Linux-Misc Digest #123, Volume #24 Wed, 12 Apr 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
xmailbox doesn't sound (Fabio S.)
What "read EXT2 from win98" programs work? (Mike Van Pelt)
Re: some newbie questions (Derek Jolly)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation ("Michael Westerman")
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation ("Michael Westerman")
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (David Steuber)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (Paul Black)
Re: DVD RAM (Oswald Knoppers)
Thanks to all who replied i understand now. ("Joe M.")
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (David Steuber)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (David Steuber)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (Karel Jansens)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (Karel Jansens)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation (Ole Vanman)
Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation ("Otto")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fabio S.)
Subject: xmailbox doesn't sound
Date: 12 Apr 2000 07:18:29 GMT
Hi,
I just downloaded the latest version of xmailbox which, according to the
documentation, should be able to play a sound to get your attention. Well,
I setted everything correctly in the .Xdefaults, in particular:
xmailbox*mailSndFile: /usr/local/mysounds/cow.wav
xmailbox*mailSndComm: /usr/bin/play %s
Well, the result is that everything works but for the sound: I still get
the usual system beep.
Of course, sound is ok everywhere else: I can play cd, midi and any other
sort of sounds. It is ok even in the events of any window manager I use
(alternatively, gnome, kde and fvwm2).
Thanks in advance.
Fabio
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: What "read EXT2 from win98" programs work?
Date: 12 Apr 2000 07:29:24 GMT
What programs to read EXT2 from (pardon the expression)
"Windows 98" have people had success with?
I've tried ltools-3.6 and ext2read-9x. ltools says it can't
determine the disk geometry, and ext2read can't see the
EXT2 partition at all. I tried telling it what disk and
partition, and it insists there's no EXT2 file system there.
Funny, I can boot to it just fine.
Nothing in the readme files or FAQs seemed to relate to this.
I'm running Red Hat 6.1 on a 6GB standard IDE drive, and Windows
98 on a UDMA66 drive which Linux can't talk to. (That part of
my problem may go away after I patch the kernel with a UDMA66
handler, but I don't have time to delve into that at the moment.)
--
Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the moon, | Mike Van Pelt
and that's a very dubious and disappointing honor. | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's been far too long. -- Gene Cernan | KE6BVH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derek Jolly)
Subject: Re: some newbie questions
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 07:36:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brad), in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, wrote
>
>The reason the program wont run when you are in the directory is because
>that directory is not in the 'path'. Linux does not work like DOS in
>this regard. In DOS, when you type a program name, it looks first in the
>current directory (the one you are in) and then in all the directories
>in the page. eg...
>
>path=c:\windows;c:\windows\command;c:\windows\command\etc etc etc
>
>Linux only look in the path and not at all in your current folder
>
>The simple solution to this is to type ./ in front of the file name.
>eg...
>
>./adom
>
>I am a bit of newbie myself so i can't tell you were to set the path,
>read the path, or anything else about the path. sorry.
It's a simple environment variable.
Enter "echo $PATH" and you'll see your full path.
If you do want to allow execution of files in the current directory
without having to type "./<filename>" you can set your path to
include ".".
Make sure you put this at the end of the PATH variable though, otherwise
you could get some interesting results if you're in unfamiliar
directories, e.g. if you've got an executable called "ls" it'll run that
rather than the standard directory listing.
"PATH=$PATH:." should do it.
--
* Derek Jolly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (Remove the 'x' for e-mail) *
* *** New to uk.games.video.playstation? Read the FAQ at *** *
* ******* http://www.beatbawx.f9.co.uk/stuff/ugvp/ ******* *
* My site (50/60Hz switch codes): http://members2.easyspace.com/rivet *
------------------------------
From: "Michael Westerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:44:55 +1000
If when M$ is split up who owns what?
eg investors so forth.
how does that work?
are these divisions still connected?
Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8d13e3$ijp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Harlan Grove wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Well...yeah...words do have meanings
>
> Yes, even meanings not in dictionaries but commonly understood.
>
> ...
>
> >>>> The fact is that Microsoft has engaged in discriminatory
> >>>> pricing of Windows etc., selling these products at lower
> >>>> prices to OEMs that make their buyers pay for Windows
> >>>
> >>> actually I kind of like the notion of producers and
> >>> buyers agreeing on a price without some third party
> >>> butting in.
> >>
> >> You seem to be the sort of person who'd consider protection
> >> rackets nothing more than unorthodox insurance products.
> >
> > No, and I don't see how that follows from anything I've said.
>
> OK, poor analogy. Let's stick with the case at hand. Two companies, ABC
> and XYZ, sell computers. ABC charges everyone $1,000 base price which
> includes $100 for MS Windows whether or not the computer buyer wants it
> or not. XYZ sells systems without Windows for $900 but those including
> Windows for $1,020 which includes $120 for MS Windows. Why? Because MS
> charges XYZ $20 more for each OEM Windows license than ABC. As long as
> there are many more Windows buyers than Linux, or OS/2 or Be or whatever
> buyers, XYZ is at a disadvantage to ABC. Is the price differential fair?
> Possibly arguable. Is it legal? Seems not - good thing!
>
> ...
>
> >> Finding it difficult to offer any cogent reasons Microsoft
> >> shouldn't get dismembered?
> >
> >I don't think the ball is in my court. I think it's up to you give
> >reason for breaking up Microsoft.
>
> OK, Microsoft has what is referred to as a 'network monopoly'. Rant and
> rave all you want that this isn't a 'monopoly' in the sense of 100%
> market share. It's in Microsoft's interest to keep that position in the
> PC market. Nothing inherently evil in that - it's an asset that most
> business managers would seek to protect. However, Microsoft has been
> somewhat overenthusiastic in maintaining it, and their actions have
> crossed over into illegality. Again, rant all you want about whether or
> not their actions should be illegal or whether the court made a just or
> reasoned decision. It won't change current circumstances.
>
> If one believe Microsoft has acted illegally (we seem to differ), and if
> one believes Microsoft can't be trusted to check itself from acting in
> like manner in future (we may differ again), then the only practical
> recourse would be to eliminate Microsoft's ability to bully OEMs, other
> software makers, standards organizations, etc. That means ending its
> network monopoly (again, rant all you want about semantics - I'm now
> qualifying my use of 'monopoly' so you can't hide behind your dictionary
> any more). That pretty much requires converting the current Microsoft
> into multiple, competing companies.
>
> Best suggestion I've heard so far is to split it into 3 or 4 companies,
> one with W2K, the development tools and SQL Server BUT NO BROWSER
> (business OS and systems tools), one with Win98, WinCE, the MS-DOS
> rights, possibly including the hardware units - mice, keyboards, etc
> (consumer OS and system products), one with Office, the browser, all
> other application software, and possibly the content units - MSN, MSNBC,
> etc. - though the content units might be a fourth company. The first two
> companies would be competing against each other for the low-end
> commercial and some of the academic markets. The third, once divirced
> from the other two, would see that it was in its best interests to begin
> supplying Linux, Be, OS/2, etc. products, thus weakening further the
> clout of the first two.
>
> >> Microsoft is definitely the world's best exploiter of
> >> technology originally developed by other people. But a
> >> irreplaceable source of software innovation?
> >
> >And where is it written in the law that Microsoft is responsible for
> >innovation? Anheuser-Busch hasn't innovated in a hundred years and
> >nobody is clamoring that they should be broken up.
>
> This wasn't a reaction to you. It was a reaction to a Microsoft ad I saw
> on TV recently delivered by none other than Chairman Bill, who
> deadpanned that all Microsoft wants to do in the next decade is just
> more innovation. So, you could say that it comes straight from Bill
> Gates's own mouth that Microsoft is responsible for innovation.
>
> As for Anheuser-Busch, last time I looked in my local grocery, they had
> less than 10% of shelf space in the beer cooler, basically the same as
> Miller. Neither had as much space as Pyramid Brewing because Pyramid had
> close to a dozen varieties, which apparently sell better than Bud, Busch
> or Michelob. Analogy? Stick with Microsoft and get three flavors of
> swill. Or keep them from taking over 90% or more of the market and get
> some variety, maybe even something you really want.
>
>
> BTW, I read your first post in this thread. People should be able to use
> Windows if they want. However, I shouldn't have to pay for a Windows
> license the next time I buy a computer on which I want to run Linux, or
> Be, or FreeBSD, or OS/2, . . .
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Michael Westerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 17:48:31 +1000
>
> Remember when Microsoft said
> - Users won't need more than 640k ...
> - Users don't need a graphical interface ...
> - Users don't need multitasking ...
> - The internet won't take off ...
> - MSX is the future of home computing ... - Remember the Microsoft
> reference machine. Software from MS hardware
> from Japanese manufacturers (cf Windows CE)
> -
>
> The question is - "Can we name a core product Microsoft hasn't copied
> or created without the help of others ?"
winver.exe ?
who else would make a 16 bin run on any windows exe to show a hard coded
into the program version of the operating system?
> That leaves
> Basic and Powerpoint (I think!!)
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:00:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
' uh...no. Having a "huge" share is not a monopoly. A monopoly is having
' 100% share. Citing various legal ruling doesn't change the basic
' definitions of words.
'
' So, in which product catagory does Microsoft have a monopoly? We know
' it's not word processors. We know it's not web browsers. We know it's
' not email programs or news readers. We know it's not spreadsheets or
' database programs. Help me out here. Tell me which product catagory has
' been monopolized by Microsoft.
By your definition, none. Never mind that many companies want
documents in Word's doc format. Never mind that Netscape was killed
by IE, not due to technical merits but due to tying.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
http://www.packetphone.org/
Garbage In -- Gospel Out.
------------------------------
From: Paul Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 08:57:37 +0100
"Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Actually many/most do. The difference is in attitude. Do you want your
> user's to be able to run as Administrator with full ownership and rights on
> the system or not? If not, then locking down the system is relatively easy.
> But that's typically NOT what users want. The solution (which is being
> implemented BTW) is to have the OS be self-healing and not allow
> applications to change the system.
>
> --ET--
>
> "Paul Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Linux can handle that kind of treatment without trashing the entire
> > > system!
> > >
> > > So can NT if it is properly set up.
> >
> > Obviously no one has managed to set it up correctly.
> >
> > Paul
Don't suppose you can learn to quote the right way round?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
Probably not.
It doesn't matter how secure an NT system is, it's never stable.
Paul
------------------------------
From: Oswald Knoppers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: DVD RAM
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:09:29 +0200
Jason Bacon wrote:
>
> Is anyone out there using a DVD RAM under Linux? If so, any problems
> worth reporting?
>
> TIA,
>
> -Jason
I am using an AOpen DVD-520S. No problems. You will need a recent kernel
with a patch in scsi.c for this device. This patch made it in the
2.2.15-pre series.
For SCSI I use the Adaptec AIC-7850 SCSI host adapter.
Primary use is for backups.
Regards,
Oswald
------------------------------
From: "Joe M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Thanks to all who replied i understand now.
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:18:40 +1000
see subject
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:00:05 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
' I don't think the ball is in my court. I think it's up to you give reason
' for breaking up Microsoft.
If history repeats itself, which it so often does, then Microsoft
share holders will make even more money off of the spin off stocks.
It happened to AT&T stock holders. It happened to Standard Oil stock
holders.
A break up won't hurt Bill Gates. He will end up with even more paper
assets. He will also likely be in control of all the companies.
I don't know if a break up is the best solution or not.
I do believe that making cross platform development easier than it is
now would be a very good thing for consumers and the industry in
general.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
http://www.packetphone.org/
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
From: David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:00:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
' And where is it written in the law that Microsoft is responsible for
' innovation? Anheuser-Busch hasn't innovated in a hundred years and nobody
' is clamoring that they should be broken up.
Anheuser-Busch doesn't prevent or hinder people from getting good
beer. Distributors are allowed to carry a wide variety of brands.
--
David Steuber | Hi! My name is David Steuber, and I am
NRA Member | a hoploholic.
http://www.packetphone.org/
There is nothing wrong with Southern California that a rise in the
ocean level wouldn't cure.
-- Ross MacDonald
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: 12 Apr 2000 10:40:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> > Yep. Atari invented it (PoquetPC); Psion perfected it (Series 3xx and
> > 5xx) and Microsoft - as usual - made it suck big chunks (Wince -
> > finally an acronym that says it all).
>
> I think the Psion Organiser deserves a mention in there somewhere.
>
I left it out somewhat intentionally, as I did the Palm. Both of these
machines qualify (IMHO, of course) as - excellent - PDAs, but not as
palmtop PCs. You could run your company with a Psion series 3xx
(minimally a 3c if you want easy web access) without much of a
compromise, and indeed I know people who have done so (they all
upgraded to a series 5, of course). This would not be as easy with a
PDA like a Palm (although... with that foldable keyboard... Hmmm...).
>
> > In all fairness, there is quite a bit of movement in the Wince camp:
> > everybody seems to be running towards the exit.
>
> It's not called WINCE for nothing...
>
Heh. The Microsoft acolyte who came up with that acronym deserves a
medal. Mind you, the MS bigwigs have probably already stoned him to
death with Psion series 5mx's. Corporate entertainment, you gotta love
it!
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
"How to make God laugh?"
"Tell Him your plans."
(paraphrased from "Foundation's Fear" - Gregory Benford)
========================================================
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: 12 Apr 2000 10:40:27 GMT
<comp.lang.java.advocacy cross-reference snipped>
JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Patrick O'Neil wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >(Isn't it funny
> > that Corel can make a good office suite with the
> > wordprocessor remaining compatible with EVERY version
> > of WordPerfect that has come before it?
>
> Yeah, that would be funny if it was anywhere near true. Or if anyone
> cared about WordPerfect anymore. Bet you never used version 6.0, did
> you?
>
I have used WP 5.1 and 6.0 for DOS, 5.2 for OS/2 (albeit briefly) and
6.0 and 8 for Linux. Not only can WP 8 Linux read (not import, but
simply open) _any_ document I made with any of the previous versions,
I can also save a WP 8 document in any of those previous formats,
_without_ losing _any_ formatting information (at least I haven't
encountered any. Most of my documents are pretty complex, but if
anyone can disprove my claim, I gladly stand corrected). The only
limiting factor is the operating system's naming conventions (8.3
torture).
Go do that with Word. If you can keep it running long enough, that is.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
"How to make God laugh?"
"Tell Him your plans."
(paraphrased from "Foundation's Fear" - Gregory Benford)
========================================================
------------------------------
From: Ole Vanman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 11:55:49 +0200
Den Tue, 11 Apr 2000 11:21:36 -0500, skrev Robert Wiegand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>CP/M would have worked just as well, it just wasn't the first one
>available an lost the market.
Actually...
CP/M _was_ the first one.
The founder of Intergalactic Digital Research just didn't bother to
answer the calls from the suits from Big Blue..
IBM was interested in MS' Basic compiler and since there was no
response from IDR, Gates promised to deliver the OS as well.
Go read "Accidental Empires" by Robert X. Cringely if you haven't
already! :)
�Ol�!
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft inhibits competition & innovation
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 10:02:00 GMT
"fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Otto wrote:
> >
> > You can market a product as much as you want to. If people
> > don't want it the product will fail.
> >
>
> Products can succeed indirectly.
>
> Not many people really want to buy gasoline, but they
> want the car and buying gas is part of car owning.
There is alternative fuel vehicles but there isn't many people who use them,
or want to use them.
>
> The same with a computer. People want computers, but
> I bet they wouldn't really care what OS is running
> so long as it makes the computer do what they want
> it to do.
Or to be more exact, people want Windows computers. Presently it is the only
platform which does what the masses want.
>
> If somebody could clone Windows and sell it for $10
> then Microsoft would go bust. The problem is that
> they can't, and this is the core of the DOJ case.
>
> Until somebody can clone Windows then there will be
> zero competition in the market, and this lack of
> competition/choices hurts the consumer, whether
> they realize it or not.
Are you saying that the MAC, Linux, etc... provides zero competition to
Windows?
>
> Is there a solution to the problem? No, or at least
> not a quick and easy one. Introducing competition
> will take drastic measures and a lot of time.
Bring them on....
>
> The only real hope is that the computer will turn
> into an object which provides "services" to people.
> eg. Online shopping, e-mail, chatting with friends,
> watching movies, listening to music, etc. This is
> the only real danger to Microsoft, and this is why
> Microsoft so desperately wants to set proprietry
> standards for all the above, starting with the
> domination of the browser market. If these things
> only work on Windows then Microsoft's future is safe.
The computers have been providing services for people, most of them are
using computers as tools. Upto date, it is Windows which can give them those
services on the easiest and most cost effective way.
>
> Any DOJ remedy should center around taking this
> proprietry stuff (file formats, network protocols,
> etc.) out of Microsoft's hands. Anything else is a
> waste of time in the long term.
I'm not aware that Microsoft owns any network protocols, well at least not
the ones which counts. Proprietary stuff tends to have copyrights and there
isn't much what the DOJ can do about that. That in itself will limit what
the DOJ can/will do.
Otto
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.misc) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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-Misc Digest
******************************
