Standardization and integration is the ideal of the computer world, the DOJ is jeopardizing it.
JackiePrice
Prior to Microsoft's ascension, computers were a disaster. There were a
hundred competing OS's, with different software for each. You had to pick
and choose not based merely upon what was the best hardware, but on what it
would support.
Microsoft changed that.
Everything is standard now, you can pretty much be sure any application,
tool, or game will run on any PC in North America, unless you are running a
specialty operating system like Linux, or hardware like a Mac. Even
better, when I get my operating system, I get free web browsers, free word
processors, free tools, and they are all standard, used by everyone else.
The file format they use can be interpretted by just about anything. Not
only that, they are all integrated into the operating system so that they
can all call on each other and seamlessly work together without you ever
really noticing you've used more than one application. This is my
ideal...if the stability issues are really worked out with Windows2000, this
is what I want to see...total, seemless integration and a minimal cost to
the end user.
If it wasn't for Microsoft IE, we'd still be using buggy Netscape and paying
$60 for a license to use it. Other things are the same.
Microsoft has achieved their monopoly because they put more on the table
than anybody else at any given time for the end user...more value for less
cost, easier use and more integration. I only hope that IF they are broken
up, that this type of progress will continue and the computer industry
doesn't become so fragmented all over again.
LShaping@...
"JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>"SomeOne Else" <No...@notelling.com> wrote:
>>Microsoft's volume today has now reached three times the average
>>single day volume. I checked and that's the highest for five years.
>>I wonder why so many people are selling MS stock today?
>If someone is selling, then someone is also buying.
JackiePrice
"LShaping@..." <NoS...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:bfk9gs8nbgpogrhe5...@4ax.com...
> (words of wisdom from a JackiePrice classic)
>
Interesting instant hostility considering I have never posted here before,
nor seen your posts. Now however I see you are a good one to add to my
killfile, as you have nothing constructive or interesting to say at all.
LShaping@...
>"LShaping@..." <NoS...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> (words of wisdom from a JackiePrice classic)
>Interesting instant hostility considering I have never posted here before,
>nor seen your posts. Now however I see you are a good one to add to my
>killfile, as you have nothing constructive or interesting to say at all.
Before you go, would you tell Roger and fmc to put me to their
kill-files too?
Thanks,
LShaping
T. Max Devlin
>
>Prior to Microsoft's ascension, computers were a disaster. There were a
>hundred competing OS's, with different software for each. You had to pick
>and choose not based merely upon what was the best hardware, but on what it
>would support.
Prior to Microsoft's reign of terror, computers were an open architecture,
competitive landscape of many inter-compatible vendors. You could pick which
Operating System you wanted based on what applications it supported, or pick
which applications you wanted based on what Operating System you had. You
could even consider changing from one operating system to another, or one
application to another, without anyone making it intentionally hard (though it
is by no means easy to migrate software use). It was, in short, a typical
market.
>Microsoft changed that.
>
>Everything is standard now, you can pretty much be sure any application,
>tool, or game will run on any PC in North America, unless you are running a
>specialty operating system like Linux, or hardware like a Mac.
So, you can be sure that everything runs as long as "everything" only includes
Microsoft software? Nothing is "standard", it is simply a monopoly. It is
not terribly surprising that many people don't understand or recognize the
difference, since software is a concept much more complicated than watching
movies you rented at Block Buster.
>Even
>better, when I get my operating system, I get free web browsers, free word
>processors, free tools, and they are all standard, used by everyone else.
THey aren't standard, they are the only 'choices' you have available. You
honestly don't mind being taken advantage of, having your choices technically
limited, and paying higher prices in a non-competitive market where your
requirements are meaningless, except as they happen to overlap with "everyone
else's"?
>The file format they use can be interpretted by just about anything.
I must question your knowledge of even the fundamental concepts of software
and computing. This statement is utter nonsense. You are trolling.
Normally, I try to have a lot of sympathy for people who post vapid tirades
such as your own in alt.destroy.microsoft. They are motivated by fear, and I
cannot fault anyone for responding to their lack of understanding of software
and computing concepts with fear; it is a natural human reaction.
Nevertheless, to go so far as to post meaningless gibberish such as this. You
obviously feel that you have a useful perspective of the PC software market,
but that doesn't mean you do. Nor does the difficulty in explaining your
errors accrue from the righteousness of your position; it comes from the fact
that the explanation relies on concepts you have obviously not yet grasped,
such as "standard" "software", "file format", "interpret", etc.
>Not
>only that, they are all integrated into the operating system so that they
>can all call on each other and seamlessly work together without you ever
>really noticing you've used more than one application.
What makes you think a piece of software which isn't "integrated into the
operating system" (i.e. 'bolted on', 'crammed down your throat, etc.) is not
capable of doing this?
>This is my
>ideal...if the stability issues are really worked out with Windows2000, this
>is what I want to see...total, seemless integration and a minimal cost to
>the end user.
You want "PCs for dummies". That's fine by me; I support your right to have
them. Unfortunately, if the only way you can figure out to get them is to
support a criminal monopoly and restrict others' access to more capable and
flexible systems, well, then you're screwed, I'm afraid. What makes you think
that in order to make computers simple for you, we must ensure that nobody
else has any choices? A correctly competitive market can provide all the
benefits you seek; it wasn't Microsoft that "saved us" from intricacy and
incompatibility, it was the twenty years of PC software development which
Microsoft has convinced you it deserves all credit for.
>If it wasn't for Microsoft IE, we'd still be using buggy Netscape and paying
>$60 for a license to use it. Other things are the same.
This would be the simplistic explanation, yes. More comprehensive
explanations point out that "you get what you pay for", "if MS IE could have
competed on technical merits, they wouldn't have had to commit a crime to try
to prevent 'buggy Netscape @ $60/license' from being available to you should
you want it.
>Microsoft has achieved their monopoly because they put more on the table
>than anybody else at any given time for the end user...more value for less
>cost, easier use and more integration. I only hope that IF they are broken
>up, that this type of progress will continue and the computer industry
>doesn't become so fragmented all over again.
Please read http://www.nylj.com/links/microsoft/findingsfact.html. You may
find it enlightening to see what someone who is an expert on legal matters has
to say about how Microsoft achieved their monopoly. Generally, it appears to
be by lying, blackmail, and fraud, rather than providing value.
I only hope that someday the damage that has obviously been done by way of
convincing people without a lot of knowledge about software and computers that
Microsoft's criminal practices are entirely responsible for every conceivable
improvement they have seen in PCs over the last twenty years.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Jackie. You are not going to be facilitating
any productive discussions with this kind of shallow thinking. I realize that
"life would be easier if I didn't have to worry about which OS/applications to
use", but then again, life would be easier if a) you never had to make any
choices, and b) software compatibility didn't rely on require limiting your
choices to a single software vendor.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
mde...@eltrax.com
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Roger
wrote:
>"LShaping@..." <NoS...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:bfk9gs8nbgpogrhe5...@4ax.com...
>> (words of wisdom from a JackiePrice classic)
>Interesting instant hostility considering I have never posted here before,
>nor seen your posts. Now however I see you are a good one to add to my
>killfile, as you have nothing constructive or interesting to say at all.
There is, however, some amusement value in watching zie and certain
others squirm when their errors of logic and fact are pointed out to
them -- when they don't completely run away, that is.
OTOH, you can get that just from the responses, so plonk away.
SomeOne Else
wrote:
>
>Prior to Microsoft's ascension, computers were a disaster. There were a
>hundred competing OS's, with different software for each.
Oh. Can you name them. I'll make it easy, name fifty.
>
>Even
>better, when I get my operating system, I get free web browsers, free word
>processors, free tools, and they are all standard, used by everyone else.
Standards lets see:
Java
HTML3
ANSI/ISO C++
three examples of where Macroshit doesn't follow standards. Shall I go
on? It gets tedious.
OF course you also get all that "free" stuff, but pay for it in higher
OS costs. Of course I've never heard of Macroshit giving away
free word processors ( except for industry standard "sales" type give
aways ) or free tools. The Enterprise version of VB or VC++ sell for
more then $2000. So anyother stupid anti-fact by Jerkie.
>The file format they use can be interpretted by just about anything.
Which file format. Macroshit has six. Tralk about "standards".
>Not
>only that, they are all integrated into the operating system so that they
>can all call on each other and seamlessly work together without you ever
>really noticing you've used more than one application.
If you follow Macroshit guidelines. Of course Macroshit insists that
you only do simple stuff. When it fails to do the hard stuff, or your
user insists on things that need to be done outside of Macroshit,
it's their fault for insisting on something that Macroshit does not
provide.
>This is my
>ideal...if the stability issues are really worked out with Windows2000, this
>is what I want to see...total, seemless integration and a minimal cost to
>the end user.
Yep only 64K known bugs. Of course we don't know how many unknown ones
there are out there, could be millions.
>
>If it wasn't for Microsoft IE, we'd still be using buggy Netscape and paying
>$60 for a license to use it. Other things are the same.
Of course we all know why Netscape is buggy, Macroshit rewrote Windows
to make it buggy. It's in the findings of fact, so I would expect you
to know that. Wait silly me of course you never read the findings of
fact. That would imply that you can read.
>
>Microsoft has achieved their monopoly because they put more on the table
>than anybody else at any given time for the end user...more value for less
>cost, easier use and more integration.
Obviously you haven't read the findings of fact. Macroshit achieved
their monopoly by telling their customers "Either you change to our
software, or stick with competitors which we will make buggy with the
next version of our present OS, or don't upgrade the OS." Really
costomer friendly offering alternatives like that.
Don't forget "Dos ain't done till Lotus won't run."
JackiePrice
> >hundred competing OS's, with different software for each.
> Oh. Can you name them. I'll make it easy, name fifty.
>
It's an exaggeration. Geezuz...
> >
>
> >Even
> >better, when I get my operating system, I get free web browsers, free
word
> >processors, free tools, and they are all standard, used by everyone else.
> Standards lets see:
> Java
Java was a lousy idea. Slow, buggy, and sucked before microsoft ever got
their hands on it. ActiveX and Flash/shockwave type controls are much
better.
> HTML3
> ANSI/ISO C++
So standard most people never heard of them.
> OF course you also get all that "free" stuff, but pay for it in higher
> OS costs. Of course I've never heard of Macroshit giving away
> free word processors ( except for industry standard "sales" type give
> aways ) or free tools. The Enterprise version of VB or VC++ sell for
> more then $2000. So anyother stupid anti-fact by Jerkie.
Higher OS costs for the corporate user, yes. I don't think that's related
to the perks you get along with the OS though. Microsoft charges what the
market will bear...you don't really think Win2000 advanced server costs them
$2000 do you? Microsofts profit margin is so high on that stuff, it makes
no difference what little perks they include. If they weren't included
though, someone would charge you a hundred bucks for the package of them...
At the home user level? An operating system is cheap. Win98 SE is not even
noticeable tacked on to the cost of your computer system...hell, a mouse can
cost more now. Of course it costs more than Linux...but try to go to your
local Electronics Boutique to buy your favorite software and games for
Linux.
(Incidentally, MS makes the best mice...go figure...no balls!)
>
> >The file format they use can be interpretted by just about anything.
> Which file format. Macroshit has six. Tralk about "standards".
Doesn't matter, you don't even need to know what they are. You never see
the extention unless you like to tinker, and the OS knows which is which,
and the different MS applications seem to nicely work with each other too in
this regard.
> If you follow Macroshit guidelines. Of course Macroshit insists that
> you only do simple stuff. When it fails to do the hard stuff, or your
> user insists on things that need to be done outside of Macroshit,
> it's their fault for insisting on something that Macroshit does not
> provide.
Funny...tell that to anyone working professionally in an office
environment...complex publishing/animation/presentation/spreadsheet/database
work all seemlessly integrate with your word processor without a hiccup...
I am talking high level stuff, not low level programming. you are looking
at this from a developer perspective. Work with the end user who doesn't
know anything about the programming side of things. The user end is where
the greatest need and the greatest importance in design is, for the average
joe, not us techies.
> Yep only 64K known bugs. Of course we don't know how many unknown ones
> there are out there, could be millions.
Very true. And its still pretty stable. I'm not saying it couldn't be
better...they are still unsuccessfully trying to merge an ancient 8 bit OS
with a 32 bit one, allowing some flexibility, but causing all types of other
problems. I was hoping to see the last vestiges of DOS gone from
Win2000...its still there though.
> Of course we all know why Netscape is buggy, Macroshit rewrote Windows
> to make it buggy. It's in the findings of fact, so I would expect you
> to know that. Wait silly me of course you never read the findings of
> fact. That would imply that you can read.
Netscape was always buggy.
And they used to charge for it...something like that should be free. And
the DOJ concurrs....they are leaning towards keeping the browser with the OS
if they split Microsoft.
One thing to remember, Netscape was even more cruel and unethical in its
dealings with small browser companies prior to IE showing up than MS ever
was to Netscape...what goes around comes around.
> Obviously you haven't read the findings of fact. Macroshit achieved
> their monopoly by telling their customers "Either you change to our
> software, or stick with competitors which we will make buggy with the
> next version of our present OS, or don't upgrade the OS." Really
> costomer friendly offering alternatives like that.
No, they didn't. Their OS is the monopoly, not their software. Their OS is
not under fire, and never was...even though that is where their monopoly
lies.
Here is a model of how Microsoft got to be the best at its software...it
isn't pretty, but it isn't unethical either.
MS Access sucked when it was created. Badly. Foxpro was the best in the
low end database world. Microsoft tried making a partnership with Foxpro.
Foxpro didn't want to deal with big bad microsoft. Microsoft initiated a
hostile takeover, bought foxpro through the shareholders, and took the
technology and used it in Access. Now Access is the best in the low end
database market. It had nothing to do with changes to their OS or anything
that abused their monopoly. There was ONE case of what you are discussing,
and even then its a runaround example...with Netscape vs. Explorer. The
alterations that made netscape buggy were not in the OS, but in the internet
itself when microsoft switched to a standard netscape didn't support and
watched the content on the internet follow their lead.
LShaping@...
>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>Funny...tell that to anyone working professionally in an office
>environment...complex publishing/animation/presentation/spreadsheet/database
>work all seemlessly integrate with your word processor without a hiccup.
Only if you are drunk and happen to be hiccuping at the same time as
Windows.
LShaping
T. Max Devlin
>> >Prior to Microsoft's ascension, computers were a disaster. There were a
>> >hundred competing OS's, with different software for each.
>> Oh. Can you name them. I'll make it easy, name fifty.
>>
>
>It's an exaggeration. Geezuz...
>
>> >
>>
>> >Even
>> >better, when I get my operating system, I get free web browsers, free
>word
>> >processors, free tools, and they are all standard, used by everyone else.
>> Standards lets see:
>> Java
>
>Java was a lousy idea. Slow, buggy, and sucked before microsoft ever got
>their hands on it. ActiveX and Flash/shockwave type controls are much
>better.
Well, Java is an implementation of the idea of 'middleware' (PLEASE read the
Findings of Fact at http://www.nylj.com/links/microsoft/findingsfact.html
before posting to alt.destroy.microsoft; EVEN if you disagree with everything
in it). So is ActiveX. Flash/shockwave are more dubious, I would personally
differentiate between such "site animation" methods and any connectivity
protocols like Java or ActiveX.
They are better for you. They are not better for your customers. Thus is the
balancing act called "free market" formed. Until you (or those you collude
with unknowingly, namely Microsoft) remove your customer's ability to have
anything better than what is better for you.
>> HTML3
>> ANSI/ISO C++
>
>So standard most people never heard of them.
You underscore your naivete to an embarrassing degree, I must point out.
>> OF course you also get all that "free" stuff, but pay for it in higher
>> OS costs. Of course I've never heard of Macroshit giving away
>> free word processors ( except for industry standard "sales" type give
>> aways ) or free tools. The Enterprise version of VB or VC++ sell for
>> more then $2000. So anyother stupid anti-fact by Jerkie.
>
>Higher OS costs for the corporate user, yes. I don't think that's related
>to the perks you get along with the OS though. Microsoft charges what the
>market will bear...you don't really think Win2000 advanced server costs them
>$2000 do you? Microsofts profit margin is so high on that stuff, it makes
>no difference what little perks they include. If they weren't included
>though, someone would charge you a hundred bucks for the package of them...
The high price of Microsoft products, and the huge profit margins (which I
would venture are far more than you realize), don't seem to be enough for you
to realize that this is a dysfunctional market, artificially controlled by a
monopoly, not by market forces. And which "someone" do you supposed would be
allowed to profit at the feet of the glorious and wise Microsoft, who holds
the keys to charging as much as they want as long as they can get enough
suckers to support the monopoly?
>At the home user level? An operating system is cheap. Win98 SE is not even
>noticeable tacked on to the cost of your computer system...hell, a mouse can
>cost more now. Of course it costs more than Linux...but try to go to your
>local Electronics Boutique to buy your favorite software and games for
>Linux.
Your tired (and pathetic, not to mention self-referential, though I don't mean
this as an insult to you, but simply as a comment on the widespread sentiment
you voice) comment about application support market aside, the prices of
Windows is quite at issue. The cost of the mouse can be included as a
separate line item by the manufacturer; it generally isn't, but simply by
their volition. The cost of the OS, however, is REQUIRED by Microsoft's OEM
licensing practices to NOT be identified to the customer as a separate line
item. Whether computer manufacturers would consider it prudent or not is not
determinant.
Doesn't this say a lot about your statement? If an OS is so "cheap", why do
OEMs have to accept restrictions on their business practices in order to be
"allowed" to purchase it for resale?
>>
>> >The file format they use can be interpretted by just about anything.
>> Which file format. Macroshit has six. Tralk about "standards".
>
>Doesn't matter, you don't even need to know what they are. You never see
>the extention unless you like to tinker, and the OS knows which is which,
>and the different MS applications seem to nicely work with each other too in
>this regard.
Oh, the horrors of the "extension versus file type" issue. That MS
applications "seem to nicely work with each other" is quite a point, as it is
other application developer's ability to work nicely with each other AND with
MS software which indicates that the PC industry can be saved from loutish
thinking like you've expressed. I won't bother going into the details about
how Microsoft's "hijacking" of file types has been a cogent reminder of
Microsoft's ability to screw the user at the user's own expense.
>> If you follow Macroshit guidelines. Of course Macroshit insists that
>> you only do simple stuff. When it fails to do the hard stuff, or your
>> user insists on things that need to be done outside of Macroshit,
>> it's their fault for insisting on something that Macroshit does not
>> provide.
>
>Funny...tell that to anyone working professionally in an office
>environment...complex publishing/animation/presentation/spreadsheet/database
>work all seemlessly integrate with your word processor without a hiccup...
Which planet do you live on? I think you mean "all have icons on the
desktop". As for hiccups, well, they tend to run OK until they don't. Then
its more of a "technicolor yawn", as we used to say, then a hiccup.
>I am talking high level stuff, not low level programming. you are looking
>at this from a developer perspective. Work with the end user who doesn't
>know anything about the programming side of things. The user end is where
>the greatest need and the greatest importance in design is, for the average
>joe, not us techies.
I work with the end users. I have for almost a decade (enough to know what
I'm talking about, but not enough to be hide-bound in a previous era). I
appreciate your point, but you are certainly mistaken in your assessment of
the needs and desires of the end user. I see some promise in you, though, so
I suggest you simply try to keep learning for a few more years, and you will
begin to understand why the current "complex
publishing/animation/presentation/spreadsheet/database work all seamlessly
integrate with your word processor" is simply a pipe-dream. We have an
over-designed GUI, under-utilized multi-tasking, and proprietary
inter-application APIs. This isn't "integration", and it isn't a utopia for
the end user.
>> Yep only 64K known bugs. Of course we don't know how many unknown ones
>> there are out there, could be millions.
>
>Very true. And its still pretty stable. I'm not saying it couldn't be
>better...they are still unsuccessfully trying to merge an ancient 8 bit OS
>with a 32 bit one, allowing some flexibility, but causing all types of other
>problems. I was hoping to see the last vestiges of DOS gone from
>Win2000...its still there though.
No, its not. There's a command prompt. That ain't DOS. NT (Win2K) doesn't
have any "DOS", just "DOS-isms". And why you would want all backward
compatibility to disappear is beyond me (unless your just as young and naive
as I'm beginning to suspect, if you'll excuse me for saying so).
>> Of course we all know why Netscape is buggy, Macroshit rewrote Windows
>> to make it buggy. It's in the findings of fact, so I would expect you
>> to know that. Wait silly me of course you never read the findings of
>> fact. That would imply that you can read.
>
>Netscape was always buggy.
Everything on Windows was always buggy. Truth to be told, all software was
always buggy. Amongst these three, the preponderance of cases is, I am quite
convinced, "everything on Windows is buggy". Netscape and typical
OS-independant bugginess pales in comparison.
>And they used to charge for it...something like that should be free. And
>the DOJ concurrs....they are leaning towards keeping the browser with the OS
>if they split Microsoft.
Quite a capitalist sentiment you're upholding, eh?
>One thing to remember, Netscape was even more cruel and unethical in its
>dealings with small browser companies prior to IE showing up than MS ever
>was to Netscape...what goes around comes around.
One thing to remember, Netscape didn't leverage one monopoly to build another.
They may have tried, but business always will (thus the anti-trust laws). But
that doesn't mean we have to live with the results of "successful" attempts to
monopolize.
>> Obviously you haven't read the findings of fact. Macroshit achieved
>> their monopoly by telling their customers "Either you change to our
>> software, or stick with competitors which we will make buggy with the
>> next version of our present OS, or don't upgrade the OS." Really
>> costomer friendly offering alternatives like that.
>
>No, they didn't. Their OS is the monopoly, not their software. Their OS is
>not under fire, and never was...even though that is where their monopoly
>lies.
You misinterpret. Their integration of an application with their OS is under
fire, and always has been. It is the use of that monopoly (not, in fact, the
development of that monopoly, for esoteric reasons of jurisprudence) to
attempt to build another monopoly (web browsers) which is the predicate,
though not the entirety of the scope, of the case.
>Here is a model of how Microsoft got to be the best at its software...it
>isn't pretty, but it isn't unethical either.
>
>MS Access sucked when it was created. Badly. Foxpro was the best in the
>low end database world. Microsoft tried making a partnership with Foxpro.
>Foxpro didn't want to deal with big bad microsoft.
I don't agree at all with this characterization. What makes you think that
FoxBase (it didn't become FoxPro until after Microsoft's acquisition) "didn't
want to deal with big bad microsoft"?
>Microsoft initiated a
>hostile takeover, bought foxpro through the shareholders, and took the
>technology and used it in Access. Now Access is the best in the low end
>database market.
Actually, you will probably find more knowledgeable people who will tell you
that MS bought FoxBase, released FoxPro in order to migrate FoxBase users to
Windows, where MS could lock them in, and then dumped FoxPro entirely. There
isn't any "technology", AFAIK, of Fox in Access; they took the *market* and
used it in Access. This screwed FoxPro users, of course, but to hell with
them, right?
>It had nothing to do with changes to their OS or anything
>that abused their monopoly. There was ONE case of what you are discussing,
>and even then its a runaround example...with Netscape vs. Explorer. The
>alterations that made netscape buggy were not in the OS, but in the internet
>itself when microsoft switched to a standard netscape didn't support and
>watched the content on the internet follow their lead.
I''m sorry, you're getting too outrageous for me to address. Your knowledge
of events before your time seems simplistic and limited, and your cognizance
of events of the moment is equally dubious. Its tough, given how seriously I
take my own opinions, but I must suggest that you realize that your
understanding of these issues seems based on a few casual remarks made by
uninformed people, rather than any real knowledge of the situations you
describe. The truth of your words is based on their validity, not your
assessment of their validity. There is little truth in your words.
JackiePrice
even
> >noticeable tacked on to the cost of your computer system...hell, a mouse
can
> >cost more now. Of course it costs more than Linux...but try to go to
your
> >local Electronics Boutique to buy your favorite software and games for
> >Linux.
>
> Your tired (and pathetic, not to mention self-referential, though I don't
mean
> this as an insult to you, but simply as a comment on the widespread
sentiment
> you voice) comment about application support market aside, the prices of
> Windows is quite at issue. The cost of the mouse can be included as a
> separate line item by the manufacturer; it generally isn't, but simply by
> their volition. The cost of the OS, however, is REQUIRED by Microsoft's
OEM
> licensing practices to NOT be identified to the customer as a separate
line
> item. Whether computer manufacturers would consider it prudent or not is
not
> determinant.
Could be different here in Canada. The cost of the operating system has
always been shown by our OEMS, even the big ones, like Dell, in the
breakdown of the system cost. Perhaps laws in Canada prevent such a
requirement, so I was not aware of it. In any event, its just as easy here
to get a system bundled with Linux or BeOS...
When I said its so cheap that its hardly noticeable, I meant that $120
Canadian money (or $80 US) is barely a noticeable addition to the cost of a
new system, not that you could not actually see the cost.
> >Very true. And its still pretty stable. I'm not saying it couldn't be
> >better...they are still unsuccessfully trying to merge an ancient 8 bit
OS
> >with a 32 bit one, allowing some flexibility, but causing all types of
other
> >problems. I was hoping to see the last vestiges of DOS gone from
> >Win2000...its still there though.
>
> No, its not. There's a command prompt. That ain't DOS. NT (Win2K)
doesn't
> have any "DOS", just "DOS-isms". And why you would want all backward
> compatibility to disappear is beyond me (unless your just as young and
naive
> as I'm beginning to suspect, if you'll excuse me for saying so).
>
Some of the basics are still there in the underlying code. The CLI from DOS
is still there, the commands are still there, and the operating system is
still relying slightly on them. To be more specific though, peices of
Windows 3.x are still sitting there under the OS in abundance, lousy 16 bit
code.
I am fully in favor of legacy support, in the form of emulation rather than
built right into the kernel of the OS. It would be slower, but it would be
stable. Most of the instability of Windows 9x comes from trying to
integrate DOS/Windows/Win32 into one kernel...unsuccessfully trying to
provide full backwards compatibility with 15 year old software.
> I don't agree at all with this characterization. What makes you think
that
> FoxBase (it didn't become FoxPro until after Microsoft's acquisition)
"didn't
> want to deal with big bad microsoft"?
>
Fairly old story...could be wrong, but I was told it a number of times.
> Actually, you will probably find more knowledgeable people who will tell
you
> that MS bought FoxBase, released FoxPro in order to migrate FoxBase users
to
> Windows, where MS could lock them in, and then dumped FoxPro entirely.
There
> isn't any "technology", AFAIK, of Fox in Access; they took the *market*
and
> used it in Access. This screwed FoxPro users, of course, but to hell with
> them, right?
That's my own personal opinion...I don't believe MS had the capability to
take Access from a buggy, poorly featured database in one version, to the
most stable, fully featured low end database application the next version,
almost overnight, coinciding very conveniently with their acquisition of
Foxbase. Just the skeptic in me...I tend to think the core of the current
MS Access was not MS developed. But then the DOS core of Windows9x was not
MS developed either...
pik...@aol.com
I knew I had the answer!!!!!
Andy P.
Best of the Web
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 13:14:33 GMT, "JackiePrice" <nos...@NOSPAM.ca>
wrote:
>> >At the home user level? An operating system is cheap. Win98 SE is not
>even
>> >noticeable tacked on to the cost of your computer system...hell, a mouse
>can
>> >cost more now. Of course it costs more than Linux...but try to go to
>your
>> >local Electronics Boutique to buy your favorite software and games for
>> >Linux.
>>
>> Your tired (and pathetic, not to mention self-referential, though I don't
>mean
>> this as an insult to you, but simply as a comment on the widespread
>sentiment
>> you voice) comment about application support market aside, the prices of
>> Windows is quite at issue. The cost of the mouse can be included as a
>> separate line item by the manufacturer; it generally isn't, but simply by
>> their volition. The cost of the OS, however, is REQUIRED by Microsoft's
>OEM
>> licensing practices to NOT be identified to the customer as a separate
>line
>> item. Whether computer manufacturers would consider it prudent or not is
>not
>> determinant.
>
>Could be different here in Canada. The cost of the operating system has
>always been shown by our OEMS, even the big ones, like Dell, in the
>breakdown of the system cost. Perhaps laws in Canada prevent such a
>requirement, so I was not aware of it. In any event, its just as easy here
>to get a system bundled with Linux or BeOS...
>
>When I said its so cheap that its hardly noticeable, I meant that $120
>Canadian money (or $80 US) is barely a noticeable addition to the cost of a
>new system, not that you could not actually see the cost.
>
>
>
>> >Very true. And its still pretty stable. I'm not saying it couldn't be
>> >better...they are still unsuccessfully trying to merge an ancient 8 bit
>OS
>> >with a 32 bit one, allowing some flexibility, but causing all types of
>other
>> >problems. I was hoping to see the last vestiges of DOS gone from
>> >Win2000...its still there though.
>>
>> No, its not. There's a command prompt. That ain't DOS. NT (Win2K)
>doesn't
>> have any "DOS", just "DOS-isms". And why you would want all backward
>> compatibility to disappear is beyond me (unless your just as young and
>naive
>> as I'm beginning to suspect, if you'll excuse me for saying so).
>>
>
>Some of the basics are still there in the underlying code. The CLI from DOS
>is still there, the commands are still there, and the operating system is
>still relying slightly on them. To be more specific though, peices of
>Windows 3.x are still sitting there under the OS in abundance, lousy 16 bit
>code.
>
>I am fully in favor of legacy support, in the form of emulation rather than
>built right into the kernel of the OS. It would be slower, but it would be
>stable. Most of the instability of Windows 9x comes from trying to
>integrate DOS/Windows/Win32 into one kernel...unsuccessfully trying to
>provide full backwards compatibility with 15 year old software.
>
>> I don't agree at all with this characterization. What makes you think
>that
>> FoxBase (it didn't become FoxPro until after Microsoft's acquisition)
>"didn't
>> want to deal with big bad microsoft"?
>>
>
>Fairly old story...could be wrong, but I was told it a number of times.
>
>> Actually, you will probably find more knowledgeable people who will tell
>you
>> that MS bought FoxBase, released FoxPro in order to migrate FoxBase users
>to
>> Windows, where MS could lock them in, and then dumped FoxPro entirely.
>There
>> isn't any "technology", AFAIK, of Fox in Access; they took the *market*
>and
>> used it in Access. This screwed FoxPro users, of course, but to hell with
>> them, right?
>
>That's my own personal opinion...I don't believe MS had the capability to
>take Access from a buggy, poorly featured database in one version, to the
>most stable, fully featured low end database application the next version,
>almost overnight, coinciding very conveniently with their acquisition of
>Foxbase. Just the skeptic in me...I tend to think the core of the current
>MS Access was not MS developed. But then the DOS core of Windows9x was not
>MS developed either...
>
>
>
>
Andy P.
Best of the Web
http://Look.Bestoftheweb.com
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>Could be different here in Canada. The cost of the operating system has
>always been shown by our OEMS, even the big ones, like Dell, in the
>breakdown of the system cost. Perhaps laws in Canada prevent such a
>requirement, so I was not aware of it. In any event, its just as easy here
>to get a system bundled with Linux or BeOS...
I was unaware that Windows was listed with a line-item cost on Canadian
systems. Yes, I suspect that is a matter of law; MS doesn't seem to have any
problem 'getting away with it' in the States. I must doubt, however, quite
strongly, that it is "just as easy" to get a non-Windows system. Are you
saying that Dell offers alternative OSes pre-installed in Canada? This would
surely be news.
>When I said its so cheap that its hardly noticeable, I meant that $120
>Canadian money (or $80 US) is barely a noticeable addition to the cost of a
>new system, not that you could not actually see the cost.
Tell that to the guys who are trying to make and build software, where
marginal profits on a thousand dollar system might typically be less than the
cost of the monopoly OS.
[...]
>Some of the basics are still there in the underlying code. The CLI from DOS
>is still there, the commands are still there, and the operating system is
>still relying slightly on them. To be more specific though, peices of
>Windows 3.x are still sitting there under the OS in abundance, lousy 16 bit
>code.
Since you, I must assume, have no access to Windows source code, I suspect
that you are misinterpreting the fact that the display, characteristics, and
behavior of the software is the same as "old code". It was my understanding
that Win2K was a re-packaged and modified NT implementation. Any 16 bit code
would be there only to provide compatibility. Nevertheless, I will agree that
Win2K still has an abundance of lousy, archaic code. But this just shows that
actually "recoding" a system is far more expensive than simply "recreating
from scratch". Unfortunately, that cannot ensure that the benefits of the
original system (including such dubious "benefits" as 'bug for bug
compatibility) are still available in the new code. Thus Microsoft's
difficulty in abandoning the OS/2 LanManager derivative which they use for
file and print service support, and the resultant dependency on NetBIOS, is
tantamount to Novell's failure to "support IP" in the 'complete and
transparent' manner they have been promising their customers for years.
I suspect that, like me, you are more disgruntled by Microsoft's inability to
admit to the continued use of old code, than the fact that they do so.
>I am fully in favor of legacy support, in the form of emulation rather than
>built right into the kernel of the OS. It would be slower, but it would be
>stable. Most of the instability of Windows 9x comes from trying to
>integrate DOS/Windows/Win32 into one kernel...unsuccessfully trying to
>provide full backwards compatibility with 15 year old software.
My own take is that most of the instability is due to the Registry, but I have
insufficient technical knowledge to debate this point.
>> I don't agree at all with this characterization. What makes you think that
>> FoxBase (it didn't become FoxPro until after Microsoft's acquisition) "didn't
>> want to deal with big bad microsoft"?
>>
>
>Fairly old story...could be wrong, but I was told it a number of times.
And did you ever consider "didn't want to agree to a suicidal agreement" was
what the code "didn't want to deal with big bad microsoft" meant?
>That's my own personal opinion...I don't believe MS had the capability to
>take Access from a buggy, poorly featured database in one version, to the
>most stable, fully featured low end database application the next version,
>almost overnight, coinciding very conveniently with their acquisition of
>Foxbase. Just the skeptic in me...I tend to think the core of the current
>MS Access was not MS developed. But then the DOS core of Windows9x was not
>MS developed either...
You may very well be right. I was unsure, though, whether you were basing
this on the assumptions you've enumerated (quite valid, IMHO, if you are very
familiar with the products) or some particular knowledge of the code or
feature sets.
Generally, I think it is safe to assume that when Microsoft provides "the most
stable, fully featured" anything, it is simply because they managed to remove
any more stable or more fully featured alternatives from the marketplace
through anti-competitive means, including "destroying" the source of the
threat to the monopoly. In other words, it isn't that much more stable, it
just looks that way because there are no more stable alternatives. I seem to
recall the Access version you describe was released tangentially with some
major improvements responsible for making MS's "back-end API" system (DLL,
OLE, ActiveX; I'm not sure what they called it at the time) much more
functional than it was before (not hard; it was a disaster before).
Still, I would agree; it wouldn't surprise me if your assessment is correct.
But I would question your use of "developed" as an absolute activity. MS most
surely did "develop" MS-DOS. The fact that it was based on existing code
might indicate that they hadn't "developed" the product, but I think you must
take into account the amount and extent of the changes made with ensuing
versions. After all, there hasn't really been a "new" piece of software since
the first 'if-then' conditional expression was written, in some regards.
JackiePrice
> systems. Yes, I suspect that is a matter of law; MS doesn't seem to have
any
> problem 'getting away with it' in the States. I must doubt, however,
quite
> strongly, that it is "just as easy" to get a non-Windows system. Are you
> saying that Dell offers alternative OSes pre-installed in Canada? This
would
> surely be news.
>
Heh...I had to check (I wouldn't buy from a manufacturer like Dell
ever...and they are my favorite of the big brand name manufacturers that
sell in Canada).
You cannot go to there web site and order Linux preinstalled on your Dell
computer here. You have 9 choices of OS, all of them Microsoft. Dell has
their deals, they can offer whatever they wish to.
I do know you can order these operating systems preinstalled if you are a
big company...but then you can order just about anything as a big company.
Lets just say that at the local computer store you can get what you like. I
don't know if its different there, but most people I know, computer literate
or not, disdain the big Dell, Compaq, or IBM brand names in favor of
individual computer stores that custom build them around here...I suppose it
is not so easy if you go specifically to Dell.
> I suspect that, like me, you are more disgruntled by Microsoft's inability
to
> admit to the continued use of old code, than the fact that they do so.
>
Hell yes! Rebuild from scratch! Linux is the same thing...built on an
ancient operating system...of them all I have the most respect for BeOS,
which was created from scratch I believe...
> My own take is that most of the instability is due to the Registry, but I
have
> insufficient technical knowledge to debate this point.
>
Heh...don't get me started on the registry...how hard is it to keep track of
what data and files you've installed and where you put them? I could do it
with a pen and paper better than the windows registry does.
This is my take on it: natural instability in the Windows9x kernel seems to
come primarily from mixing 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit code. Progressively
worse instability that eventually forces a power user to reformat and
reinstall windows9x every 6 months is likely caused by registry problems.
> And did you ever consider "didn't want to agree to a suicidal agreement"
was
> what the code "didn't want to deal with big bad microsoft" meant?
>
Hmm...Microsoft force a suicide agreement on somebody? I couldn't imagine
it...
Yes...the "Big Bad Microsoft" was partly serious....I know I wouldn't want
their attention.
> You may very well be right. I was unsure, though, whether you were basing
> this on the assumptions you've enumerated (quite valid, IMHO, if you are
very
> familiar with the products) or some particular knowledge of the code or
> feature sets.
>
Totally based on those assumptions. I could be quite wrong...and it would
be just an amazing coincidence. I tend to disbelieve amazing coincidences
are truly coincidences...but they could be.
> Generally, I think it is safe to assume that when Microsoft provides "the
most
> stable, fully featured" anything, it is simply because they managed to
remove
> any more stable or more fully featured alternatives from the marketplace
> through anti-competitive means, including "destroying" the source of the
> threat to the monopoly. In other words, it isn't that much more stable,
it
> just looks that way because there are no more stable alternatives. I seem
to
> recall the Access version you describe was released tangentially with some
> major improvements responsible for making MS's "back-end API" system (DLL,
> OLE, ActiveX; I'm not sure what they called it at the time) much more
> functional than it was before (not hard; it was a disaster before).
>
Agreed.
> But I would question your use of "developed" as an absolute activity. MS
most
> surely did "develop" MS-DOS. The fact that it was based on existing code
> might indicate that they hadn't "developed" the product, but I think you
must
> take into account the amount and extent of the changes made with ensuing
> versions. After all, there hasn't really been a "new" piece of software
since
> the first 'if-then' conditional expression was written, in some regards.
>
Point taken...I refer to the initial development of a product from scratch,
not subsequent revisions of it.
In the case of Foxbase/Access, I would tend to think of it as a fusion of
the file format Access was using with the core of Foxbase. To put it in
terms I can present more clearly, I'll say that I suspect the basic engine
for Access was ripped out of Foxbase...(game engines are a big thing...Half
Life was supposedly a revolutionary game, but that's an artistic judgement.
From a programming perspective, they licensed Quake II's engine and made few
changes.)
Damien
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
| > I suspect that, like me, you are more disgruntled by Microsoft's inability
| to
| > admit to the continued use of old code, than the fact that they do so.
| >
|
| Hell yes! Rebuild from scratch! Linux is the same thing...built on an
| ancient operating system...of them all I have the most respect for BeOS,
| which was created from scratch I believe...
For the record, GNU/Linux was built from scratch. The design was
pilfered from UNIX, but all the code is new. All the advantages of 30
years of development, but none of the legacy code.
T. Max Devlin
I said this, but other's may not be so sure. Thanks.
Quoting JackiePrice from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 20:43:32 GMT
>> I suspect that, like me, you are more disgruntled by Microsoft's inability to
>> admit to the continued use of old code, than the fact that they do so.
>
>Hell yes! Rebuild from scratch! Linux is the same thing...built on an
>ancient operating system...of them all I have the most respect for BeOS,
>which was created from scratch I believe...
If only it were so trivial to "rebuild from scratch", it might be wise to do
so, as well. In the real world, it is neither. However, I'll point out that
Linux isn't built on an ancient operating system; it was implemented "from
scratch", but *without rejecting the experience of three decades of what makes
an OS useful and powerful*. It may seem ludicrous, but I assure you I am
serious in saying, that the use of the *nix conventions and architecture that
Linus performed was because he understood the reality of "ease of use". In
other words, once you already know how to use something, it is "easy to use".
Throwing out the baby with the bath water (and then trying to rebuild the baby
molecule by molecule) seems to be the image I get of your desire to abandon
all success previous to less capable and widely supported attempts to design a
"better" OS.
>> My own take is that most of the instability is due to the Registry, but I have
>> insufficient technical knowledge to debate this point.
>>
>
>Heh...don't get me started on the registry...how hard is it to keep track of
>what data and files you've installed and where you put them? I could do it
>with a pen and paper better than the windows registry does.
Heh.
>This is my take on it: natural instability in the Windows9x kernel seems to
>come primarily from mixing 8 bit, 16 bit and 32 bit code. Progressively
>worse instability that eventually forces a power user to reformat and
>reinstall windows9x every 6 months is likely caused by registry problems.
That sounds like a reasonable assessment.
>> And did you ever consider "didn't want to agree to a suicidal agreement" was
>> what the code "didn't want to deal with big bad microsoft" meant?
>>
>
>Hmm...Microsoft force a suicide agreement on somebody? I couldn't imagine it...
>Yes...the "Big Bad Microsoft" was partly serious....I know I wouldn't want
>their attention.
>
>> You may very well be right. I was unsure, though, whether you were basing
>> this on the assumptions you've enumerated (quite valid, IMHO, if you are very
>> familiar with the products) or some particular knowledge of the code or
>> feature sets.
>>
>
>Totally based on those assumptions. I could be quite wrong...and it would
>be just an amazing coincidence. I tend to disbelieve amazing coincidences
>are truly coincidences...but they could be.
I think we can get along real well, Jackie. But I gotta tell you, I think
you'll soon be attracting the attention of our resident trolls, with that kind
of "I can rely on my own assessment" attitude. :-)
>>[...]I seem to
>> recall the Access version you describe was released tangentially with some
>> major improvements responsible for making MS's "back-end API" system (DLL,
>> OLE, ActiveX; I'm not sure what they called it at the time) much more
>> functional than it was before (not hard; it was a disaster before).
>>
>
>Agreed.
[...]
>Point taken...I refer to the initial development of a product from scratch,
>not subsequent revisions of it.
>In the case of Foxbase/Access, I would tend to think of it as a fusion of
>the file format Access was using with the core of Foxbase. To put it in
>terms I can present more clearly, I'll say that I suspect the basic engine
>for Access was ripped out of Foxbase...(game engines are a big thing...Half
>Life was supposedly a revolutionary game, but that's an artistic judgement.
>From a programming perspective, they licensed Quake II's engine and made few
>changes.)
That seems quite possible.
Leonard F. Agius
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Quoting JackiePrice from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:26:51 GMT
> >
> >Prior to Microsoft's ascension, computers were a disaster. There were a
> >hundred competing OS's, with different software for each. You had to pick
> >and choose not based merely upon what was the best hardware, but on what it
> >would support.
>
> Prior to Microsoft's reign of terror, computers were an open architecture,
> competitive landscape of many inter-compatible vendors. You could pick which
> Operating System you wanted based on what applications it supported, or pick
> which applications you wanted based on what Operating System you had. You
> could even consider changing from one operating system to another, or one
> application to another, without anyone making it intentionally hard (though it
> is by no means easy to migrate software use). It was, in short, a typical
> market.
>
What a load of bull. Prior to Microsoft, computers were so complicated that the
average Joe just avoided them. You didn't have the extensive amount of consumer
applications, nor was the industry headed toward making things easier to use, ala
USB, Firewire, etc.
>
> >Microsoft changed that.
> >
> >Everything is standard now, you can pretty much be sure any application,
> >tool, or game will run on any PC in North America, unless you are running a
> >specialty operating system like Linux, or hardware like a Mac.
>
> So, you can be sure that everything runs as long as "everything" only includes
> Microsoft software? Nothing is "standard", it is simply a monopoly. It is
> not terribly surprising that many people don't understand or recognize the
> difference, since software is a concept much more complicated than watching
> movies you rented at Block Buster.
>
Tough. What the mass market wants is something as easy to use as the movie you
rented at Block Buster. What most of you don't realize is that among computer
users, newbies who want everything as easy as turnignon their TV now out number
you. And you just don't like it.
>
> >Even
> >better, when I get my operating system, I get free web browsers, free word
> >processors, free tools, and they are all standard, used by everyone else.
>
> THey aren't standard, they are the only 'choices' you have available. You
> honestly don't mind being taken advantage of, having your choices technically
> limited, and paying higher prices in a non-competitive market where your
> requirements are meaningless, except as they happen to overlap with "everyone
> else's"?
>
Most people (again - the mass market) don't care. They want to be using the exact
file formats they use at work, that their neighbors and friends use. The want a
common standard, monopoly or not. Get over it.
>
> >The file format they use can be interpretted by just about anything.
>
> I must question your knowledge of even the fundamental concepts of software
> and computing. This statement is utter nonsense. You are trolling.
> Normally, I try to have a lot of sympathy for people who post vapid tirades
> such as your own in alt.destroy.microsoft. They are motivated by fear, and I
> cannot fault anyone for responding to their lack of understanding of software
> and computing concepts with fear; it is a natural human reaction.
>
> Nevertheless, to go so far as to post meaningless gibberish such as this. You
> obviously feel that you have a useful perspective of the PC software market,
> but that doesn't mean you do. Nor does the difficulty in explaining your
> errors accrue from the righteousness of your position; it comes from the fact
> that the explanation relies on concepts you have obviously not yet grasped,
> such as "standard" "software", "file format", "interpret", etc.
And you're coming across as a techno-geek snob that wants to keep Personal
Computing as complicated as possible to keep it the domain of the techie, and out
of the hands of the mom & pop user.
>
>
> >Not
> >only that, they are all integrated into the operating system so that they
> >can all call on each other and seamlessly work together without you ever
> >really noticing you've used more than one application.
>
> What makes you think a piece of software which isn't "integrated into the
> operating system" (i.e. 'bolted on', 'crammed down your throat, etc.) is not
> capable of doing this?
>
Actually, on this point you're right. There are some better choices than what's
integrated into the OS. I use PowerDesk exclusively, instead of My Computer or
Windows Explorer. I use FixIt Utilities disk scanning and deframenting tools, Pain
SHop Pro instead of Paint, etc. I paid for each one, and I have no regrets. My
neighbors and friends who are all newbie stick with what comes with Windows. Their
choice. THeir choice, too, not to learn to use better tools.
>
> >This is my
> >ideal...if the stability issues are really worked out with Windows2000, this
> >is what I want to see...total, seemless integration and a minimal cost to
> >the end user.
>
> You want "PCs for dummies". That's fine by me; I support your right to have
> them. Unfortunately, if the only way you can figure out to get them is to
> support a criminal monopoly and restrict others' access to more capable and
> flexible systems, well, then you're screwed, I'm afraid. What makes you think
> that in order to make computers simple for you, we must ensure that nobody
> else has any choices? A correctly competitive market can provide all the
> benefits you seek; it wasn't Microsoft that "saved us" from intricacy and
> incompatibility, it was the twenty years of PC software development which
> Microsoft has convinced you it deserves all credit for.
>
Actually, no, we're not screwed. Some of the goals that may be achieved by
breaking up MS are already negated by several factors. The amount of PC's out
there, mostly in the hands of newbie users and business, who have nothing to gain
by changing OS's. Consequently there is no profit motive for software companies to
write anything for an alternative OS, nor hardware manufacturers to port their
products to an alternative OS. Profit motive, at this point, is everything,
especially now with so much hardware being ported to USB.
Furthermore, one of the first real attempts to mass market a complete alternative
package, Corral Line, and WordPerfect Suite for Linux, may be harmed by the
financial troubles Corel has themselves in. Three to six months of cash left in
the coffers, and they may go under without a merger partner.
Too late. With every corporate give away of cheap PCs (ala Ford Motor Co), comes
even more Windows customers who will never see an alternative. In the last three
months, corporate America has committed to giving away over 600,000 free PC, most
of them going to first time users. Software and hardware developers take notice of
stuff like that.
You sir, and every person who wants consideration for an alternative OS, are now
considered fringe users, and there is no profit motive in serving a niche market
that is fragmented. Hell, almost no one writes software for Apple OS, and that's
the next largest OS segment.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> Manager of Research & Educational Services
> Managed Services
> ELTRAX Technology Services Group
> mde...@eltrax.com
> -[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
> my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
> applicable licensing agreement]-
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
Damien
Leonard F. Agius <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
| What a load of bull. Prior to Microsoft, computers were so complicated that the
| average Joe just avoided them. You didn't have the extensive amount of consumer
| applications, nor was the industry headed toward making things easier to use, ala
| USB, Firewire, etc.
Prior to MS the idea of the 'personal computer' was brand new.
Computers were thing that belonged to universities and corporations,
usually large mainframes attached to many different workstations.
| Tough. What the mass market wants is something as easy to use as the movie you
| rented at Block Buster. What most of you don't realize is that among computer
| users, newbies who want everything as easy as turnignon their TV now out number
| you. And you just don't like it.
Ease-of-use generally means sacrificing capabilities. TV's are easy
to use, but they don't do much. VCR's are easy to use, unless you
start trying to do the advanced stuff. (Exactly how do you record the
made for TV movie that comes on at 8pm and ends at 10 three weeks from
Wednesday when you are going to be out of town for the month?) And
Redhat GNU/Linux is easy as easy to use as Windows if you limit
yourself to the things you can do on Windows.
| Most people (again - the mass market) don't care. They want to be using the exact
| file formats they use at work, that their neighbors and friends use. The want a
| common standard, monopoly or not. Get over it.
So you agree common standard file formats are better then everyone
having to use MS software so they can use MS file formats?
| > >Not
| > >only that, they are all integrated into the operating system so that they
| > >can all call on each other and seamlessly work together without you ever
| > >really noticing you've used more than one application.
30 years of Unix development has shown that small applications that
operate within well defined parameters are more powerful, flexible,
modular, easier to develop, and stable then monolithic applications
like office suites.
T. Max Devlin
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Quoting JackiePrice from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:26:51 GMT
>> >
>> >Prior to Microsoft's ascension, computers were a disaster. There were a
>> >hundred competing OS's, with different software for each. You had to pick
>> >and choose not based merely upon what was the best hardware, but on what it
>> >would support.
>>
>> Prior to Microsoft's reign of terror, computers were an open architecture,
>> competitive landscape of many inter-compatible vendors. You could pick which
>> Operating System you wanted based on what applications it supported, or pick
>> which applications you wanted based on what Operating System you had. You
>> could even consider changing from one operating system to another, or one
>> application to another, without anyone making it intentionally hard (though it
>> is by no means easy to migrate software use). It was, in short, a typical
>> market.
>>
>
>What a load of bull. Prior to Microsoft, computers were so complicated that the
>average Joe just avoided them. You didn't have the extensive amount of consumer
>applications, nor was the industry headed toward making things easier to use, ala
>USB, Firewire, etc.
You are correct. Prior to the time that Microsoft locked up a pre-load
monopoly, we didn't have these things, and computers were "harder to use"
(which is to say they were easier to use once you learned them, but harder to
learn). But the way you say "prior to Microsoft" makes me believe you don't
think it was simply the fact that Microsoft locked up that pre-load monopoly
in 1986 or so; you think it is *because* of Microsoft that computers have
gotten "easier to use" (which is to say that they are harder to use, because
there's nothing to learn except "the software does it [unless it doesn't and
then you're screwed because you're clueless and the OS you're using was made
for six year olds]").
Attributing all advances in computers "since Microsoft" *to* Microsoft is the
kind of ignorance that made Microsoft what it is today.
>> >Microsoft changed that.
>> >
>> >Everything is standard now, you can pretty much be sure any application,
>> >tool, or game will run on any PC in North America, unless you are running a
>> >specialty operating system like Linux, or hardware like a Mac.
>>
>> So, you can be sure that everything runs as long as "everything" only includes
>> Microsoft software? Nothing is "standard", it is simply a monopoly. It is
>> not terribly surprising that many people don't understand or recognize the
>> difference, since software is a concept much more complicated than watching
>> movies you rented at Block Buster.
>>
>
>Tough. What the mass market wants is something as easy to use as the movie you
>rented at Block Buster.
Tough. They can't have it. It isn't a PC. Its a Nintendo. Have fun.
>What most of you don't realize is that among computer
>users, newbies who want everything as easy as turnignon their TV now out number
>you. And you just don't like it.
What you don't realize is that it is not up to us to say what the market
wants. Nor is it up to Microsoft, or the government. It is up to the market.
Since Microsoft has been manipulating the market for more than a decade with
the purpose of ensuring that people have the same misconceptions and demand
for easy answers that you do, I would say you aren't even qualified to
interpret any observations you may have of the market and what they want.
You want to hear how I interpret my observation of the market? People want A
LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. Case closed.
>Most people (again - the mass market) don't care. They want to be using the exact
>file formats they use at work, that their neighbors and friends use. The want a
>common standard, monopoly or not. Get over it.
Forgive me for again pointing out that, despite the fact that you have a valid
point in your identification "market desires", you are not the mass market's
appointed representative, and your massive over-simplifying of technical
requirements such as file formats sounds a lot like "people want to not have
to move, act, or think". Which may, indeed, be true. Still, those same
"people" (as we are talking in generalities, obviously) also want to move, act
and think. They want file formats that are efficient for their purpose. They
want something BETTER than what their friends and neighbors use. They want
something cheaper. They want something with more luxuries and pretty colors.
They want something more robust and dependable. THEY WANT A LOT OF THINGS.
One could even go so far as to suggest they want EVERYTHING.
Common standards; here here. I'm all for it. Let's start with a nice
open-source Unix implementation with one of the most capable and complete GUI
ever developed.... {that would be Linux with something like Gnome, in case
you missed it.)
>> >The file format they use can be interpretted by just about anything.
>>
>> I must question your knowledge of even the fundamental concepts of software
>> and computing. This statement is utter nonsense. You are trolling.
>> Normally, I try to have a lot of sympathy for people who post vapid tirades
>> such as your own in alt.destroy.microsoft. They are motivated by fear, and I
>> cannot fault anyone for responding to their lack of understanding of software
>> and computing concepts with fear; it is a natural human reaction.
>>
>> Nevertheless, to go so far as to post meaningless gibberish such as this. You
>> obviously feel that you have a useful perspective of the PC software market,
>> but that doesn't mean you do. Nor does the difficulty in explaining your
>> errors accrue from the righteousness of your position; it comes from the fact
>> that the explanation relies on concepts you have obviously not yet grasped,
>> such as "standard" "software", "file format", "interpret", etc.
>
>And you're coming across as a techno-geek snob that wants to keep Personal
>Computing as complicated as possible to keep it the domain of the techie, and out
>of the hands of the mom & pop user.
That's silly.
>
>Actually, on this point you're right. There are some better choices than what's
>integrated into the OS. I use PowerDesk exclusively, instead of My Computer or
>Windows Explorer. I use FixIt Utilities disk scanning and deframenting tools, Pain
>SHop Pro instead of Paint, etc. I paid for each one, and I have no regrets. My
>neighbors and friends who are all newbie stick with what comes with Windows. Their
>choice. THeir choice, too, not to learn to use better tools.
Sort of. If we had a more rational understanding of software (which, alas, I
must risk again sounding like a... what was it... "techno-geek snob" and point
out THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO LEARN HOW SOFTWARE AND COMPUTERS WORK) then we
would certainly see more than enough competition so that they wouldn't have to
work so hard to find better tools.
You remarked, I noticed, that you indicated they didn't do the one thing
necessary to use better tools: learn better tools. So you do agree that
learning is the key to using computers. So why am I a techno-geek snob when I
point out, as a teacher, that you have to learn the subject in order to use
the tools?
[...]
>> You want "PCs for dummies". That's fine by me; I support your right to have
>> them. Unfortunately, if the only way you can figure out to get them is to
>> support a criminal monopoly and restrict others' access to more capable and
>> flexible systems, well, then you're screwed, I'm afraid. What makes you think
>> that in order to make computers simple for you, we must ensure that nobody
>> else has any choices? A correctly competitive market can provide all the
>> benefits you seek; it wasn't Microsoft that "saved us" from intricacy and
>> incompatibility, it was the twenty years of PC software development which
>> Microsoft has convinced you it deserves all credit for.
>
>Actually, no, we're not screwed. Some of the goals that may be achieved by
>breaking up MS are already negated by several factors. The amount of PC's out
>there, mostly in the hands of newbie users and business, who have nothing to gain
>by changing OS's. Consequently there is no profit motive for software companies to
>write anything for an alternative OS, nor hardware manufacturers to port their
>products to an alternative OS. Profit motive, at this point, is everything,
>especially now with so much hardware being ported to USB.
Under this logic, there would be no market for any new MS software, either.
There isn't a limit to the number of pieces of software that a person can buy;
if there is any limit to the market, it is because of the short-sightedness of
those making software, not any saturation level of newbie users. Your
assumption that yet another hardware interface (this one another Microsoft
scam) is going to somehow make profit motive more important than it was before
was either confused, or a sign of your naivete. ("The next big" anything is
never anything big.)
>Furthermore, one of the first real attempts to mass market a complete alternative
>package, Corral Line, and WordPerfect Suite for Linux, may be harmed by the
>financial troubles Corel has themselves in. Three to six months of cash left in
>the coffers, and they may go under without a merger partner.
Corel *has themselves* in? Here I thought having Microsoft convicted of
anti-trust crimes would have helped people understand these issue a little
more clearly.
[...]
>> Wake up and smell the coffee, Jackie. You are not going to be facilitating
>> any productive discussions with this kind of shallow thinking. I realize that
>> "life would be easier if I didn't have to worry about which OS/applications to
>> use", but then again, life would be easier if a) you never had to make any
>> choices, and b) software compatibility didn't rely on require limiting your
>> choices to a single software vendor.
>>
>Too late. With every corporate give away of cheap PCs (ala Ford Motor Co), comes
>even more Windows customers who will never see an alternative. In the last three
>months, corporate America has committed to giving away over 600,000 free PC, most
>of them going to first time users. Software and hardware developers take notice of
>stuff like that.
Boy, you really are a young pup, aren't you? You think this is a change in
the situation? Why exactly do you think the government is contemplating
breaking up Microsoft (and/or worse)?
>You sir, and every person who wants consideration for an alternative OS, are now
>considered fringe users, and there is no profit motive in serving a niche market
>that is fragmented. Hell, almost no one writes software for Apple OS, and that's
>the next largest OS segment.
You, kid, have a lot of learning to do. Come back in a couple years. Maybe
your opinions and observations will be interesting, useful, or at least
original, by then.
T. Max Devlin
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 10:53:47 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Leonard F. Agius <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Redhat GNU/Linux is easy as easy to use as Windows if you limit
>yourself to the things you can do on Windows.
Now that's a keeper.
Ketil Z Malde
> What a load of bull. Prior to Microsoft, computers were so
> complicated that the average Joe just avoided them.
Yeah, and then DOS 1.0 came along and, being vastly superior to CP/M
and VMS, eliminated all competition?
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Nigel Feltham
>open-source Unix implementation with one of the most capable and complete
GUI
>ever developed.... {that would be Linux with something like Gnome, in case
>you missed it.)
>
Lets see, common standards means forcing everyone to use Linux running gnome
does it. What about FreeBSD (binary compatible with linux) or BEOS as an
operating system. Even if you decide to use linux you don't have to be
forced to use gnome either as you could also use KDE (my favourite for most
uses), fwm, fwm95 (my favourite on low performance hardware) , windowmaker,
afterstep, blackbox or several other window managers.
The point I am trying to make is that if breaking the microtoss monopoly is
about freedom of choice then why restrict users again by forcing them to use
one specific version of linux running one specific window-manager (even
windblows 3.1 had alternative window managers). Of course linux does have
the advantage that it is possible to run most (all?) applications written
for any window manager on any other window manager as long as the relevent
libraries are installed so users can chose how to use it without restricting
their application choices.
T. Max Devlin
[Actually, it was me, T. Max. I have no idea what Nigel wrote.
>>Common standards; here here. I'm all for it. Let's start with a nice
>>open-source Unix implementation with one of the most capable and complete GUI
>>ever developed.... {that would be Linux with something like Gnome, in case
>>you missed it.)
>
>
>Lets see, common standards means forcing everyone to use Linux running gnome
>does it.
I don't recall saying that.
>What about FreeBSD (binary compatible with linux) or BEOS as an
>operating system. Even if you decide to use linux you don't have to be
>forced to use gnome either as you could also use KDE (my favourite for most
>uses), fwm, fwm95 (my favourite on low performance hardware) , windowmaker,
>afterstep, blackbox or several other window managers.
>The point I am trying to make is that if breaking the microtoss monopoly is
>about freedom of choice then why restrict users again by forcing them to use
>one specific version of linux running one specific window-manager (even
>windblows 3.1 had alternative window managers). Of course linux does have
>the advantage that it is possible to run most (all?) applications written
>for any window manager on any other window manager as long as the relevent
>libraries are installed so users can chose how to use it without restricting
>their application choices.
I didn't say anything at all about forcing anyone or restricting anyone.
Where did you get "one specific version of linux"? And what about "something
like" says "gnome and only gnome"?
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>Max demonstrates once again the wonders of revisionist history. One
>can still pick which OS you want based on what applications it
>supports, or pick which applications you want based on what OS you
>have.
As long as the OS you pick is Windows, and the apps you pick are Office.
Which is as boring as your harping, whining, pointless posts, roger.
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting JackiePrice from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:26:51 GMT
>>Prior to Microsoft's ascension, computers were a disaster. There were a
>>hundred competing OS's, with different software for each. You had to pick
>>and choose not based merely upon what was the best hardware, but on what it
>>would support.
>Prior to Microsoft's reign of terror, computers were an open architecture,
>competitive landscape of many inter-compatible vendors. You could pick which
>Operating System you wanted based on what applications it supported, or pick
>which applications you wanted based on what Operating System you had. You
>could even consider changing from one operating system to another, or one
>application to another, without anyone making it intentionally hard (though it
>is by no means easy to migrate software use). It was, in short, a typical
>market.
Max demonstrates once again the wonders of revisionist history. One
can still pick which OS you want based on what applications it
supports, or pick which applications you want based on what OS you
have.
And he ignores that at the time under discussion, compatibility with
anyone else was not a concern, because if documents were to be
exchanged, it would be via hard copy.
>>Microsoft changed that.
>>
>>Everything is standard now, you can pretty much be sure any application,
>>tool, or game will run on any PC in North America, unless you are running a
>>specialty operating system like Linux, or hardware like a Mac.
>So, you can be sure that everything runs as long as "everything" only includes
>Microsoft software?
Nice strawman, but not what Jackie said.
>Nothing is "standard", it is simply a monopoly.
<Max> Because I Said So! </Max>
>>Even
>>better, when I get my operating system, I get free web browsers, free word
>>processors, free tools, and they are all standard, used by everyone else.
>They aren't standard, they are the only 'choices' you have available.
Ignoring that they are standard, for any non-MaxWorld definition of
the word, and that they are not the only choices...
<snip Max's fantasy based on a deliberate misreading of Jackie's
point>
>>The file format they use can be interpretted by just about anything.
>I must question your knowledge of even the fundamental concepts of software
>and computing. This statement is utter nonsense. You are trolling.
Not that Max is willing or able to support this contention -- the fact
that Max has said it should be enough for anyone.
<snip attacks on Jackie, in the hopes that his hand waving will
distract the reader from noticing the lack of support>
>>Not
>>only that, they are all integrated into the operating system so that they
>>can all call on each other and seamlessly work together without you ever
>>really noticing you've used more than one application.
>What makes you think a piece of software which isn't "integrated into the
>operating system" (i.e. 'bolted on', 'crammed down your throat, etc.) is not
>capable of doing this?
Did Jackie say that it would not be?
Historical note: did anyone else notice Max is now arguing that
third-party software could indeed have this capability -- exactly the
opposite of the view which led to the Bet?
>>This is my
>>ideal...if the stability issues are really worked out with Windows2000, this
>>is what I want to see...total, seemless integration and a minimal cost to
>>the end user.
>You want "PCs for dummies".
More attacks.
>That's fine by me; I support your right to have
>them. Unfortunately, if the only way you can figure out to get them is to
>support a criminal monopoly and restrict others' access to more capable and
>flexible systems, well, then you're screwed, I'm afraid. What makes you think
>that in order to make computers simple for you, we must ensure that nobody
>else has any choices?
What makes * you * think that in making computers simple for Jackie
(and the vast majority of the market which has the same requirements,)
anyone's choice is taken away? Or that even if your strawman was
reality, that Jackie favours such?
>>If it wasn't for Microsoft IE, we'd still be using buggy Netscape and paying
>>$60 for a license to use it. Other things are the same.
>This would be the simplistic explanation, yes. More comprehensive
>explanations point out that "you get what you pay for", "if MS IE could have
>competed on technical merits, they wouldn't have had to commit a crime to try
>to prevent 'buggy Netscape @ $60/license' from being available to you should
>you want it.
And let's just ignore the MS did not prevent NS's availability,
according to the judge...
>>Microsoft has achieved their monopoly because they put more on the table
>>than anybody else at any given time for the end user...more value for less
>>cost, easier use and more integration. I only hope that IF they are broken
>>up, that this type of progress will continue and the computer industry
>>doesn't become so fragmented all over again.
>
>Please read http://www.nylj.com/links/microsoft/findingsfact.html. You may
>find it enlightening to see what someone who is an expert on legal matters has
>to say about how Microsoft achieved their monopoly. Generally, it appears to
>be by lying, blackmail, and fraud, rather than providing value.
At least, that's the way it is in MaxWorld. Here on Earth, Max will
once again completely duck supporting his accusations of lying,
blackmail, and fraud. The only question is, will he snip this and
pretend it wasn't said, or will he launch another of his signature
personal attacks, or just claim it's boring?
<snip more flights of fancy>
John Galt
"T. Max Devlin" <tm...@nbn.net> wrote in message
news:3jcchsctcudv8shfg...@4ax.com...
> Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 00:18:59 GMT
> [...]
> >can still pick which OS you want based on what applications it
> >supports, or pick which applications you want based on what OS you
> >have.
>
> Which is as boring as your harping, whining, pointless posts, roger.
>
Pompous asshole, and a liar to boot.
Ho, hum, I'm bored, says the faggot.
While misrepresenting and editing the brilliant post that devastated him and
left him whimpering with the cockroaches under his bed...
Roger
wrote:
>"Leonard F. Agius" <lfagius...@mediaone.net> writes:
>> What a load of bull. Prior to Microsoft, computers were so
>> complicated that the average Joe just avoided them.
>Yeah, and then DOS 1.0 came along and, being vastly superior to CP/M
>and VMS, eliminated all competition?
For certain values of vastly superior: Available, inexpensive, and
ran on inexpensive hardware.
T. Max Devlin
>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:56:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Ketil Z Malde
>wrote:
>
>>"Leonard F. Agius" <lfagius...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
>>> complicated that the average Joe just avoided them.
>
>>and VMS, eliminated all competition?
>
>For certain values of vastly superior: Available, inexpensive, and
>ran on inexpensive hardware.
CP/M was available, and was already widely implemented. Software costs are
arbitrary, and are a result, not a cause, of market acceptance. CP/M ran on
the same hardware.
Next?
Ketil Z Malde
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:56:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Ketil Z Malde
> wrote:
>
> >"Leonard F. Agius" <lfagius...@mediaone.net> writes:
> >> What a load of bull. Prior to Microsoft, computers were so
> >> complicated that the average Joe just avoided them.
> >Yeah, and then DOS 1.0 came along and, being vastly superior to CP/M
> >and VMS, eliminated all competition?
> For certain values of vastly superior: Available, inexpensive, and
> ran on inexpensive hardware.
But not when it comes to reducing complexity. Which was the point.
In fact, I think MS has increased complexity of computers, the Mac is
simpler to use, Unix is much simpler if you look under the hood.
JackiePrice
> simpler to use, Unix is much simpler if you look under the hood.
If you have to "look under the hood" to find the simplicity, that simplicity
was misplaced.
It's better that an operating system be full of useless code, fairly
unstable, slow, inefficiently designed and easy for the end user to operate,
than to be simple, efficient, stable, fast and impossible for a computer
illiterate to use.
Now before someone else says it, yes, it would be better if you could make
the OS simple, efficient, stable, fast and easy for the end user to use.
Unix/Linux don't currently fit the bill, however. And a totally closed
system like the Mac is just not an option.
T. Max Devlin
>> In fact, I think MS has increased complexity of computers, the Mac is
>> simpler to use, Unix is much simpler if you look under the hood.
>
>If you have to "look under the hood" to find the simplicity, that simplicity
>was misplaced.
No, that's where it belongs, if we are to believe your "blame the end user for
being clueless" position on the ILOVEYOU debate. Simplicity "above board" is
merely a restriction of functionality, a lack of features. Simplicity "under
the hood" is eloquent design.
>It's better that an operating system be full of useless code, fairly
>unstable, slow, inefficiently designed and easy for the end user to operate,
>than to be simple, efficient, stable, fast and impossible for a computer
>illiterate to use.
All computers are universally and without exception impossible for a computer
illiterate to use. Without opening up the whole "ease of use debate" (you may
not be surprised to learn that I posted at least four thousand lines on the
subject over the last two years), let me try to clarify the discussion by
pointing out that any system is "easy for the end user to operate", including
Unix, once the user has learned how to operate it. Granted, the much vaster
functionality of Unix does provide too many concepts and options for a naive
user to appreciate, but there is a tradeoff based on the "above board/below
the hood" issue I described above. While it might only take an hour or two to
become familiar enough with Windows to consider it "easy to use", it never
gets much easier than it is at that point. In fact, as the added complexity
which nevertheless still exists "under the hood", and is often quite arbitrary
and arcane in its own right, is accessed in an attempt by the user to gain
more functionality, it often gets decidedly *harder* to use. Unix, on the
other hand, being a much more capable and well designed system on the whole,
might take a few extra hours to get comfortable enough to find it "easy". But
as you learn more it gets easier and easier until you hopefully would find
oneself at the point where if the system doesn't already have a way for you to
do want you want as 'easily' as you want, you have enough knowledge and skill
to consider building it yourself. And once you can do that, all computers are
"easy to use" in proportion to the amount of control they provide the
operator, not the limitation of functions with which they "simplify" the act
of computing.
>Now before someone else says it, yes, it would be better if you could make
>the OS simple, efficient, stable, fast and easy for the end user to use.
>Unix/Linux don't currently fit the bill, however. And a totally closed
>system like the Mac is just not an option.
Nothing would ever fit that bill. These are all things that need to be traded
off against each other. Another important reason for competition, REAL
competition, with multiple alternatives which fit *everybody's*, not just
"most people's" (at best) needs. Because you may be willing to trade off
efficiency for simplicity (for example; I don't really want to have to dissect
this semi-random array of concepts), while I would prefer to trade off
simplicity for performance. Neither of us is "wrong", and there is no reason
other than intentional anti-competitive behavior, that we should be able to
happily use our OS of choice without it making any difference whatsoever
outside the local host.
JackiePrice
traded
> off against each other. Another important reason for competition, REAL
> competition, with multiple alternatives which fit *everybody's*, not just
> "most people's" (at best) needs. Because you may be willing to trade off
> efficiency for simplicity (for example; I don't really want to have to
dissect
> this semi-random array of concepts), while I would prefer to trade off
> simplicity for performance. Neither of us is "wrong", and there is no
reason
> other than intentional anti-competitive behavior, that we should be able
to
> happily use our OS of choice without it making any difference whatsoever
> outside the local host.
Interestingly, by saying this, you just indirectly defended the Windows
operating system, Max. (Not Microsoft's business practices though.) By
admitting that learning curve and efficiency (for the same reason, as an
example) are not truly compatible, you admit that Windows does what it is
required to do for the target market.
Here is where I think you will find you are wrong (and it's solely
hypothesis, with no right or wrong answer until it's tested). The market
will go for ease of use. IBM made the mistake of thinking otherwise and it
cost them big time. IBM and Microsoft used to be partners in Windows, but
Gates had a different vision than IBM did. Gates thought that we should put
a desktop PC in the home of every family in North America, and built his
operating system on that premise. IBM thought this was not realistic, and
parted ways with Microsoft, taking their share of the development and
creating OS2 (a WONDERFUL OS, btw...I loved OS2). However, Mr. Gates
vision would seem to have been better (opinion again, but one the world is
agreeing with.) With by far the majority of computer users wanting to
merely operate a PC and never lift the hood to look inside, Windows is
currently the best there is. That means for someone like me, who doesn't
mind looking under the hood, but wants to have standard, easy to get parts
their when she has to do so, this is also the best there is. But for the
average computer user, Windows will remain the OS of choice regardless of
what business practices Microsoft uses. The majority of users are naive,
and therefore do not want a "much vaster functionality" (grammar check, much
more vast? Not sure, it just sounds funny) with "too many concepts and
options." In fact, as someone who has tried to help people learn to use
computers, options are what confuse them. They don't want options, they
want an exact path that leads them to what they want to do without
branching. In short, the average person does not want to have to think or
learn concepts, they'd rather memorize procedures. Even Windows has a
learning curve for them because it presents "too many concepts and options,"
but far less so than Linux or Unix. In the end, even in the unlikely event
that Microsoft is eventually toppled, the operating system that is used will
have "Simplicity above board," restricting the functionality you want.
Operating systems that have the functionality and steeper learning curve you
want will always exist, and they will forever be for a niche market.
As for the ILOVEYOU debate, I think that if everyone were using Unix,
similar viruses would have been written, using different languages or
scripts, albeit much more complex. The viruses would likely be much better
designed, and would function just as well, relying on the stupidity of the
human animal to spread. If Linux is written well, there would be no way for
it not to spread. The only way to keep something like that from running
would be to prevent people from ever opening file attachments in email...an
executable bit of code for any Linux email client would have worked just as
well.
Damien
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
| As for the ILOVEYOU debate, I think that if everyone were using Unix,
| similar viruses would have been written, using different languages or
| scripts, albeit much more complex. The viruses would likely be much better
| designed, and would function just as well, relying on the stupidity of the
| human animal to spread. If Linux is written well, there would be no way for
| it not to spread. The only way to keep something like that from running
| would be to prevent people from ever opening file attachments in email...an
| executable bit of code for any Linux email client would have worked just as
| well.
Not quite. I don't know of any email client available on Linux that
would execute an attachment with full user rights.
T. Max Devlin
[...]
>Interestingly, by saying this, you just indirectly defended the Windows
>operating system, Max. (Not Microsoft's business practices though.) By
>admitting that learning curve and efficiency (for the same reason, as an
>example) are not truly compatible, you admit that Windows does what it is
>required to do for the target market.
Well, why don't we just say that Macintosh does what is required to do, and
Microsoft stole the idea. Unfortunately, the target market of "toy boxes, not
open systems" which the Macintosh targets stubbornly refuses to gel in the
"flexibility is key" world of PC systems. Despite repetitive attempts to drag
users towards a "simpler world, where computers don't fail because you never
tax their capabilities; that's the operating system's job", the PC is too
rooted in hard-core competitive reality, despite its perilous status as a
market-defined standard.
There are some who insist that without the unifying control of Microsoft, the
PC platform would have fragmented into proprietary standards. I believe that,
considering the essentially non-existence of an "official PC" standard, again
despite repeated efforts from all sides, the opposite is more likely true. By
allowing "as long as it works with Windows" to be the defining market
standard, the development of the PC as a functional market standard, the
development of the hardware platform itself, has been stunted. Except maybe
for video accelerators, and ignoring USB for obvious reasons, there has been
precious little done to make PCs more valuable and "easy to use" for the
customer. A PC today is a rickety metal box around an OS and a chip, and
apart from network connectivity, it has changed very little in overall form
(though quite drastically, of course, in performance and power) over the last
decade, from the "unskilled end-user's" perspective.
Back to the point, Microsoft would *love it* if everyone took them seriously
and locked themselves in to "network appliances" or whatever the trendy term
for "not a general purpose microcomputer based on the PC open hardware
platform" is these days.
But the target market for Windows doesn't really exist, nor does it need to
(it isn't a market, its a monopoly). There are no "unskilled end users" just
"inexperienced end users". And there needs are adequately enough met, but
that support tends to thin out as they become more experienced end users.
I have *always* been an advocate of Windows *outside of the unfortunately
all-encompassing issue of the monopoly*. If MS had been *competing*, instead
of simply defending the monopoly, for all these years, Windows might be a very
valuable and popular segment of the OS market. I was instrumental in
"evangelizing" the move to Windows (initially, of course, as a stepping stone
to OS/2) in my own small company and in many customer's. I have often pointed
out how it is in many ways a highly efficient interface, often leaning a bit
too far towards a debilitating "mouse bigotry", but still providing a superior
integration of both keyboard controls and GUI displays in comparison to
classical X window managers or even the Macintosh. I have never faulted
Microsoft for making the menus fully (and through multiple methods) keyboard
accessible; it was the smartest move they have ever made.
The architecture itself, underneath the GUI (which has taken some regressive
steps, itself), has degenerated from "crappy but cheap" to "inconsistently
designed and nightmarishly intricate".
>Here is where I think you will find you are wrong (and it's solely
>hypothesis, with no right or wrong answer until it's tested). The market
>will go for ease of use. IBM made the mistake of thinking otherwise and it
>cost them big time. IBM and Microsoft used to be partners in Windows, but
>Gates had a different vision than IBM did. Gates thought that we should put
>a desktop PC in the home of every family in North America, and built his
>operating system on that premise. IBM thought this was not realistic, and
>parted ways with Microsoft, taking their share of the development and
>creating OS2 (a WONDERFUL OS, btw...I loved OS2). However, Mr. Gates
>vision would seem to have been better (opinion again, but one the world is
>agreeing with.) With by far the majority of computer users wanting to
>merely operate a PC and never lift the hood to look inside, Windows is
>currently the best there is. [...]
No, in that regard, they'd be a lot better off with Macintosh. Your
interpretation of these historical issues isn't necessarily inaccurate. But
it is inconsistent with much of the behind the scenes reality, specifically
concerning the very limited and simplified description of the various business
strategies and positions the industry players took.
I would say that IBM was interested in building computers, while Gates was
merely interested in building a monopoly. IBM knew that their forte and
fortune lie in robust, professional systems. I would like to think that,
having learned a lesson from their own anti-trust 'education', they realized
it would be better for them as well as everyone else, including their
customers, if they left the cranking out of the cheaper end of the future
computer market to somebody else. They expected OS/2 to be an
enterprise-capable system on a par with Unix itself, bringing them firmly into
the then-envisioned and today-but-for-the-monopoly implemented world of
computers we have right now.
But Bill knew that it was the corporate marketing which made a product
successful, not the technology, and realized he could snatch more dollars from
unsuspecting end-users if he could convince them that "unskilled" was a
compliment and "ignorant and powerless" was a good thing, and helped make
computers run better. Duping inexperienced end users is easier than selling
to professional technologists.
Yea, Bill Gate realized he could make a killing bringing the Mac to the PC,
essentially, and he was right. Now if only he would have realized that his
business strategies were, on the whole, illegal, we would all be living in a
better world.
I am unsure how fully he understood that he was dumbing down consumers in
order to make them easier to fleece. But that's certainly how the bulk of his
wealth was generated.
The actual vision of desktop PC as a whole, of course, was already established
history by then. The only thing that made the PC in any way unique was the
accident of history that caused IBM to publish the specifications. That and,
of course, the accident of history which allowed Bill Gates to maintain
exclusive control of MS-DOS licensing. I've heard it claimed that DOS was
simply "the market choice" out of the three OSes that IBM offered. This
doesn't address the dozens of alternatives available on clones and
compatibles. But the fact that Gates had already played his master stroke by
maintaining exclusive control of MS-DOS licensing (which is honestly his one
great innovation) indicates that he was already actively manipulating the
market to destroy all competition in its markets.
How to parlay one brilliant thought into the world's largest fortune. Step
one: negotiate a wind-fall deal with the largest manufacturer giving you
concessions they would only possibly accept if they considered the future
market value to be almost non-existent. Step two: break the law.
It helps that your product is something that the vast majority of your
customers don't understand to begin with. Make it more so, and you've got the
fastest accumulation of the world's largest personal fortune in the history of
mankind.
Anyway, like I said; IBM was concerned with building computers; Microsoft was
concerned with building a monopoly. Like those games of Risk Bill played as a
teenager. And when he lost, he would upset the board.
There is a vast, incomprehensibly extensive market for "ease of use". But the
PC is about "power and flexibility". I don't have any problems with seeing
those markets diverge, though I've seen no sign of that being possible when
Microsoft would insist on using its PC monopoly to control the "ease of use"
platform.
>As for the ILOVEYOU debate, I think that if everyone were using Unix,
>similar viruses would have been written, using different languages or
>scripts, albeit much more complex. The viruses would likely be much better
>designed, and would function just as well, relying on the stupidity of the
>human animal to spread. If Linux is written well, there would be no way for
>it not to spread. The only way to keep something like that from running
>would be to prevent people from ever opening file attachments in email...an
>executable bit of code for any Linux email client would have worked just as
>well.
The various flavors of Unix, however, have had several decades of source-code
exposure to security improvements. Its pretty well locked down, though I
would hesitate to assume that a desktop Linux system would have everything
configured in "locked down" mode.
When you double click on a shell script attachment on a typical email client
on Redhat, does it execute the script? I would like a definitive answer to
this question, I don't have one. I'm not concerned, by the way, with the
security offered by the inherent authentication of the Unix login and file
permissions; that's a separate issue.
I assume you could build a program to use file-system access, if nothing else,
to the address book entries for a widely implemented client. I don't think
Redhat has the "WIN32 API access to the bundled email client" problem which
made ILOVEYOU so trivial to make dangerous. Nor would Linux, as either the
desktops or the host, crack under the strain as easily as Microsoft's systems
did.
Ketil Z Malde
>> In fact, I think MS has increased complexity of computers, the Mac is
>> simpler to use, Unix is much simpler if you look under the hood.
> If you have to "look under the hood" to find the simplicity, that
> simplicity was misplaced.
Note that simplicity does not equate ease of use.
> It's better that an operating system be full of useless code, fairly
> unstable, slow, inefficiently designed and easy for the end user to operate,
If it has those qualities, it will not be easy for the end user to
operate. It might seem so at first glance, but it will be bug ridden
and inconsisten, and generally a mess. IMO.
> than to be simple, efficient, stable, fast and impossible for a computer
> illiterate to use.
If it is simple, efficient, stable, and fast, there's no reason a nice
interface for the computer illiterate can't be added later.
JackiePrice
actually has to tell it to do so, and override some warnings at some point
in doing so (although the warnings may have been overridden and turned off
in the past.)
T. Max Devlin
>On Tue, 09 May 2000 23:21:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>
>| similar viruses would have been written, using different languages or
>| scripts, albeit much more complex. The viruses would likely be much better
>| designed, and would function just as well, relying on the stupidity of the
>| human animal to spread. If Linux is written well, there would be no way for
>| it not to spread. The only way to keep something like that from running
>| would be to prevent people from ever opening file attachments in email...an
>| executable bit of code for any Linux email client would have worked just as
>| well.
>
>would execute an attachment with full user rights.
But do you know of any email client on Linux that would execute an attachment
(run a shell script) at all ? Specifically, do you know of any email clients
on Linux that could, but don't?
Was this kind of thing ever really used, even on uucp?
Damien
T. Max Devlin <tm...@nbn.net> wrote:
| Quoting Damien from alt.destroy.microsoft; 10 May 2000 03:51:59 GMT
| >On Tue, 09 May 2000 23:21:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| >JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
| >
| >| As for the ILOVEYOU debate, I think that if everyone were using Unix,
| >| similar viruses would have been written, using different languages or
| >| scripts, albeit much more complex. The viruses would likely be much better
| >| designed, and would function just as well, relying on the stupidity of the
| >| human animal to spread. If Linux is written well, there would be no way for
| >| it not to spread. The only way to keep something like that from running
| >| would be to prevent people from ever opening file attachments in email...an
| >| executable bit of code for any Linux email client would have worked just as
| >| well.
| >
| >Not quite. I don't know of any email client available on Linux that
| >would execute an attachment with full user rights.
|
| But do you know of any email client on Linux that would execute an attachment
| (run a shell script) at all ? Specifically, do you know of any email clients
| on Linux that could, but don't?
Netscape will run JavaScript in email messages and can probably be
coerced into running Java. But both of these have security
limitations. My email client, VM, will run an external program to
open an attachment, although it's a little more cumbersome then the
one-click and poof it's running. To reach the equivalent amount of
danger of VBS scripts in outlook, you would have to configure it run
attachments with a shell, but that wouldn't work to well since it
really can't tell text files from shell scripts. Unix doesn't put
nearly as much stock in file extensions.
| Was this kind of thing ever really used, even on uucp?
AFAIK, no.
Damien
JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
| Windows/Outlook won't execute the attachment automatically either. The user
| actually has to tell it to do so, and override some warnings at some point
| in doing so (although the warnings may have been overridden and turned off
| in the past.)
Is this senerio possible?
"Hmm . . Another text attachment, I'll just click onit to open it up
in Notepad. . What's this? Oh it's that stupid warning again. Text
files can't be dangerous, that's just stupid. No I don't want to see
this stupid warning again, now let me see what was in that text
file. . . "
Some time passes,
"I love letter? I'll just click on it to see what's in it. . ."
T. Max Devlin
>Windows/Outlook won't execute the attachment automatically either. The user
>actually has to tell it to do so, and override some warnings at some point
>in doing so (although the warnings may have been overridden and turned off
>in the past.)
>
>> Not quite. I don't know of any email client available on Linux that
>> would execute an attachment with full user rights.
1) Damien didn't say "automatically", though I guess his phrasing indicating
that the software would "execute" the attachment, rather than the user, might
have made you think he did.
2) The warning when launching a script or program attachment in Outlook cannot
be turned off, AFAIK. If it can, I wouldn't mind somebody posting where to
find it.
T. Max Devlin
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 12:32:57 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>JackiePrice <nos...@NOSPAM.ca> wrote:
>| actually has to tell it to do so, and override some warnings at some point
>| in doing so (although the warnings may have been overridden and turned off
>| in the past.)
>
>
>"Hmm . . Another text attachment, I'll just click onit to open it up
>in Notepad. . What's this? Oh it's that stupid warning again. Text
>files can't be dangerous, that's just stupid. No I don't want to see
>this stupid warning again, now let me see what was in that text
>file. . . "
>
>Some time passes,
>
>"I love letter? I'll just click on it to see what's in it. . ."
No, but yes. The exact scenario isn't possible, AFAIK, because you never got
a warning about text files being dangerous, nor did you have the option to say
you didn't want to see it again.
Maybe I'm just too used to the way my own system works, and I configured it
long ago and have never changed or replaced it, but that seems doubtful. As
far as I know, there is only a warning when the attachment is a program or
script, and there is no option to disable it.
But your scenario is very similar to many common situations. It could have
worked like that, in my estimation, but for one fatal and early flaw in your
story. The average user doesn't know that it will open Notepad because it is
a text file. They know it is a text file because it opens in Notepad. Which
means it doesn't make sense to assume that people will (or can or should!) pay
attention to a warning about the contents shown before they know what the
contents are. This is the reason Melissa/ILOVEYOU worked, why it is better to
show "confusing details" like extensions, and why Microsoft isn't blameless
for having the Windows Scripting Host silently embedded and activated on most
people's PCs.
What the icon is shown for the virus attachment?
T. Max Devlin
>On Wed, 10 May 2000 12:22:47 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Netscape will run JavaScript in email messages and can probably be
>coerced into running Java. But both of these have security
>limitations. My email client, VM, will run an external program to
>open an attachment, although it's a little more cumbersome then the
>one-click and poof it's running. To reach the equivalent amount of
>danger of VBS scripts in outlook, you would have to configure it run
>attachments with a shell, but that wouldn't work to well since it
>really can't tell text files from shell scripts. Unix doesn't put
>nearly as much stock in file extensions.
Ironically, neither does Windows. I can only assume that the reason the virus
attachment had a .vbs extension was either really sloppy programming on the
virus author's part, or really sloppy programming on Microsoft's part
(assuming Microsoft wrote Windows Scripting Host). WSH might need an
extension to run a script, but Windows doesn't need an extension to launch a
file, not since Windows95. It was part of the "removal" of DOS that Microsoft
tried to move people away from extensions, and added a "file type". Office
uses file type, not extension, to recognize which application to launch a file
with, though I don't know how. File types are also related to mime types.
The interaction of extension, file type, and mime type can result in some
pretty unusual behavior if you don't go along with One Microsoft Way.
>| Was this kind of thing ever really used, even on uucp?
>
>AFAIK, no.
I figure as much, but are you in a position to know?
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Mon, 08 May 2000 00:18:59 GMT
>>Max demonstrates once again the wonders of revisionist history. One
>>can still pick which OS you want based on what applications it
>>supports, or pick which applications you want based on what OS you
>>have.
>As long as the OS you pick is Windows, and the apps you pick are Office.
>Which is as boring as your harping, whining, pointless posts, roger.
So all those people running Macs and *nix boxen and BeOS and etc. are
what -- hallucinating?
Or just not blinded by an irrational hatred of MS...
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 09 May 2000 01:05:24 GMT
>>On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 09:56:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Ketil Z Malde
>>wrote:
>>>"Leonard F. Agius" <lfagius...@mediaone.net> writes:
>>>Yeah, and then DOS 1.0 came along and, being vastly superior to CP/M
>>>and VMS, eliminated all competition?
>>For certain values of vastly superior: Available, inexpensive, and
>>ran on inexpensive hardware.
>CP/M was available, and was already widely implemented.
Not for the PC, it wasn't -- not for months. And then it was
significantly more expensive.
>Software costs are
>arbitrary, and are a result, not a cause, of market acceptance.
<Max> Because I Said So! </Max>
>CP/M ran on the same hardware.
See above.
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting JackiePrice from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 09 May 2000 13:47:12 GMT
>>If you have to "look under the hood" to find the simplicity, that simplicity
>>was misplaced.
>No, that's where it belongs, if we are to believe your "blame the end user for
>being clueless" position on the ILOVEYOU debate. Simplicity "above board" is
>merely a restriction of functionality, a lack of features. Simplicity "under
>the hood" is eloquent design.
No, simplicity above board means standard ways of doing things, such
that even something you haven't done for a while is easily
accomplished.
>>It's better that an operating system be full of useless code, fairly
>>unstable, slow, inefficiently designed and easy for the end user to operate,
>>than to be simple, efficient, stable, fast and impossible for a computer
>>illiterate to use.
>All computers are universally and without exception impossible for a computer
>illiterate to use.
Knowing how to move a mouse and click does not make one computer
literate. On a well designed GUI, that knowledge is all that is
required to use the box. Maybe not to it's fullest potential, but to
get work done.
>Without opening up the whole "ease of use debate" (you may
>not be surprised to learn that I posted at least four thousand lines on the
>subject over the last two years),
Without once doing more than expressing his opinion as fact, AFAIK.
>let me try to clarify the discussion by
>pointing out that any system is "easy for the end user to operate", including
>Unix, once the user has learned how to operate it.
And let me point out that this is based on nothing but Max's opinion.
How easy is it to remember what you need to type at the prompt if
something happens and Gnome no longer starts?
Let's see, I'm running Unix: type Unix?
Nope
The desktop was Gnome: Type Gnome?
Nope.
Oh, yeah -- unix is case sensitive: Type gnome? Type unix/
Nope. Nope.
It was my desktop: Type Desktop? Type desktop?
Nope nope.
Someone said it was X Windows: Type X Windows? XWindows? x windows?
xwindows? X windows? Xwindows? xWindows? x Windows?
Oh yeah -- there's help: man desktop? man gnome? man xwindows? man
unix?
real easy...
>While it might only take an hour or two to
>become familiar enough with Windows to consider it "easy to use", it never
>gets much easier than it is at that point.
<Max> Because I Said So! </Max>
Roger
Devlin wrote:
>2) The warning when launching a script or program attachment in Outlook cannot
>be turned off, AFAIK. If it can, I wouldn't mind somebody posting where to
>find it.
Maybe that little check box at the bottom that says "Always ask before
opening this type of file?"
But then, someone whose job it is to know more about the industry than
anyone else would have known that...
Damien
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
| On Tue, 09 May 2000 17:41:29 -0400, someone claiming to be T. Max
| Devlin wrote:
| >let me try to clarify the discussion by
| >pointing out that any system is "easy for the end user to operate", including
| >Unix, once the user has learned how to operate it.
|
| And let me point out that this is based on nothing but Max's opinion.
| How easy is it to remember what you need to type at the prompt if
| something happens and Gnome no longer starts?
What do you at a windows box if something happens and your GUI doesn't
start?
[snip]
| real easy...
Roger
Depends on why.