Linux-Advocacy Digest #321, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Yet another IIS security bug (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:13 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001 12:51:39
>OK, there were too many points in there to reply to individually, so I shall
>endeavour to summarise my arguments and that which I can understand and
>accept form this discussion.
>
>It has been agreed that there are two very different types of web.
I think it has been agreed that there *SHOULD* be two different webs. I
did not mean to suggest that there was some easy dichotomy which can or
should be applied.
>One is the web as it began. Rooted in achedemia, it is run by universities,
>research programmes and open sourced developers. It allows the sharing of
>complex ideas, results and other information with the masses. It allows
>people to collaborate to further the achademic progress of the world. It
>runs in search of knowledge. There is no maney involved.
No, this isn't what I meant. There's nothing regressive, tiny, or
linked with open source about the web. There is plenty of money
involved; the 'classic web' (which is not 'how it began', IT IS HOW IT
IS DESIGNED TO WORK) is a planet-wide library of information.
The key to this "real web" is organization and hyperlinks.
>But nowadays there is another web. Call it what you will, the "commercial"
>web, the "trendy" web, or even happy horseshit. Hereafter it will be refered
>to as the commercial web. It exists and is here to stay. Now in this world
>people surf for different reasons. They look for amusement, general
>knowledge, eye candy, something to do when they are bored. And secondly,
>(yes, secondly) they look for bargains, shopping from the comfort of their
>arm chair (or the discomfort of their computer chair, which is an old wooden
>job until I get round to buying a new one...)
Your "eye candy surfer" is a myth, Michael. Sure, people may be looking
for amusement when they're bored, but THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUY ANYTHING.
They do not want to "look for bargains", as I've said; they want the
bargains to come looking for them! Web shoppers are not idle, they are
not windows shopping; they are either doing serious research or making a
purchase.
Your 'trendy web' doesn't stand up to the light of day. It is a mirage
created by vendors expecting to be able to 'capture markets'. It is the
antithesis of the convenience of the real web. There may be value in
having some form of "store front" protocol, for presenting a highly
graphic remote console "site" interface; it might even look very much
like the web. But navigation, not organization, is the key, and
interaction, not information, is the goal. There's nothing wrong with
this web; the hostility you may notice I have is caused only by the fact
that it has rather thoroughly messed up the real web.
>You may not like the commercial web. You are entitled to that. However it is
>there and (believe it or not) it serves a function.
But that function is not what you or the vendors believe it is, so it
doesn't serve it very well, that's all.
>I think the point you are missing is that not everybody is interested in
>that information. While the academic web brings information to the masses,
>only those with a higher than average IQ can hope to digest that
>information, find it useful or in any way gain something from having read
>it.
There are only two things you can POSSIBLY do with the Internet. One is
to communicate, and communicating for commercial reasons is very
valuable, and the Internet should be developed to make this as
convenient and reliable as possible. This is your commercial "web".
The other is access to information (you might claim this is like
communication, but I will defend the difference ad infinitum) and this
is what the web was actually designed to be good at, and it IS what the
web is good at, and your frustration as a site developer is caused by
this fact alone.
>Many people simply can't. They will find no use in the old academic web
>because the results, the hypotheses, the journals are not only of no
>interest to them, but they also have no meaning.
If you didn't try so hard to show your bias, you might have a shadow of
a point. Are you REALLY suggesting that the only information that can
exist is scientific information? What is wrong with you?
>Now the fact that you are active in usenet and not a troll (as well as your
>views as expressed) puts you in that higher bracket. Your average user who
>is arriving on the web will not know how to use usenet, and neither will
>they care. The plain text and complex discussions of alt.metaphysics.alchemy
>(no recommendation implied, I have never read that newsgroup, I picked it
>out of the list simply for it's title as an example) will have no relevance
>to their lives. They don't have a wish or drive to understand which pushes
>the academics of this world.
Usenet, BTW, has nothing whatsoever to do with the web. Your contempt
for science and the implied transcendence of crass commercialism,
unfortunately, tends to undermine your position.
>They care about the TV tonight, the football results and a review of the
>match, downloading mp3s, a bit of soft porn and possibly cheap CD-Rs for
>those mp3s.
They aren't interested in paying for any of that, though, so why are you
so convinced this "commercial web" is even viable?
>Believe it or not, these people: the true "masses" don't give a shit about
>the validity or the pure information available on the web. The presentation
>of what they read, to them, gives the information it's credibility. What's
>more they don't want a lot of information. They hop around the web in search
>of something which grabs their eye. The only ever read the introduction and
>they certainly never print off a page so they can digest it fully.
Desperately hoping that people will be attracted by glittering things
and pretty baubles, so that once you get them in your shop, you can
empty their wallets, huh? What they what is to find the information
they are looking for; you figure if you force them to wander around long
enough looking for it, you can put your hand in their pocket.
>For these people the second web is tailored. It must be, quite literally,
>eye candy or people will not dwell on it long enough to find out what it is.
>Image is everything.
Lowest price is everything; your "other web" is, quite literally, a
waste of money.
>Now I apologise if I appeared arrogant at any point in that analysis. I am
>only trying to put forward my findings having studies the actions of my
>peers. Arrogance was not intended, but the tone was what seemed necessary to
>get my point home.
>
>Now. What I think could / should be done about this.
>
>Yes. There should be two protocols for the web. One which moves forward with
>the times and the technology. Multimedia and broadband galore. Call it
>hhstp: (happy horseshit transfer protocol). Meanwhile, the http protocol
>should be stripped to ensure that none of this can even be transmitted
>across it. All file transfers other than plain text and images should take
>place by ftp and must not be embedded in pages.
There you go making mandates again. Your speculation becomes idle as
soon as you do that, I'm afraid. There is no "should" in a protocol
implementation; only "can" and "does".
>The two protocols should be completely separate entities. HTML should not be
>served via hhstp and vice versa.
>
>This completely separates the two webs. However, there is still a problem.
>If you want something which appears only via hhsml (happy horseshit markup
>language) then you must venture into the other web at your own risk.
There is no "venture", and your "commercial web" isn't even a "web";
just a bunch of servers, each working independently.
>As for crass commercialisation, I never said I advocated amazon. I was only
>trying to understand why they design their site as they do and explain as
>such.
You were making excusing, not providing an explanation.
>Well, that is most of the way I see it. I feel I have taken something from
>this discussion in terms of understanding the academic web. Perhaps it is
>because it has run parallel to my introduction to linux and the
>unix/linux/gnu community and the amount of information and applications that
>are available out there for free.
>
>Either way, I felt I had to sum up my standing.
>
>And if you don't believe my about average people, check any study on the
>habits of internet users. MP3 recently overtook sex as the most commonly
>searched for word. I might seem sad to you, and to me, and to Bob, but it is
>also true.
What about proving that people just want to find what they're looking
for (not wander around until it 'catches their eye') do you think
opposes my understanding of people's on-line habits? I'm afraid I have
to point out that, regardless of whether the studies you look at are
valid, your interpretation of them is not.
--
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
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:14 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001 12:01:14
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d4obs$bti$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > (from what I've heard, a Mac would reduce me to a gibbering wreck).
>>
>> Not if you install Linux on it :-)
>
>Why? I mean, if I want to get a linux machine, why waste so much money on a
>Mac. A comparable x86 machine would cost much less.
So what makes you assume it is 'comparable'?
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:15 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001
[...]
>COM existed before SOM as well.
>
>SOM was first introduced with OS/2 2.0, which came out in early 1992, just
>weeks before COM was officially launched in Windows 3.1. They were
>contemporaries, created independantly at about the same time.
Which is it? First you say that COM 'existed before SOM', and then you
say they were 'created at about the same time'. What besides the donuts
at the sock puppet briefings leads you to believe that MS didn't do what
they typically do, and just "steal IBM's ideas", implementing their own
technology more as vaporware than anything else, to scare off the
competition? You know, like the way they stole pen computing from Go?
>SOM and DSOM are almost entirely different technologies. SOM/DSOM do not
>provide location transparency like COM/DCOM does. You can't take a SOM
>object and make it a DCOM object without completely rewriting the code,
>since the implementations are totally different.
You cannot use DMTF DMO's for SNMP MIBs, either, but that doesn't make
them "entirely different technologies"; they are both almost exactly the
same thing, but non-interoperable. Just two different versions of the
same idea, implemented somewhat differently because they focused on
different sub-domains of the problem.
>SOM had a few advantages over COM, but COM also had advantages over SOM.
>OpenDoc was something that IBM never really fully supported even in its own
>software. Apple was the only company to fully embrace it, and even they
>they saw the writing on the wall pretty quickly.
>
>Frankly, except for language binding mechanism of SOM, it sucked and
>deserved to die. Hell, it didn't become CORBA compliant until about OS/2
>3.0 IIRC.
Kind of amusing watching you flail around like this. You are THE sock
puppet, Erik. You ought to get a bonus at the next briefing.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:16 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001 11:59:11
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 7 May 2001 01:48:02 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Jonas Due Vesterheden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:KmiJ6.10919$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> "donc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Oh sure. And everybody knows that NCSA Mosaic was inspired by IE.
>Why,
>> >> > if it weren't for Microsoft's innovation there wouldn't even an
>> >> > internet today. But perhaps their biggest contributions have been in
>> >> > the areas of reliability and openess.
>> >
>> >> Are you saying that Microsoft created the internet or am I
>> >misunderstanding?
>> >> If not, can you please explain?
>> >
>> >A> live a space between your responses and your qouting.
>> >B> he's being sarcatic.
>> >C> IE is *much* more than Mosaic.
>> >
>>
>> ...but not an original idea.
>
>Idea, no. Idea*s*, yes.
>IE has far more features tha Mosaic.
Depends on how gullible you are in what you call IE, and how gullible
you are in what you call a "feature".
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:18 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 21:05:12
[...]
>Max, I've already corrected you on this in another thread. I have a
>Word for Windows 1.0 manual and it says it requires Windows 2.03 to run.
>It DID NOT ship with Windows 3.0. Got it?
Greg, I've already explained why this "correction" has essentially zero
cogency. Word for Windows 1.0 did not "ship with" Windows 3.0, it was
simply not released until Windows 3.0 was, regardless of whether MS was
hoping to release it prior to that. Get it?
>> >> >But apparently Word rolled its own controls for
>> >> >some reason. Perhaps in order to 'fake' MDI on a
>> >> >Windows 2 platform. But if they were targetting
>> >> >Windows 3, why not just use the built in
>> >> >implementation?
>> >>
>> >> They didn't "target" Win3; they ONLY SUPPORTED Win3. I'll tell you one
>> >> more time, just in case you missed it the first half a dozen times:
>> >> there was no Word for Windows before Windows 3.
>> >
>> >Yes, you say that, but I think the available evidence says
>> >otherwise.
>>
>> I can't honestly believe you're that stupid, and I know you'll admit to
>> being a troll, so I think you're just lying. Not even you think this
>> 'evidence' says any 'otherwise'.
>
>How much more evidence do you need?
Well, I'm still waiting for *any* evidence. I never claimed that MS
started developing it until after Win3, so the mistake in the beta and
the announcement of support for vaporware are hardly very shocking,
unless you've literally never had any knowledge of Microsoft throughout
its history.
I'm mean, *really*; a freaking ANECDOTE would be more convincing, "Yea,
Max, I remember clearly using Word for Windows on Windows 2!" You don't
even have that much, though; just a couple of extremely trivial glitches
in Microsoft's documentation. Shocker.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:19 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>> >You're bluffing, Max. I know exactly how Windows 3
>> >did this stuff.
>>
>> No, Daniel, I am not bluffing. I know exactly what kind of stuff
>> Microsoft does.
>
>You have your, um, theories, but so far you've
>shown little technical knowldge of Windows to date,
>I'm afraid.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>[snip]
>> >Word is doing something funny.
>>
>> Word is rather notorious for doing that, in case you haven't noticed.
>
>They are notorious for putting *future* control versions
>in present beta code. You seem to be arguing that
>it was the other way around. Weird of them to do *that*.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>> Your observation that the scroll bars were "messed up" in a pre-release
>> version is very obvious evidence for the fact that this is not a recent
>> development, and has been with the product since its original release
>> *with Windows 3.0*.
>
>Who said anything about a pre-release version?
>
>I think the available evidence says that Word was available
>for Windows 2.x *at least*.
>
>The only thing that contradicts that is you own personal
>say so.
>
>That's *it*. You've got Greg Cox's word for what was in
>the Word manual, and I've given you a cite that supports
>it indirectly.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:20 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 20:51:44
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>About the level of discussion I've come to expect from you. Complete and
>>>utter noise.
>>
>> I presume you're referring to the comments I was referring to, since
>> that is the gist of my meaning.
>
>Precisely. You're posting noise. Absolutely no use to the conversation at
>hand.
>
>>>So, you chose to ignore the specific point and try instead to switch to a
>>>more general one. Again, another marker in your style of "discussion".
>>
>> There is no specific point; you only brought it up to avoid the general
>> one. Don't you remember? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. <*spank*>
>
>I bring it up to try to drag us back to the point. You seek to derail it
>because you're losing the argument. Shame on you!
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
So is THAT why you started dragging up this point; you seek to derail it
so you can pretend you didn't already lose the argument? Guffaw!
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:21 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May
2001 17:37:51 -0400;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 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.
>>
>> Nice squirming, troll-boy.
>>
>> >The real trick was to supercede as much of DOS
>> >as possible, not to use another DOS.
>>
>> No wonder you find it so easy to be clueless; you think there's a
>> difference between something that is like DOS, and something that is
>> "another DOS". Its a wonder you can even find the power switch.
>
>Come on now!! Your pissing Max off!! The truth to him is like holy water on
>a vampire. Max thinks - Microsoft was supposed to create Windows to be
>compatible with DR DOS. He probably goes further into fantasyland to think
>Microsoft Inc. was supposed provide support for every Tom, Dick and DOS
>lookalike that came along.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:22 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 23:20:49
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> JS PL wrote:
>> >
>> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 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.
>> > >
>> > > Nice squirming, troll-boy.
>> > >
>> > > >The real trick was to supercede as much of DOS
>> > > >as possible, not to use another DOS.
>> > >
>> > > No wonder you find it so easy to be clueless; you think there's a
>> > > difference between something that is like DOS, and something that is
>> > > "another DOS". Its a wonder you can even find the power switch.
>> >
>> > Come on now!! Your pissing Max off!! The truth to him is like holy water on
>> > a vampire. Max thinks - Microsoft was supposed to create Windows to be
>> > compatible with DR DOS. He probably goes further into fantasyland to think
>> > Microsoft Inc. was supposed provide support for every Tom, Dick and DOS
>> > lookalike that came along.
>>
>> NO, but then they should have put code into Windows to specifcally check
>> if it was running on another DOS, then throw up error messages to scare
>> off customers.
>
>I think you meant "should not have put code...", right?
Certainly.
>If so, then you are wrong. This only occurred in the beta because there
>were known bugs with DR DOS and the beta version of Windows.
This is not a lie. It is two lies: there were no known bugs (there were
incompatibilities, but DR had no problem dealing with them so it wasn't
an issue for MS; except of course MS refused to let DR have a beta of
Windows so that they could deal with the problem) and the code was not
removed from the release version (it was disabled, but what is
interesting is that MS has VERY SPECIFICALLY claimed that it was
REMOVED; so why not actually remove it unless they literally did want to
have it available in case they wanted to re-enable it?).
>Basically MS said that it just plain won't work.
Basically, MS was defrauding their customers, and everybody else.
>Near the end of the beta cycle, they fixed whatever bugs there were
>on their side and when Windows finally shipped, everything worked.
>There was no error message in the shipping product.
Internal Microsoft communications clearly proves that this is a
fabrication, Chad. Doh!
>However, DR DOS made a big stink out of it and it spooked every one.
>They later brought it up in the trial because they're sore losers.
Later, MS paid DR somewhere between two hundred million and two billion
dollars, in order to avoid these facts becoming public knowledge during
a trial.
>It was only in the beta.
It was not only in the beta; it was only active in the beta. It was
FUD, plain and simple, MS knew it was illegal, and took off like a rat
to the sewers when their fraud (and their intent to defraud!) was
revealed.
Thanks, Chad. You do more for the cause of us anti-MS advocates than
you could possibly imagine.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:23 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 05:03:25
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d4a9e$dlo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:XIeJ6.7026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > > Define "like other DOS programs".
>> >
>> > Programs that use DOS services to do their
>> > thing. You know, programs written to *DOS's*
>> > API.
>>
>> DOS didn't have API.
>
>The int 21h calls were an "API" of sorts, I guess.
Yes, BIOS is "like an OS", and interrupts are "like API calls". Only it
isn't, and they're not. Get it?
>You have to squint just right to see it that way though...
:-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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:24 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d4a9e$dlo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:XIeJ6.7026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > Define "like other DOS programs".
>> >
>> > Programs that use DOS services to do their
>> > thing. You know, programs written to *DOS's*
>> > API.
>>
>> DOS didn't have API.
>
>Sure, it did. It was not *called* that, but what
>you had were a set of interrupts that you
>could trip to do things like open files or read
>from them.
>
>Windows does it with a DLL, and DOS didn't
>have those. [...]
Nor did it have these other things; they are a part of the BIOS, and
have nothing much to do with DOS, other than as proof of its bogosity.
--
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
******************************
