and LocalAlloc.
But it does not say that Windows uses LIM memory.
I may be misremembering that part. Maybe they didn't
do that until Windows 2; but clearly they had a handle-
based memory manager similar to that on the Macintosh.
This is Windows 1.03, by the way. It's conceivable
that Windows 1.0.0 had no memory management,
but I doubt it; it's hard to see how the resource
manager could work that way.
> >It certainly is memory management. It wasn't terribly good,
> >but it was memory management.
>
> FOR ITSELF! Windows 1 didn't have any applications, nor any "hooks"
> into DOS that any other application didn't have.
It had an applicaiton: Write.
Hey, that's better than *nothing*.
It did manage memory for such applications as it
had. It didn't manage it very *much*, but it was
a start.
> It was an application;
> it task-switched out of memory to pretend it was a "shell", a la the old
> 'side-kick' desktop scenario, trying to rip off the Mac interface
> without any of its capabilities.
No, it didn't work like Sidekick. Sidekick was a TSR that
patched a vector to watch for keystrokes.
Windows 1 was just an ordinary applicaiton that hosted
other applications. It did not provide "task switching" of
DOS programs. It did provide its own program loading
APIs which you used instead of DOS's.
> It had a couple "desk accessories"
> (calculator, notepad; the usual suspects, but this was their ancestral
> implementation),
Those were applications too.
> but 'Windows' itself was just a launch pad. It got
> switched out entirely when running an app,
No. It might have performed decently if it did that. Windows
remained resident. You could even launch multiple applications,
if you didn't run out of memory.
Except you would run out of memory, because Windows
wasn't all that small, and 640k isn't all that big.
You may be thinking of GEM. The GEM "desktop"
application- a file manager- would indeed shut down,
though other parts of GEM stayed alive. GEM
did not provide memory management, not even
the little Windows did at the time.
> and had NO memory management
> "services" for any other program besides the TSR accessories that MS
> bundled with it.
Those things were not TSRs; they did not use the
DOS Terminate-and-Stay-Resident API. They used
*Windows* program loading APIs.
> In Windows 2, IIRC, they tried to get the accessories
> to run as TSRs even when you weren't on the desktop, but that didn't
> work very well at all.
They did? That would be very extremely weird. Can you
provide a cite for this?
> They fixed up some of that with protected mode,
> but it wasn't until 'enhanced mode' in Win386 that there was any "memory
> management" to speak of.
Windows/386 provided virtual machines for DOS boxes,
which certainly involves memory management, but it still isn't
much.
Windows 3 started to get fancy with memory. It made
a big difference.
> Even then, it is still only the 'memory management' within Windows. Its
> just now [almost] everything is in Windows. Windows runs full time as
> an application on DOS, though, in Win98 ME as much as Win1.0.
Well, if you like. It's certainly no longer your ordinary
application. It relies much less of DOS services now.
[snip]
> >You are saying that Microsoft's claims are not true?
>
> Of course.
>
> >That the things
> >they say are done in 32-bit protected mode are really done in real
> >mode DOS?
>
> No.
So if the thigns they say are done in protected mode are
really done there, how is MS saying anything untrue?
[snip]
> >> 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!
>
> Boy, did YOU miss the point! ROTFLMAO!
Not at all. I just like my point more than yours.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:53:03 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > MS-DOS and DR-DOS were *both* lousy things
> > to saddle Windows with. I'm not endorsing MS-DOS
> > over DR-DOS; I'm endorsing Windows with as little
> > of either as can be managed.
>
> Windows COULD NOT run without some DOS underneath. DR-DOS was superior.
> And Microsoft used it monoply power to push DR-DOS out of the market.
I don't see that DR-DOS was superior as a platform
for Windows.
The real trick was to supercede as much of DOS
as possible, not to use another DOS.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 16:53:09 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> I have very strong opinions and have always tended to be that way
> whether it is politics or operating systems or what ever. That doesn't
> mean that my opinions can't change over time. Why commit myself to
> something that might change in the future?
>
In other words, if you ever do change your opinion, you never have to
admit your were wrong. Just come up with a new identity. How brave of
you.
> I don't judge others but I feel it is foolish to use ones own name and I
> feel that people who ignore the content of a message and focus on that
> fact are as equally foolish as the grammer/spelling police.
>
Read through this thread again. You are the one that brought focus to
your fake names.
Gary
------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:17:14 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > Well, I mean is. Windows has been much hindered
> > by being lashed to DOS as it has been.
>
> I repeat.
Yes, you sure do.
> You keep saying IS. IS means the present. We ar discussing at
> least a decade ago.
It was true then, too.
[snip]
> > > Now, are you also saying you cant printing wasnt possible under
DR-DOS?
> >
> > No, I'm saying the each ap had to roll it's own. That is
> > a big problem.
>
> It wasnt then. We printed just fine then.
Hardly. You printed plaintext, or you
got a driver for you particular app and printer.
It was a mess.
[snip]
> > I don't know if that was true. I know that Windows would
> > work on DR-DOS, more or less. But that's no great
> > improvement.
>
> Since DR-DOS was superior to MS-DOS, Windows on DR-DOS Should have been
> superior to Windows on MS-DOS, except Micro$oft made sure DR-DOS had
> problems. And M$ executives in charge of those things have been quoted.
> Here. To you. You ignore them.
Windows *did* run on DR-DOS until Windows 95 came along.
It just didn't make it appreciably better. DR-DOS isn't
enough better than MS-DOS to make a difference.
[snip]
> > If developers can't make apps for Unix that are as good
> > as the apps for Windows, then Unix will lose- users
> > will go for the *good* apps and therefore Windows.
> >
> > The good desktop apps are on Windows because it
> > provides the tools to make them.
>
> Really. So. Tell me whats wrong with Applixware, xmms, Netscape, x-chat,
> Pan, GQview, Electric Eyes, the GIMP, CD Paranoia and the rest of the X
> based windows apps.
Well, there are some problems that span the entire set of
apps in a sense. There is no user interface consistancy;
each app is different. This is getting better- they are
now copying Windows more and more- but it's a problem.
X Windows apps also have problems with interoperability;
clipboard and drag and drop are very hit-or-miss.
You've heard, of course, about Netscapes difficulties
with font sizes. It's not easy to get this kind of thing
right when programming to X.
Unix apps have to roll their own printing. The results
are uneven. Some apps use termcap and support
lineprinters and such, but can't do anything much
beyond that.
Other apps emit postscript. You can support
many printers by using GhostScript to render
to a bitmap, then print that. But this is
second rate in two ways.
First of all, an app developer must write rendering
code twice: once to X, once to PostScript. These
are very different, and it is *not* easy to produce
matching results when doing this.
Secondly, the PS approach only handles PostScript
printers properly; all others are demoted to plain
bitmap printers, or if they can't do that are just not
usable.
There are still a lot of PCL printers out there.
PostScript can't cope because it can't send
any information *from* the printer
*to* the app. The app needs to know the
font metrics of the fonts that will be used
to print, and on PCL printers those are
funny HP specific fonts.
> Whats wrong with all the conole apps.
Those are fine for what they do. They aren't
what desktop users need.
> BTW, users didnt "go" for the good apps, they were forced into accepting
> Micro$ofts OS's and the apps that run under it.
You've got it backwards. The apps drive
the chose of OS. Microsoft's coup was in
getting developers to write for Windows.
[snip]
> > > > Sure, it's not bad as DR-DOS. But it's still not up
> > > > to snuff.
> > > >
> > > > We all know about the state of the widgets, so lets
> > > > not belabor that.
>
> No, suppose you belabor it.
I did above. :D
> > > > X-Windows is better than nothing, but it's a weak
> > > > graphics layer. Sure, for server admin tools that
> > > > remote-display trick is great- but for desktop apps
> > > > it does matter. X isn't resolution independant,
> > > > and has weak font support. It's kinda feature
> > > > poor in general, though there are always
> > > > add-ons for it.
> > > >
> > > > Also, It doesn't provide decent printing services.
> > > > Nothing like the device independant printing support
> > > > users now expect.
> > > >
>
> So, tell me what is so damn bad about lp or CUPS?
lp/lpd is a print spooler. A fine thing, really needed
on a timesharing multiuser system. On a single user
desktop you don't *need* it, though Windows does
have one. Macintoshes made do without for years,
no problem.
CUPS includes that, some glue, and GhostScript.
GhostScript's problems I explain above. It's
better than nothing, but it's not up to Windows
standards for desktop applications.
> > > > It doesn't have a stable shell to write for. Not unless
> > > > you count bash. What I mean is something like Explorer
> > > > or WPS, which an app can integrate itself into.
>
> CDE, Motif, KDE, GNOME
KDE, CDE, and GNOME all include
*different* shell programs; what developer
wants to put up with that?
Motif has nothing for this. It's a widget set.
> > > > It does not have structured storage.
> > > >
>
> Esplain.
Structure storage is a technology for creating
and manipulating documetn fiels.
It gives you things like documents-within-
documents and transactions.
It's part of OLE, but it is useful even if you
don't want to link or embed anything.
[snip]
> > I don't think I agree. I know BeOS said they made
> > a "media OS", but it is really hard to see how BeOS
> > was particularly good at *that*.
>
> I dont think you any idea. How long did you use BeOS? Granted, I didnt
> use it, but I havent heard anyone really knocking the OS.
I have. I've never used it, very few people found
any use for it at all. If it had any virtues that made it
*good* as a media OS, I've never heard of them.
> > I think BeOS's basic plan was to produce the OS
> > Apple couldn't to replace the MacOS. They way they
> > were going to get marketshare was by being tapped
> > by Apple.
>
> Are you saying that Gsssee started Be so Apple would buy his OS to
> replace the Mac OS? You better look at some time frames.
What am I missing? The need for a new OS was known
by 1990 at the latest. What's the problem?
[snip]
> > Sure.
> >
> > Okay, listen up, rest of the industry that lined up against Microsoft:
> >
> > You just want an excuse for your own failures! That's
> > what put MS on top!
>
> What? per processor ;licensing put Microsoft on top. And their lousy
> ethics.
Nope. That was an effect, not a cause.
[snip]
> > > Competed? Competed/ Let's see. Microsoft sent an employee to a Go
demo.
> > > That employee videotaped the demo and went back to Micro$oft.
> >
> > My. Is there *anything* Apple does that they won't imitate? :D
>
> What? When did Apple videotape a competitor's demo,
Just kidding about that. :D
> wrote a demo that
> merely reproduced screen movements, pre-announced a non-product, just to
> freeze the market and kill a competitor?
It appears you now believe PenWindows did not
exist, again. Pity; I thougth we'd made some progress.
[snip]
> > As I recall PenWindows and Go were quite different looking;
> > PenWindows looked at lot like Windows, and Go was
> > unique.
>
> You are sidestepping the issue of Micro$ofts highly unethical behavior.
No, I'm saying that you are full of the thick,
chunky, brown stuff, actually. :D
[snip]
> > Anyway, you need to understand that Microsoft vapor
> > is successful *precisely because* they are so good about
> > actually producing the things they say they will.
>
> Pre-announcing a non-product to freeze the market is illegal, even if
> they do introduce a product "sometime"
I don't think it is illegal. I think you just don't like it.
[snip]
> > Is it? Can you think if a second example of
> > a doublecross, like the IBM one?
>
> They stole Stac's compression routines (lost in court).
That's not a doublecross, even if true.
> They stole QuickTime routines (lost in court)
That wasn't Microsoft. Apple and MS both
used the same subcontractor, and it seems they
did betray Apple.
But MS was not exactly on Apples side then.
> They froze the pen market to force Go out of businsess.
That's not a double cross, either.
> They put the AARD code into W3.1 to scare people away from DR-DOS (as
> quoted by MS executives in internal memos/email)
That's a bug. Had they actually built such a thing
into Windows, it would not be a doublecross either.
> They published MS-DOS with CP/M code in it (IBM ppaid off Kildall with
> $800,00).
I doubt this one is true at all. Architectural
differences between the 8080 and the 8086
make this one seem very improbably to me.
But even if true, it would not be a doublecross.
------------------------------
From: "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 20:50:37 GMT
Yes you have access to the other stuff through the IUnknown interface (or a
way to get that other information)...
I have to review it as I said... I realize that COM does not inherently know
properties or methods of the component... But there is some way that through
the interface the rest of the component's functionality is exposed. Perhaps
you could go into more detail. (As far as the typelibs VB includes them when
it builds active X DLLs in the component itself unless told not to. VC++
leaves them as external files I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.)
"Tim Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d1nmi$4mu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9UXI6.404$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > No it is an extension - it uses OOP. I write in Visual C++, Java (a
> little),
> > and VB... I know what I'm talking about... The basic concept is that you
> are
> > using a standardized interface in all your components. (You are
basically
> > using certain standardized methods/properties in your classes as defined
> by
> > them. Part of which - their method definitions - allows the com
component
> to
> > give information to the calling program about the rest of it's
abilities -
> > methods, properties, etc and make them available to the program. )
>
> You have just described ActiveX, which uses COM. COM does not know about
> "properties" or "method definitions" (you mean type libraries?). COM only
> requires that a class implements IUnknown, and all that that entails.
>
> --
> Tim Robinson
> http://www.gaat.freeserve.co.uk/
> Listening to: Climbatize [Prodigy]
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 17:22:36 -0400
Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> > as it interferes with the organism's ability
> >> >> >to successfully reproduce
> >> >>
> >> >> You assume that that makes homosexuality a defect. An assumption
> >> >> without any supporting evidence.
> >> >
> >> >Homosexuality obviously is a defect.
> >>
> >> "Obviously being a Jew is a defect".
> >
> >Racist pig.
>
> Being a homophobic pig is no different from being a racist or sexist pig.
^^^^^^^^^^
"-phobic" to be in fear of
Since I don't *fear* gays, the accusation doesn't fly.
Hope that helps, perve.
>
> THAT is the point which you don't get. 60 years ago the Nazis
> considered being a Jew and being a homosexual to be a "defect".
> They proceeded to get rid of the defective.
>
> Now you argue that homosexuals are defective.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:22:55 GMT
Doesn't bother me in the least....
When you go seeking a fair wage for your abilities, which you and I
know you are NOT getting where you are currently employed, your
employer can type your name into Google and find the real, or not so
real you, including the post you might have made after that college
drinking party.
BTW the Australian employees got back pay and benefits after you know
who tried to screw them out of their jobs....
How is "Manpower Associates" and "CDI" doing these days?
Fired workers who get re-hired at half their salaries and poised in
posistion to take YOUR job....
What fools....
Also the "company" is using vapor profits (declaring benefits as
profit) and boosting their executive bonus's...
So how was your 3 percent raise?
I can send you the link offline if you wish...
Ya' better start supporting the CWA and a union before it's too late.
flatfish
P.S. Are YOU getting any of this money?
On Sat, 05 May 2001 16:53:09 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>
>> I have very strong opinions and have always tended to be that way
>> whether it is politics or operating systems or what ever. That doesn't
>> mean that my opinions can't change over time. Why commit myself to
>> something that might change in the future?
>>
>
>In other words, if you ever do change your opinion, you never have to
>admit your were wrong. Just come up with a new identity. How brave of
>you.
>
>> I don't judge others but I feel it is foolish to use ones own name and I
>> feel that people who ignore the content of a message and focus on that
>> fact are as equally foolish as the grammer/spelling police.
>>
>
>Read through this thread again. You are the one that brought focus to
>your fake names.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux books
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:26:05 GMT
The How-To's are more than enough to keep you busy for several months
or until you vomit, whichever comes first.
flatfish
On Sat, 05 May 2001 22:50:32 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hello Advocates.
>
>A friend of mine has asked me for reccomendations (etc) for books on
>Linux. I've never really bothered with books much, so I thought I'd ask
>you guys what you found the best.
>
>
>Thanks
>
>-Ed
>
>PS To the wintrolls, I'm really not interested in what you have to say
>about windows, this is about Linux only.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 22:25:24 +0100
"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wIZI6.513$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes you have access to the other stuff through the IUnknown interface (or
a
> way to get that other information)...
> I have to review it as I said... I realize that COM does not inherently
know
> properties or methods of the component... But there is some way that
through
> the interface the rest of the component's functionality is exposed.
Perhaps
> you could go into more detail. (As far as the typelibs VB includes them
when
> it builds active X DLLs in the component itself unless told not to. VC++
> leaves them as external files I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.)
OK, but all that is on top of COM. Things like type libraries aren't
needed -- COM just defines a binary standard for objects, which can be used
on any language and any platform capable of calling functions through a
doubly-indirected pointer (i.e. the obj->lpVtbl->Method(obj) idiom).
--
Tim Robinson
http://www.gaat.freeserve.co.uk/
Listening to: Piku [The Chemical Brothers]
------------------------------
From: SomeoneElse (SoneoneElse)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 21:30:43 GMT
Reply-To: Truthteller
On Sat, 5 May 2001 19:54:17 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their places
>> (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of
>living
>> off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things which
>> are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they stifle
>> innovation. They never have come up with an original idea.
>
>Bullshit, and a big one.
>
>To name a few of the top of my head:
>COM
If Macroshit created COM, then why does IBM own the patent?
>COM+
Like for example the Event Service?
Take a look at Corba's Event Service spec, several years older
than COM+ and tell me that COM+ is innovation.
>MTS
Like transactional processing is new.
>IE (No other browser can come even close, Mozilla can't render yahoo.com
>properly, and crash when you try to send a bug report)
And Win95 was written so that Mozilla's predecessor was caused to
crash. Read the findings of fact.
Given Macroshits deliberate attempts to change Windows to make
Netscapes products buggy, it's no suprise that ( even the new ones )
Netscapes products are buggy.
>
>
>Just to note:
>COM was copied by many applications. Mozilla's XPCOM, Bonobo & RNA are few
>examples.
Let's see you praise COM by showing that what you call a crappy
product copies it.
BTW Bonobo does not copy COM, it uses CORBA. As a component
constructing tool, CORBA predates COM.
>MTS was copied by Sun, IBM, BEA and 25 other vendors, in EJB.
NO. Transactional Processing combined with a distributed
object broker was simultaneously being worked on. The concept
was being floated by ORfali et al in theoir distributed processing
book, long before MTS was even conceived.
>No one has been successful in copying IE so far, sadly.
>COM+ is also uncopied to my knowledge.
>
THat's because COM+ does the copying.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
