Microsoft's Secret Sauce for 'Success'
Roy Schestowitz
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
“There’s an interesting article in the April 2007 issue of Harper’s magazine
about panels, audits, and experts. It is called CTRL-ALT-DECEIT and is from
evidence in Comes v. Microsoft, a class action suit in Iowa. Here’s a
paragraph from a document admitted into evidence, called “Generalized
Evangelism Timeline,” about guerrilla or evangelical marketing:
Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology
is a key evangelism function. “Independent” analysts’ reports should be
issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring
them). “Independent consultants should write articles, give conference
presentations, moderate stacked panels on our behalf, and set themselves up as
experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour. “Independent”
academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and granted research money).
They advise cultivating “experts” early and recommending that they not publish
anything pro-Microsoft, so that they can be viewed as “independent” later on,
when they’re needed. This type of evangelical or guerilla marketing is
apparently quite common in the high-tech fields, and seems to be used
liberally by open source developers.
The document admitted into evidence also says, “The key to stacking a panel is
being able to choose the moderator,” and explains how to find “pliable”
moderators–those who will sell out.
It is all a big money game. Most activists in any field know of
countless “hearings,” in which hundreds of citizens would testify before a
panel, only to be ignored in favor of two or three industry “experts.” When a
panel is chosen, the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion. As with
elections, they don’t leave anything to chance.”
(a post from a Mark E. Smith about exhibit PX03096 “Evangelism is War” from
Comes v. Microsoft).
High Plains Thumper
Thanks for pointing out this document dated January 2000. Here I found
this interesting:
On PDF Page 10 (where 10 is the actual PDF page number, not document
page number), there is a statement with slashed circle stating, "We're
Just Here to Help Developers".
PDF Page 11 has a replacement statement, "We Are Here to Help MICROSOFT".
Page 12 of the PDF has a slide with statements:
[quote]
Evangelism is WAR!
o Mission
- Establish Microsoft's platforms as de facto standards
o Enemies
- Other platform vendors
o Battlefield
- ISV Mindshare
o Progress
- Shipping ISV applications
[/quote]
One definition of ISV is "independent software vendor", one who makes and
sells software products that run on one or more computer hardware or
operating system platforms.
Progress is defined as ISV selling/shipping software applications that are
specifically written for Microsoft operation systems.
However on PDF Page 43, slide states:
[quote]
All Is Not Fair
o We are under close scrutiny
- Any unethical acts WILL BE uncovered
o Besides - we're the good guys!
o Simple rule to live by: _Never Lie_
- Tell the truth, and nothing but the truth
- Be selective in which truths you emphasize
- Let the competition fill in the gaps
[/quote]
This is one thing I do not see done by trolls that have set up
camp in comp.os.linux.advocacy: Behaving ethically as though under close
scrutiny and TELLING THE TRUTH.
However, one must give them credit in their allegiance to Microsoft. They
have religiously followed Step 11 on PDF Page 45:
[quote]
11. /Mopping Up./ During the mopping-up phase, ensure that the enemy
technology is routed. Use the press, the Internet, etc. to heighten the
impression that the enemy is desperate, demoralized, defeated, deceased.
Usually, this phase or even Phase 8, the Slog) overlaps pases 1-3 of the
next version of [Technology Name], which addresses all of the advantages
of the competitors' technology, while addressing [Technology Name]'s key
weaknesses. Repeat phases 1-10 as necessary (e.g., Windows NT 3.1 through
4.0; OLE 1.0 through COM+; Windows 1.0 through Windows 3.1).
[/quote]
Interestingly enough, Step 5 is called, "Jihad".
However, I don't see Step 12 this time around:
[quote]
12. /Victory./ The developers, marketers, and managers of the competing
technology give up the sinking ship, and interview for positions at
Microsoft.
[/quote]
Rather, I see greater recent emphasis on Linux, more jobs are being
advertised requiring Linux background.
It is understandable that in salesmanship, that one would advertise their
product highlights, sell key points to convince users to select one
product over another, give samples, etc. This is "true" evangelism.
However, in question it is the ethics employed to ensure market
domination. We have already seen the court cases, implicating Microsoft
for unethical deeds.
Trolls in this newsgroup have continued the mantra that
o Microsoft is not a monopoly contrary to the court cases,
o Linux is buggy although it runs on high end mainframes and mission
critical environments,
o Linux applications are amateurish but Microsoft applications are
professional (despite applications like Open Office, K3B and others are
well written and much of the Internet runs from Linux servers),
o Microsoft desktop is polished although Linux Gnome and KDE offered
multiple desktops 10 years ago and Beryl 3D desktop runs on modest
hardware (try that with Vista),
o Microsoft naturally supports hardware whereas Linux still has problems,
although on my Dell laptop, I needed to install the specific Dell chipset
drivers before I had a decent screen, yet Linux detected all my hardware
without installing additional separate drivers,
o and ad nauseum.
It is time for linvocates and Open Source supports to complete the "mop
up" operations. :-)
--
HPT
Erik Funkenbusch
> Thanks for pointing out this document dated January 2000. Here I found
> this interesting:
Indeed it is. The sections on Apple are particularly enlightening.
> On PDF Page 10 (where 10 is the actual PDF page number, not document
> page number), there is a statement with slashed circle stating, "We're
> Just Here to Help Developers".
>
> PDF Page 11 has a replacement statement, "We Are Here to Help MICROSOFT".
Of course, but the point they were making was that they help Microsoft by
heling the developers, but helping Microsoft was the reason. Any
for-profit corporation would, ultimately, have the same goal. Including
IBM, Novell, and Red Hat.
On page 17 it says:
Mission Statement:
"Drive the success of Microsoft's platforms by creating a critical mass of
third party software applications and business solutions."
Helping developers helps Microsoft, and thus, that's what the evengelism is
about.
> This is one thing I do not see done by trolls that have set up
> camp in comp.os.linux.advocacy: Behaving ethically as though under close
> scrutiny and TELLING THE TRUTH.
You confuse common trols with Windows advocates. Common trolls are here to
stir you up, and really don't have a position. They'll argue whatever side
(and often argue one way in one group and another in the opposite group)
merely as a way to rile you up. That's what the majority of trolls that
come in and do nothing but complain about how bad Linux is are doing.
In other words, their agenda is not to promote Microsoft, but rather to get
a rise out of you, and it appears to be working, since you believe all
those people are really out to get you.
> Trolls in this newsgroup have continued the mantra that
>
> o Microsoft is not a monopoly contrary to the court cases,
There's a difference between being a monopoly, and having monopoly power.
Further, the market has changed a great deal since 1998, when Judge Jackson
ruled that Linux was inconsequential and couldn't compete with Microsoft.
Apple has since entered the market as well.
Are they still a monopoly? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. Do they still
have a lot of power, possibly monopoly power? Maybe, maybe not.
> o Linux is buggy although it runs on high end mainframes and mission
> critical environments,
Large parts of Linux (meaning distro's) *ARE* buggy, but other parts are
pretty stable, but generally those stable parts are also very old versions
of software that lack the cool things that people want. When I run KDE on
a modern distro (ie, not an enterprise version or debian stable) I see the
KDE crash dialog all the time.
Having said that, for use as a web server or mail server, or many other
purposes it's quite stable. Then again, using Windows for such is just as
stable for me.
The point is, if you run stable software, you get stable results. When you
run unstable software, you get unstable results. It happens both on
Windows and Linux.
> o Linux applications are amateurish but Microsoft applications are
> professional (despite applications like Open Office, K3B and others are
> well written and much of the Internet runs from Linux servers),
Much of the internet runs on Windows servers too. There are certainly good
Linux apps, I doubt many people (other than pure trolls) would deny that.
Open Office, however, is a so-so app. It's Slow, bloated, buggy, and
incomplete, and it's not as polished as Office is. It's advocates make
outrageous claims of 100% compatibility (it used to actually say that on
the web site before they got wise and took that down). Basically, it's
boring.
> o Microsoft desktop is polished although Linux Gnome and KDE offered
> multiple desktops 10 years ago and Beryl 3D desktop runs on modest
> hardware (try that with Vista),
I had multiple desktops on Windows 15 years ago on Windows 3.1 (There was a
program from Norton called Norton Desktop that included the functionality).
That's not really the issue though. I'd say the Linux desktop has more
candy than Windows, yeah. It's more customizable, sure. It has lots of
features that are hard to get on Windows. Yep.
But it's not consistent. That's what most businesses have a problem with.
At least with Windows, you always have the option to go back to classic
mode for consistency between versions.
> o Microsoft naturally supports hardware whereas Linux still has problems,
> although on my Dell laptop, I needed to install the specific Dell chipset
> drivers before I had a decent screen, yet Linux detected all my hardware
> without installing additional separate drivers,
Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware. This
whole "in the box" argument is stupid, and always has been. Windows Vista
supports things that Linux has never supported, nor will likely ever
support, such as legal HD playback.
> o and ad nauseum.
>
> It is time for linvocates and Open Source supports to complete the "mop
> up" operations. :-)
Linux, by the nature of the way it works, will always have certain inherant
disadvantages. Being open means that you'll likely never have legal HD
playback, and you're constantly having to reverse engineer devices, making
it 6 months to a year before they are supported, if ever.
If you're willing to live with that, and you don't care about specific apps
that won't run on Linux even under Wine, and you are more into
customizability than consistency, and you don't care if you can't find
support at GeekSquad or other services, and a host of other issues you'll
face if you choose Linux, then maybe it's the right thing for you.
For everyone else, it's the devil you know.
7
> Enjoy.
>
> http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000
PX03096.pdf
>
> ?There?s an interesting article in the April 2007 issue of Harper?s
> magazine about panels, audits, and experts. It is called CTRL-ALT-DECEIT
> and is from evidence in Comes v. Microsoft, a class action suit in Iowa.
> Here?s a paragraph from a document admitted into evidence, called
> ?Generalized Evangelism Timeline,? about guerrilla or evangelical
> marketing:
>
> Working behind the scenes to orchestrate ?independent? praise of our
> technology is a key evangelism function. ?Independent? analysts? reports
> should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or
> ignoring them). ?Independent consultants should write articles, give
> conference presentations, moderate stacked panels on our behalf, and set
> themselves up as experts in the new technology, available for just
> $200/hour. ?Independent? academic sources should be cultivated and quoted
> (and granted research money).
>
> They advise cultivating ?experts? early and recommending that they not
> publish anything pro-Microsoft, so that they can be viewed as
> ?independent? later on, when they?re needed. This type of evangelical or
> guerilla marketing is apparently quite common in the high-tech fields, and
> seems to be used liberally by open source developers.
>
> The document admitted into evidence also says, ?The key to stacking a
> panel is being able to choose the moderator,? and explains how to find
> ?pliable? moderators?those who will sell out.
>
> It is all a big money game. Most activists in any field know of
> countless ?hearings,? in which hundreds of citizens would testify before a
> panel, only to be ignored in favor of two or three industry ?experts.?
> When a panel is chosen, the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion. As
> with elections, they don?t leave anything to chance.?
> (a post from a Mark E. Smith about exhibit PX03096 ?Evangelism is War?
> from Comes v. Microsoft).
This all sounds like rhetoric taken from a political organisation
and applied to a commercial organisation with money poured into
it to turn a corporation into a political movement and all controlled
and distorted through money than with consensus..
I see it now.
Stormtroopers getting ready to storm heaven itself
and remake heaven in their own image.
For Mic0shaft Corporation,
creating Hell on Earth with their dumb viri ridden
operating system wasn't enough for them.
They must now go out and conquer standards bodies and media and destroy
all their percieved enemies systematically too through
politically subversive use of their money.
Leading the charge is the Fifth Column of Mic0shaft
Corporation's league of Asstroturfers.
Lifeless bum boys who speak on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation for money.
cc
Meth will kill you, you know.
Linonut
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:08:30 +0900, High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> PDF Page 11 has a replacement statement, "We Are Here to Help MICROSOFT".
>
> Of course, but the point they were making was that they help Microsoft by
> heling the developers, but helping Microsoft was the reason. Any
> for-profit corporation would, ultimately, have the same goal. Including
> IBM, Novell, and Red Hat.
>
> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
> For everyone else, it's the devil you know.
This summarizes it for me (page 3 of the PDF):
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
Evangelism is War
--
'Nuff said!
Roy Schestowitz
HPT said that they use the war Jihad somewhere ("Holy war"), but I haven't
looked at the large PDF carefully. I just went quickly through the pages and
it's obvious that there's _a lot_ of nasty stuff to be found there. It's like
entering the mind of greedy and corrupt people, to whom ethics are secondary.
Kind of like Erik who defends them passionately...
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "I regularly SSH to God's brain and reboot"
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
14:05:02 up 29 days, 19:33, 8 users, load average: 1.62, 2.39, 3.15
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
waterskidoo
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
>
> No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
This seems to be a popular debate in various groups and I don't feel
there is a concise answer. Linux supports *more* hardware than Windows
for sure just by virtue of it being able to run multiple platforms.
However when comparing to Windows it's generally assumed that x86
hardware is being discussed, as it should. Even so, again it depends
on what *more* means. It also depends upon what *Windows* means.
If one were to do a level set and say ok, right now at this minute
using current version of Windows vs current version of Linux,
I would tend to believe Linux supports *more* hardware simply
because it is able to support more legacy devices than Vista
can due to manufacturers abandoning support for such devices.
However the practicality of such devices has to be considered.
IOW, there will always be someone using a 15 year old scanner,
but in the scheme of things what percentage of people still
are using hardware that old?
So in that vein *more*, meaning total number without regards to
practicality, Linux would be first. Another example is full
64 bit support, where Linux I believe was first excluding
the DEC Alpha chip version of NT of course.
Things change however if you look at *more* to mean what
hardware can I purchase right now, or even hardware purchased
in the last say, 2 years or so, which will be completely
supported by Windows or Linux.
Windows usually comes out first on this one because no
manufacturer would sell hardware without Windows support.
Oh yea, Creative managed to do that, but they are an exception
and their products suck albeit popular.
And then you can also say that a certain piece of hardware came
with Windows drivers for the version of Windows that was
current at the time the hardware shipped. So *more* can
mean that as well.
So you see, that little word *more* can really be bent and formed
and cajoled into any meaning that might fit the debate as
seen from one particular side.
I don't really think the question can be fully answered.
What's really important, from my perspective anyhow, is that
Linux *MUST* support right from the start, main stream hardware
in order to survive.Linux people sometimes
laugh at iPods and iPhones and
other multimedia gadgets like these TV boxes and game
controllers and Slingboxs, home alarm systems, automobile
tracking/data logging systems (log how well your car is running
or how your teenager is driving) and so forth but this
stuff is far more important to average Joe than
another development tool for Linux.
When Joe enthusiastically brings home Linux and finds out
that he has trouble making things like the above
work, he will be frustrated and he *will* blame Linux.
The result will be another anti-Linux person who will
at the mere mention of Linux in a discussion over a few
drinks go off on a tirade about how he tried it and
it sucks. I've seen it happen many times, mostly
from ignorance, but dangerous just the same.
Well I've spewed my guts enough.
Back to working through the great vmware tutorial
that Roy posted a link to last week.
P.S. Should I come across as a person who tosses hardware
for the latest and dismisses getting caught with orphan
hardware, that is not the case at all. I have been screwed
several times in the Windows upgrade mill due to orphaned
hardware all because the manufacturer wanted to sell me
something better, which really wasn't better, just more
money.
AB
> On 2007-07-16, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
>
> This seems to be a popular debate in various groups and I don't feel
> there is a concise answer. Linux supports *more* hardware than Windows
> for sure just by virtue of it being able to run multiple platforms.
> However when comparing to Windows it's generally assumed that x86
> hardware is being discussed, as it should. Even so, again it depends
> on what *more* means. It also depends upon what *Windows* means.
> If one were to do a level set and say ok, right now at this minute
> using current version of Windows vs current version of Linux,
> I would tend to believe Linux supports *more* hardware simply
> because it is able to support more legacy devices than Vista
> can due to manufacturers abandoning support for such devices.
> However the practicality of such devices has to be considered.
> IOW, there will always be someone using a 15 year old scanner,
> but in the scheme of things what percentage of people still
> are using hardware that old?
A good portion of the persons not using hardware "that old" are
restricted by the combination of Windows and manufacturers who don't
update drivers. Put people like that on linux and they often haul out
the "old" hardware that might only be a couple of years new.
I know this to be true in some cases. I see it. I hear it. It's not a
case of people going out looking for "old" hardware. It's a case of
people continuing to use what has worked for them for years, and they
discontinued use because it wasn't supported any more.
> So in that vein *more*, meaning total number without regards to
> practicality, Linux would be first. Another example is full
> 64 bit support, where Linux I believe was first excluding
> the DEC Alpha chip version of NT of course.
When considering practicality, linux is *still* first when you take
away the Windows variable. Hard to do I know. But the point being that
a lot of hardware is "retired" because people can't get it to work with
newer Windows, not because the hardware is bad.
And the only way the Windows variable gives it the upper hand is if one
considers only newer hardware, and hardware that's no more than an
interface to the software that does all of the work (like Winmodems,
Winprinters, some wireless boards, etc). Even in the case of newer
hardware there's little that doesn't work with linux out of the box or
via a download.
--
Her kiss was warm and soft as vomit on a summer sidewalk.
waterskidoo
> A good portion of the persons not using hardware "that old" are
> restricted by the combination of Windows and manufacturers who don't
> update drivers. Put people like that on linux and they often haul out
> the "old" hardware that might only be a couple of years new.
Exactly what I am saying.
> I know this to be true in some cases. I see it. I hear it. It's not a
> case of people going out looking for "old" hardware. It's a case of
> people continuing to use what has worked for them for years, and they
> discontinued use because it wasn't supported any more.
I think it works both ways.
People I know either ebay the older stuff or toss it.
Sometimes older hardware can be combined into a system that
can be useful running Linux as say a firewall or headless
mp3 server or something like that.
> When considering practicality, linux is *still* first when you take
> away the Windows variable. Hard to do I know. But the point being that
> a lot of hardware is "retired" because people can't get it to work with
> newer Windows, not because the hardware is bad.
I agree.
> And the only way the Windows variable gives it the upper hand is if one
> considers only newer hardware, and hardware that's no more than an
> interface to the software that does all of the work (like Winmodems,
> Winprinters, some wireless boards, etc). Even in the case of newer
> hardware there's little that doesn't work with linux out of the box or
> via a download.
The examples I gave are a start. Home security systems for example.
The automobile data logging devices are another very popular
item. CNN just had a spot about using these devices to monitor
your teenager's driving habits. Slingbox is another popular device.
Some of these may work with Linux, or be able to be made to work
with Linux I don't know but they work out of the box with Windows
and it's easy to set up. Using wine or going through some complicated
configuration set up just isn't an option for Joe.
I have a code scanner for my automobile that came with software
to download/analyze the codes on a laptop. It will also give
real time data logging. It works with Windows, will not work
with Linux. Average Joe stuff? Maybe not in a massive way, but
as the public becomes increasingly aware of these gadgets
via mainstream news, they will be more common place.
The local paper just had an article on OBD2 scanners for
cars and how a $100.00 scanner pays for itself after the
first use.
Linonut
> On 2007-07-16, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
>
> However when comparing to Windows it's generally assumed that x86
> hardware is being discussed, as it should. Even so, again it depends
> on what *more* means. It also depends upon what *Windows* means.
> If one were to do a level set and say ok, right now at this minute
> using current version of Windows vs current version of Linux,
> I would tend to believe Linux supports *more* hardware simply
> because it is able to support more legacy devices than Vista
> can due to manufacturers abandoning support for such devices.
Agreed.
> However the practicality of such devices has to be considered.
> IOW, there will always be someone using a 15 year old scanner,
> but in the scheme of things what percentage of people still
> are using hardware that old?
It's not just the age of the hardware, I think. Hardware supports
certain protocols for doing things.
Microsoft can take a mouse protocol, *extend* it, and use this enhanced
protocol to add extra controls (the old tilt-wheel troll we were hit
with awhile back).
> Windows usually comes out first on this one because no
> manufacturer would sell hardware without Windows support.
Again, it is not necessarily the hardware itself, but the protocol.
> What's really important, from my perspective anyhow, is that Linux
> *MUST* support right from the start, main stream hardware in order to
> survive.Linux people sometimes laugh at iPods and iPhones and other
> multimedia gadgets like these TV boxes and game controllers and
> Slingboxs, home alarm systems, automobile tracking/data logging
> systems (log how well your car is running or how your teenager is
> driving) and so forth but this stuff is far more important to average
> Joe than another development tool for Linux.
Sure. But also note that some of those devices may well have open
specifications that have received open-source implementations.
I bought an APC UPS box. Very nice, comes with a Windows-based package.
Debian provides a handy daemon that supports the features of this UPS.
APC could have been dicks about it and obfuscated the protocol. They
provide a compatibility list which indicates they support some models
with their own software, as far back as RedHat 6.0.
> When Joe enthusiastically brings home Linux and finds out that he has
> trouble making things like the above work, he will be frustrated and
> he *will* blame Linux. The result will be another anti-Linux person
> who will at the mere mention of Linux in a discussion over a few
> drinks go off on a tirade about how he tried it and it sucks. I've
> seen it happen many times, mostly from ignorance, but dangerous just
> the same.
That sounds like a flatfishy argument.
But, when it does happen, you have to blame the people who say that
Linux acts just like Windows. It does, in most things, but you have to
be sure to let the prospect know that certain niche issues have Linux
obstacles due to a company not thinking Linux is worth supporting.
As Vista burns people, I'm sure many more will become aware of the need
to check hardware compatibility lists.
Linonut
> Slingbox is another popular device.
> Some of these may work with Linux, or be able to be made to work
> with Linux I don't know but they work out of the box with Windows
> and it's easy to set up. Using wine or going through some complicated
> configuration set up just isn't an option for Joe.
Depends. If Joe had his Linux box set up for him by a friend, he might
not be knowledgeable enough to run "wine setup.exe". Or he might just
ask the friend for help.
Friends (the community) make a big difference.
> I have a code scanner for my automobile that came with software
> to download/analyze the codes on a laptop. It will also give
> real time data logging. It works with Windows, will not work
> with Linux. Average Joe stuff? Maybe not in a massive way, but
> as the public becomes increasingly aware of these gadgets
> via mainstream news, they will be more common place.
> The local paper just had an article on OBD2 scanners for
> cars and how a $100.00 scanner pays for itself after the
> first use.
As Linux becomes more prevalent (passing Mac in system /sales/ to
consumers), it will become a strong differentiator for hardware vendors.
None of this would be a big issue if manufacturers weren't so
tight-fisted with what they think are their family jewels.
I guess they think providing technical instructions that a developer
could use is either too expensive, or too revealing. Or that their
competitors will not reverse-engineer their product in a week or two.
--
Tux rox!
waterskidoo
>
> It's not just the age of the hardware, I think. Hardware supports
> certain protocols for doing things.
>
> Microsoft can take a mouse protocol, *extend* it, and use this enhanced
> protocol to add extra controls (the old tilt-wheel troll we were hit
> with awhile back).
>
>> Windows usually comes out first on this one because no
>> manufacturer would sell hardware without Windows support.
>
> Again, it is not necessarily the hardware itself, but the protocol.
But to the user it doesn't matter. To use the mouse as an example
from his POV it *works* with Windows but *not* to the
same degree with Linux.
>
> Sure. But also note that some of those devices may well have open
> specifications that have received open-source implementations.
True, I was using common devices as an example of what *Linux*
needs to support, IMHO.
> I bought an APC UPS box. Very nice, comes with a Windows-based package.
>
> Debian provides a handy daemon that supports the features of this UPS.
> APC could have been dicks about it and obfuscated the protocol. They
> provide a compatibility list which indicates they support some models
> with their own software, as far back as RedHat 6.0.
Having an open protocol is certainly an advantage in my opinion but
that's usually not the case. And even while some of these devices
can be made to work with Linux, it's not all that easy to do
and the performance may or may not be the same.
>> When Joe enthusiastically brings home Linux and finds out that he has
>> trouble making things like the above work, he will be frustrated and
>> he *will* blame Linux. The result will be another anti-Linux person
>> who will at the mere mention of Linux in a discussion over a few
>> drinks go off on a tirade about how he tried it and it sucks. I've
>> seen it happen many times, mostly from ignorance, but dangerous just
>> the same.
>
> That sounds like a flatfishy argument.
You've lost me?
The short version is, Linux has to perform at least as well
as Windows in order to keep Joe happy. For most situations
this is not a problem however when Joe encounters an obstacle
he will blame Linux every time just like users blame Windows
for defective applications that cause problems.
> But, when it does happen, you have to blame the people who say that
> Linux acts just like Windows. It does, in most things, but you have to
> be sure to let the prospect know that certain niche issues have Linux
> obstacles due to a company not thinking Linux is worth supporting.
True which is why I say Linux isn't for everyone nor is Windows or
any other operating system for that matter.
> As Vista burns people, I'm sure many more will become aware of the need
> to check hardware compatibility lists.
It's a very big thing right now and is creating a lot of animosity towards
Microsoft as well as hardware manufacturers. It seems to be snowballing
as more people try Vista and discover that they are stuck with hardware
that doesn't perform well, or at all under Vista. This happened to a lesser
degree with Windows XP, but the difference is that now there exists
alternatives like Linux and OSX (which has been boosted by iPod etc) so
it's an entirely new ball game.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
>
> No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
I don't, nore would 99.9% of the computer users out there, care about such
hardware. It's not a mainstream use.
waterskidoo
>
>> Slingbox is another popular device.
>> Some of these may work with Linux, or be able to be made to work
>> with Linux I don't know but they work out of the box with Windows
>> and it's easy to set up. Using wine or going through some complicated
>> configuration set up just isn't an option for Joe.
>
> Depends. If Joe had his Linux box set up for him by a friend, he might
> not be knowledgeable enough to run "wine setup.exe". Or he might just
> ask the friend for help.
The same could be said more or less for pre-installed Linux systems however
Joe bought his Slingbox and it worked with Windows with no effort
on his part.
> Friends (the community) make a big difference.
I doubt most people could find one friend who uses Linux.
The Internet is probably their best source or maybe
a local LUG.
>
> As Linux becomes more prevalent (passing Mac in system /sales/ to
> consumers), it will become a strong differentiator for hardware vendors.
I believe this will happen.
> None of this would be a big issue if manufacturers weren't so
> tight-fisted with what they think are their family jewels.
True, but the fact remains that they *are* and like I said the cause
isn't important to Joe because all he knows is that in his little
world *it* worked with Windows and not with Linux.
> I guess they think providing technical instructions that a developer
> could use is either too expensive, or too revealing. Or that their
> competitors will not reverse-engineer their product in a week or two.
It's mostly about trade secrets and staying ahead of their competitors.
The same reasons why Nvidia and ATI don't release specs.
Nvidia wants to squeeze those extra FPS out of Quake and at the same
time so does ATI. If the source code for each driver were public,
each would know how the other guy does it without having to perform
all the extra research to reverse engineer.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 2007-07-16, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
>
> This seems to be a popular debate in various groups and I don't feel
> there is a concise answer. Linux supports *more* hardware than Windows
> for sure just by virtue of it being able to run multiple platforms.
Yes, Linux supports more platforms, but it's not really a useful argument
for the average joe who can't get his brand new wireless card to work.
Does linux support more platforms? Yes. Does linux support more legacy
hardware? I'm not sure. Possibly, but there's still a lot of legacy
hardware that Linux doesn't support either, at least not in the mainline
kernel. If you're willing to recompile your kernel to add an independantly
developed driver that might make it more competitive.
> If one were to do a level set and say ok, right now at this minute
> using current version of Windows vs current version of Linux,
> I would tend to believe Linux supports *more* hardware simply
> because it is able to support more legacy devices than Vista
> can due to manufacturers abandoning support for such devices.
The thing is, and this is the big problem, is that I can always throw away
old hardware and go to any store buy something new. It's often *MUCH* more
difficult to find old hardware if your new hardware doesn't work. You also
have to take into account the hardware that vendors silently change to new
chipsets without any way tell the difference in the packaging (Linksys was
notorious for this).
> However the practicality of such devices has to be considered.
> IOW, there will always be someone using a 15 year old scanner,
> but in the scheme of things what percentage of people still
> are using hardware that old?
Especially when you consider that most of the time, when people are buying
a new OS, they're also buying new hardware to along with it.
> So in that vein *more*, meaning total number without regards to
> practicality, Linux would be first. Another example is full
> 64 bit support, where Linux I believe was first excluding
> the DEC Alpha chip version of NT of course.
64-bit has proven to be a difficult problem, because of the device driver
issue. Even though I have a 64 bit computer, and 4GB of memory (which
means roughly 386MB goes to waste because of I/O mappings and such, which
wouldn't happen on a 64 bit version), I still choose to run the 32 bit
version of Windows. All of my hardware is supported in 64 bit drivers too.
The real problem is plug-ins. Windows has a huge plug-in architecture in
both the OS and various programs. You can't run 32-bit plug-in in a 64 bit
application, so I would have to sacrifice those, and i'm not willing to do
that at this time.
> Things change however if you look at *more* to mean what
> hardware can I purchase right now, or even hardware purchased
> in the last say, 2 years or so, which will be completely
> supported by Windows or Linux.
It depends on the hardware, of course. iPods were a big one. Yeah, you
could plug the iPod in and use it as a mass storage device, but you
couldn't get the iPod to recognize songs if you just copied them there.
There are now things like gtkpod and the like, but it took a long time for
those to come out, and many would say they're still gretaly inferior to
iTunes (and I don't even like iTunes).
> What's really important, from my perspective anyhow, is that
> Linux *MUST* support right from the start, main stream hardware
> in order to survive.
Precisely. Lots of people like to spin this one, but it really is key to
consumer acceptance. Not as much of a big deal for business (although
businesses still deal with gadgets like Palm Pilots and Blackberries, or
white board tracking software (the stuff that lets you print a copy of the
white board after you've drawn on it, etc..), and the new big one is
network projectors, where via wi-fi you can do a presentation.
> When Joe enthusiastically brings home Linux and finds out
> that he has trouble making things like the above
> work, he will be frustrated and he *will* blame Linux.
> The result will be another anti-Linux person who will
> at the mere mention of Linux in a discussion over a few
> drinks go off on a tirade about how he tried it and
> it sucks. I've seen it happen many times, mostly
> from ignorance, but dangerous just the same.
Incidentally, those are the same kind of people that complained about XP
SP2, and caused a lot of people, even today, to not upgrade, despite it
being unlikely they would have any issue with it.
waterskidoo
I don't follow you?
Erik Funkenbusch
Why would 99.9% of the users care if Linux supports the iPod? or a
Playstation? Or a mainframe?
waterskidoo
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:43:00 +0000 (UTC), waterskidoo wrote:
>
>> I don't follow you?
>
> Why would 99.9% of the users care if Linux supports the iPod? or a
> Playstation? Or a mainframe?
OIC.
That's probably a true statement, but one can't ignore proof of concept
although the average person could care less I suppose.
Linonut
> On 2007-07-16, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Again, it is not necessarily the hardware itself, but the protocol.
>
> But to the user it doesn't matter. To use the mouse as an example
> from his POV it *works* with Windows but *not* to the
> same degree with Linux.
So you tell the user, it is your choice. If you really really want to
use this mouse, and you don't care about the benefits of Linux I've told
you about, and you can't reverse-engineer and code a solution yourself,
even with the help of the community, then stick with what the manufacturer
supports.
And don't come back later saying "I told you so."
<grin>
> Having an open protocol is certainly an advantage in my opinion but
> that's usually not the case.
Maybe. I know it used to be the case. Every adapter card I used to buy
for lab use on an IBM PC XT came with a fairly detailed manual and
sample usage in BASIC or C.
> And even while some of these devices
> can be made to work with Linux, it's not all that easy to do
> and the performance may or may not be the same.
Only in the case where the feature is very complex (and perhaps even
represents some true innovation) and difficult to figure out.
> The short version is, Linux has to perform at least as well
> as Windows in order to keep Joe happy. For most situations
> this is not a problem however when Joe encounters an obstacle
> he will blame Linux every time just like users blame Windows
> for defective applications that cause problems.
I agree. Too many people expect Linux to support even badly-programmed
web sites with "documents" that require a proprietary "driver" to be
downloaded and installed in order to be viewed.
>> But, when it does happen, you have to blame the people who say that
>> Linux acts just like Windows. It does, in most things, but you have to
>> be sure to let the prospect know that certain niche issues have Linux
>> obstacles due to a company not thinking Linux is worth supporting.
>
> True which is why I say Linux isn't for everyone nor is Windows or
> any other operating system for that matter.
I've come around to that point of view.
Unfortunately, Microsoft is, overall, a pernicious influence and is
making a mad grab for control of too many things.
>> As Vista burns people, I'm sure many more will become aware of the need
>> to check hardware compatibility lists.
>
> It's a very big thing right now and is creating a lot of animosity towards
> Microsoft as well as hardware manufacturers. It seems to be snowballing
> as more people try Vista and discover that they are stuck with hardware
> that doesn't perform well, or at all under Vista. This happened to a lesser
> degree with Windows XP, but the difference is that now there exists
> alternatives like Linux and OSX (which has been boosted by iPod etc) so
> it's an entirely new ball game.
It's even worse than XP. XP could at least use Win 2000 drivers, IIRC.
Microsoft seems to claim they have modularized Vista.
Someone needs to modularize Microsoft.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On 2007-07-16, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, waterskidoo belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Slingbox is another popular device.
>>> Some of these may work with Linux, or be able to be made to work
>>> with Linux I don't know but they work out of the box with Windows
>>> and it's easy to set up. Using wine or going through some complicated
>>> configuration set up just isn't an option for Joe.
>>
>> Depends. If Joe had his Linux box set up for him by a friend, he might
>> not be knowledgeable enough to run "wine setup.exe". Or he might just
>> ask the friend for help.
>
> The same could be said more or less for pre-installed Linux systems however
> Joe bought his Slingbox and it worked with Windows with no effort
> on his part.
You definitely have the flatfish rhythm down pat.
>> Friends (the community) make a big difference.
>
> I doubt most people could find one friend who uses Linux.
> The Internet is probably their best source or maybe
> a local LUG.
A good way to make friends!
>> As Linux becomes more prevalent (passing Mac in system /sales/ to
>> consumers), it will become a strong differentiator for hardware vendors.
>
> I believe this will happen.
>
>> I guess they think providing technical instructions that a developer
>> could use is either too expensive, or too revealing. Or that their
>> competitors will not reverse-engineer their product in a week or two.
>
> It's mostly about trade secrets and staying ahead of their competitors.
> The same reasons why Nvidia and ATI don't release specs.
> Nvidia wants to squeeze those extra FPS out of Quake and at the same
> time so does ATI. If the source code for each driver were public,
> each would know how the other guy does it without having to perform
> all the extra research to reverse engineer.
Not necessarily. Most of it is in hardware internals, isn't it?
But, there's no accounting for corporate paranoia. It worked for
Microsoft.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:44:40 GMT, Linonut wrote:
Uh, Beavis, what about the Mac? PDAs? Phones? Embedded devices?
It doesn't matter that the user doesn't care about them. Quit narrowing
the goalposts.
--
Tux rox!
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:44:40 GMT, Linonut wrote:
>>
>>>> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware.
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. Maybe marginally, if you stick to x86-based stuff.
>>
>> I don't, nore would 99.9% of the computer users out there, care about such
>> hardware. It's not a mainstream use.
>
> Uh, Beavis, what about the Mac? PDAs? Phones? Embedded devices?
Uh, dingbat, who cares? Most users never have to change the SW on the
devices above. We are talking purchased peripherals or existing PC
HW. Stop changing the theme.
>
> It doesn't matter that the user doesn't care about them. Quit narrowing
> the goalposts.
Yes it does. Because we are talking about when users cant find the
necessary drivers for their new/old HW in order to run Linux,
FWIW, with Vista NOT having drivers for a lot of HW, maybe finally Linux
can claim to support more HW. Than Vista that is. Certainly not XP. In
the PC market.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Trolls in this newsgroup have continued the mantra that
>>
>> o Microsoft is not a monopoly contrary to the court cases,
>
> There's a difference between being a monopoly, and having monopoly
> power. Further, the market has changed a great deal since 1998, when
> Judge Jackson ruled that Linux was inconsequential and couldn't compete
> with Microsoft. Apple has since entered the market as well.
>
> Are they still a monopoly? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. Do they
> still have a lot of power, possibly monopoly power? Maybe, maybe not.
However not to worry, Justice Kollar-Kotelly clarified that Microsoft is
indeed a monopoly:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Page 27
[quote]
It bears repeating that the monopoly in this case was not found to have
been illegally acquired, see United States v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1448,
1452 (D.C. Cir. 1995),24 but only to have been illegally maintained.
[/quote]
>> o Linux is buggy although it runs on high end mainframes and mission
>> critical environments,
>
> Large parts of Linux (meaning distro's) *ARE* buggy, but other parts are
> pretty stable, but generally those stable parts are also very old
> versions of software that lack the cool things that people want. When I
> run KDE on a modern distro (ie, not an enterprise version or debian
> stable) I see the KDE crash dialog all the time.
>
> Having said that, for use as a web server or mail server, or many other
> purposes it's quite stable. Then again, using Windows for such is just
> as stable for me.
>
> The point is, if you run stable software, you get stable results. When
> you run unstable software, you get unstable results. It happens both on
> Windows and Linux.
KDE is buggy? Not according to users, not according to the EU. This
production environment is quite happy with the stability and security of
Linux and KDE.
http://enterprise.kde.org/bizcase/showbizcase.php?id=71
[quote]
At Eureka! Translation, a technical translation firm specializing in
english and french translation, we have migrated our work platform to KDE
on Linux. This includes workstations and servers. The day-to-day
translation activities use KDE office and internet software which includes
kontact & kolab for groupware & email, kopete IM, and kgpg for secure
transmission & reception of client documents. We are very happy with KDE
on Linux. The overall stability of Linux is the first thing for us, but
the great look and feel of KDE along with its numerous features and
ongoing improvements make us confident in keeping it as our desktop
environment and promoting its use by our clients.
[/quote]
KDE is a reputable organisation, to be considered trustworthy enough to
benchmark software quality.
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6269
[quote]
EU: Quality check for Open Source Software eGovernment News – 13
November 2006 – European Institutions – Open Source Software
The European Commission has awarded €1.6 million in funding to a
consortium of leading European consultants and research bodies – the
Software Quality Observatory for Open Source Software (SQO-OSS) – to
analyse and benchmark the quality of open source software and prove its
suitability for use in European business.
<SNIP>
Lead by the Athens University of Economics and Business, consortium
participants include UK-based Sirius Corporation, *KDE* e.V. and ProSyst
in Germany, KDAB in Sweden and the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
Greece.
[/quote]
KDE has support from EU and the Scottish Parliament. OTOH, a
representative of the Scottish Parliament concludes Microsoft is not open
and progressive, kind of sad, really.
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7154
[quote]
EU: Open Source better for public services, functionally and politically
Open Source News - 11 July 2007 - EU and Europe-wide - General
Open Source computing has a closer fit to public services than does
proprietary IT, says Patrick Harvie, a Green Party representative in the
Scottish Parliament.
"It is difficult to persuade health services and other public services to
use Open Source. It may or may not be cheaper, if you factor in the costs
of running and maintaining it. But it actually is better. It is better
functionally and politically. It fits better with their attitude to public
service and the way the public sector should be run for the public good."
Harvie spoke at a Open Source conference in Glasgow, Scotland on 30 June.
The meeting was organised by programmers working on *KDE*, a collection of
Open Source desktop applications.
The Scottish MP believes public services could maximise their public
benefits if they would use open source software or if they would Open
Source the software that is custom made for them. "It is a crying shame
that the public sector instinctively keeps spending large amounts of
taxpayers' money on designing (proprietary) software. The maximum benefit
for the public good would mean maximum use of that software."
The MP described how he was contacted by a Microsoft official within days
of submitting his first questions about the cost of Microsoft in the
Scottish government. He says the company has vasts amounts of money to
"persuade people like me that they are just doing their jobs and that they
really are open and progressive. They are not."
[/quote]
Your point does not mirror my experiences with Linux and KDE. I use KDE on
a regular basis and have not experienced any of the crashing nature you
express. Even 10 years ago I worked with KDE Version 1.0 on a regular
basis, and did not experience the crashing nature you express.
OTOH, I experienced the crashing of Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 95
OSR2, Windows 98 and Windows 98SE on a regular basis. A task crash in
these versions required a reboot in order to restore stability.
Animated games provide an excellent opportunity for exploring the
stability of a graphical desktop environment. I was lucky if I could get
50 minutes play in Heroes of Might and Magic III in Windows 98. With the
same hardware in SuSE Version 6.4, I experienced no crashes in Loki Games'
version of the same. My son could found that the internet responsiveness
of the game under Linux and KDE was quicker than with Windows. By getting
in first, he could host an on-line tournament, since he could beat out his
opponent Windows colleagues. This was on my dual boot Windows/Linux
system.
In KDE 1.0, I experienced an occasional crashing of KMail, but none of the
other KDE applications. However, a crashed task did not take out the
operating system. There was no degredation of the stability of the
operating system that required a reboot. When Kmail crashed, I would
simply restart Kmail and continue working in KDE.
>> o Linux applications are amateurish but Microsoft applications are
>> professional (despite applications like Open Office, K3B and others are
>> well written and much of the Internet runs from Linux servers),
>
> Much of the internet runs on Windows servers too. There are certainly
> good Linux apps, I doubt many people (other than pure trolls) would deny
> that. Open Office, however, is a so-so app. It's Slow, bloated, buggy,
> and incomplete, and it's not as polished as Office is. It's advocates
> make outrageous claims of 100% compatibility (it used to actually say
> that on the web site before they got wise and took that down).
> Basically, it's boring.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/hardware/167100912
Indiana Schools opted for StarOffice, the commercial version of
OpenOffice. They considered it an excellent alternative to Microsoft
Office suite.
[quote]
August 04, 2005 (12:46 PM EDT)
Indiana's Goal: Linux On Every High School Desktop
By W. David Gardner
A program to provide desktop computers to every Indiana high school
student is giving an Indiana company and open-source provider Linspire an
opening to provide low-cost systems to students across the state.
The Indiana State Department of Education has stated its wishes that the
300,000 high school students in the state each receive their own computer.
Indiana-based Wintergreen Systems has been supplying hundreds of computers
to students in pilot programs.
"So far shipments are pretty much scattered around the state," said Aaron
Leonard, Wintergreen vice president. "The reception has been fabulous.
Everyone is on a very tight budget." Leonard said the relative low-cost of
the Linspire operating system coupled with its ease-of-use has helped make
the program successful to date.
Nearly all of the computers shipped are loaded with the Linspire OS and
OfficeStar, the open-office software that includes word processing,
spreadsheet, and database functions. Individual school districts often
load some software of their own, and some schools have been able to save
additional funds by booting software directly off networks.
Very few computers are being shipped with Microsoft's Windows operating
system, said one source, who asked not to be identified by name.
Linspire reported that thousands of Linspire/Wintergreen machines have
been shipped to dozens of school districts across the state. It said that
the Linspire/Wintergreen combo systems are the leading desktop Linux
system available to the schools, although other firms are able to provide
systems to the state's schools.
[/quote]
Singapore Airlines is using StarOffice as a solution for business
travelers as an alternative to laptop software and Microsoft Office.
http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2007-05/sunflash.20070529.1.xml
[quote]
Sun Microsystems Powers the First Productivity Suite in the Sky
Singapore Airlines, the First Airline to Offer a Productivity Suite, Has
Chosen Sun Microsystems' StarOffice as Its Software of Choice
SANTA CLARA, Calif. May 29, 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc. (Nasdaq: SUNW)
today announced that Singapore Airlines has rolled out StarOffice software
in its new Boeing 777-300ER aircraft. Singapore Airlines is the first and
only airline to install a productivity suite for the benefit of its
passengers who can now continue to work after boarding the plane without
having to power up their laptops. In addition to providing the world’s
widest First and Business Class seats and a technologically advanced seat
in Economy Class, Singapore Airlines has also introduced StarOffice
software as part of its next generation KrisWorld inflight entertainment
system to meet the increasingly dynamic needs of travelers today.
Passengers from Singapore Airlines will be able to use StarOffice's word
processing, spreadsheets and presentation tools.
With the ever-discerning premium traveler, it is imperative that airlines
find ways to differentiate themselves from the competition. Yet no other
airline has come close to the technological offerings that Singapore
Airlines offers its customers in the form of the KrisWorld entertainment
system. The first of the new Boeing 777-300ER aircraft was delivered
progressively from November, and entered commercial services on
Singapore-Paris route in early December 2006. Singapore Airlines currently
deploys the 777-300ER aircraft to destinations such as Paris, Zurich,
Seoul, San Francisco, Milan, Barcelona and Hong Kong.
"With heightened security, access to laptops during flights can sometimes
be restricted. The availability of StarOffice software as part of
KrisWorld, offers Singapore Airlines' customers the opportunity to work on
and access their information in an open, secure and freely available
fashion independent of any vendor or file formats during their flights,"
said Wong Heng Chew, Managing Director, Singapore, Sun Microsystems. "Sun
Microsystems is proud to be the Airline’s solution provider of choice.
With StarOffice software supporting an increasing number of productivity
file formats like Open Document Format and Microsoft Office, travellers
can access such files through a single application with a USB storage
device and even export documents in PDF format."
StarOffice software is a complete, feature-rich office productivity
product that includes powerful word processing, spreadsheets,
presentations, database, graphics, drawing, photo editing and web
publishing applications. It is user-friendly and is compatible with
Microsoft Office.
[/quote]
OpenOffice lacks some of the wizards and clipart, perks in StarOffice.
However in OpenOffice Version 2, I can open PowerPoint slides, import text
file tables (comma separated, tab separated, spaced column, etc.) into its
spreadsheet, open complex, linked multitab spreadsheets and open Word
documents. The results are impressive enough that I have opted to use it
on my laptop instead of Microsoft Office 2003.
>> o Microsoft desktop is polished although Linux Gnome and KDE offered
>> multiple desktops 10 years ago and Beryl 3D desktop runs on modest
>> hardware (try that with Vista),
>
> I had multiple desktops on Windows 15 years ago on Windows 3.1 (There
> was a program from Norton called Norton Desktop that included the
> functionality).
I had that application, too. Compared with the Windows 3.1 desktop, which
was rather boring, Norton did a bang up job. Plus, Norton provided
additional tools to boot. I really liked their version of defrag.
> That's not really the issue though. I'd say the Linux desktop has more
> candy than Windows, yeah. It's more customizable, sure. It has lots of
> features that are hard to get on Windows. Yep.
>
> But it's not consistent. That's what most businesses have a problem
> with. At least with Windows, you always have the option to go back to
> classic mode for consistency between versions.
Businesses have problems with inconsistencies? Whether I choose KDE,
Gnome or XFCE, they allow me access to the same applications. Linux
allows me to choose my desktop environment during login. There are no
inconsistencies. This holds true even 10 years ago. Linux allows me
multiple desktops and through Beryl, I have a 3D desktop without upgrading
my hardware.
>> o Microsoft naturally supports hardware whereas Linux still has
>> problems, although on my Dell laptop, I needed to install the specific
>> Dell chipset drivers before I had a decent screen, yet Linux detected
>> all my hardware without installing additional separate drivers,
>
> Windows supports more hardware than Linux, especially new hardware. This
> whole "in the box" argument is stupid, and always has been. Windows
> Vista supports things that Linux has never supported, nor will likely
> ever support, such as legal HD playback.
http://linuxgazette.net/issue52/bolzern.html
[quote]
Issue 1: Competitive Operating Systems
The case brought by "We The People" against Microsoft was for its alleged
unfair trading practices that, among other things, stifled innovation.
Microsoft countered that charge in their Proposed Findings document by
saying there is considerable evidence of significant innovation in the
marketplace. Indeed, Microsoft cited Linux very prominently among
"competitive operating systems" and quoted Gordon Eubanks, CEO of Oblix,
as saying Linux has already become a "viable commercial solution."
Microsoft also cited that Linux "runs on various popular microprocessor
architectures, such as Intel's x86, Compaq's Alpha, Silicon Graphics MIPS,
Motorola's PowerPC and Sun's SPARC."
A month later Microsoft flip-flopped in its Linux Myths by saying, "Linux
does not provide support for the broad range of hardware in use today."
Microsoft was, in fact, right the first time. In reality, Linux supports
most exciting PC hardware and much non-PC hardware. Linux is an innovative
extension of Unix as noted in my 1994 document "Why Linux is Significant,"
which predicted correctly many years ago the state of Linux today
(http://www.LinuxMall.com/news/announce/lxsig).
[/quote]
http://irfanhabib.wordpress.com/2006/09/10/myths-about-linux/
[quote]
Myth 3: Linux has limited hardware support!
Modern distributions such as Knoppix and Redhat (and its latest version
called Fedora), and Mandrake have state of the art hardware detections,
although support for Generic hardware, (hardware that is not attributed to
any specific manufacturer) is limited. Win-modems are another problem;
win-modems are modems where the manufacturers make Microsoft Windows
drivers only. But branded hardware is fully supported, and furthermore as
Linux spreads, USB Robotics, ATI, nVidia, Asus and other companies have
started to issue Linux drivers for there respective hardware, even a Linux
driver is available for Pentium 4 motherboards from Intel.
Although Most Linux systems are based on standard PC hardware, and Linux
supports a very wide range of PC devices. However, it also supports a wide
range of other computer types, including Alpha, Power PC, 680×0, SPARC,
and Strong Arm processors, and system sizes ranging from PDAs (such as the
PalmPilot) to supercomputers constructed from clusters of systems (Beowulf
clusters).
[/quote]
>> o and ad nauseum.
>>
>> It is time for linvocates and Open Source supports to complete the "mop
>> up" operations. :-)
>
> Linux, by the nature of the way it works, will always have certain
> inherant disadvantages. Being open means that you'll likely never have
> legal HD playback, and you're constantly having to reverse engineer
> devices, making it 6 months to a year before they are supported, if
> ever.
>
> If you're willing to live with that, and you don't care about specific
> apps that won't run on Linux even under Wine, and you are more into
> customizability than consistency, and you don't care if you can't find
> support at GeekSquad or other services, and a host of other issues
> you'll face if you choose Linux, then maybe it's the right thing for
> you.
>
> For everyone else, it's the devil you know.
According to:
http://www.codeweavers.com/site/compatibility/browse/cat
Codeweavers supports 3,108 Windows applications which will run in Linux.
Apps Category
57 Educational Software, CBT
565 Games
494 Multimedia
335 Networking & Communication
13 Non Applications
739 Productivity
140 Programming / Software Engineering
96 Reference/Documentation/Info
328 Scientific/Technical/Math
208 Special Purpose
133 Utilities
3,108 Total
.... and saving the best for last:
>> This is one thing I do not see done by trolls that have set up camp in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy: Behaving ethically as though under close
>> scrutiny and TELLING THE TRUTH.
>
> You confuse common trols with Windows advocates. Common trolls are here
> to stir you up, and really don't have a position. They'll argue
> whatever side (and often argue one way in one group and another in the
> opposite group) merely as a way to rile you up. That's what the
> majority of trolls that come in and do nothing but complain about how
> bad Linux is are doing.
>
> In other words, their agenda is not to promote Microsoft, but rather to
> get a rise out of you, and it appears to be working, since you believe
> all those people are really out to get you.
After reading through your FUD reply, poster Robert Parsonage had it right
about you in his blog:
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/erik-funkenbusch-troll.html
[quote]
Saturday, January 27, 2007
The Erik Funkenbusch Troll
Name: Erik 'the weasel' Funkenbusch
Traits:
* Microsoft apologist with no peer
* Spreads FUD about Linux, OSS & GPL (did the same when OS/2 was a
threat to Microsoft)
* Habitual liar
* When caught lying runs away
* Will resort to unethical means to denigrate Linux advocates - always
fails
* Funkenbusch is utterly devoid of ethical values
* Known to cross post to other Linux newsgroups in a futile attempt at
causing more disruption
* Obsessed with Roy Schestowitz
* Racist (see below regarding 419 scams)
[/quote]
--
HPT
waterskidoo
>
> So you tell the user, it is your choice. If you really really want to
> use this mouse, and you don't care about the benefits of Linux I've told
> you about, and you can't reverse-engineer and code a solution yourself,
> even with the help of the community, then stick with what the manufacturer
> supports.
>
> And don't come back later saying "I told you so."
That is true. What I do is point out the various problems
the user has with Windows, security risks for one, that he
will not have with Linux and then make a comparison.
Using the mouse example I say something like "which is more
important to you, security or 12 buttons on your mouse"?
><grin>
>
>> Having an open protocol is certainly an advantage in my opinion but
>> that's usually not the case.
>
> Maybe. I know it used to be the case. Every adapter card I used to buy
> for lab use on an IBM PC XT came with a fairly detailed manual and
> sample usage in BASIC or C.
You could at one time purchase the IBM PC Technical Reference
which not only included a schematic but the source code to
the BIOS as well.
Times have changed.
>
> Only in the case where the feature is very complex (and perhaps even
> represents some true innovation) and difficult to figure out.
Mostly multimedia devices have this problem.
>
> I agree. Too many people expect Linux to support even badly-programmed
> web sites with "documents" that require a proprietary "driver" to be
> downloaded and installed in order to be viewed.
I've found that when people encounter a site like that the knee
jerk reaction is to blame the browser, and this happens even
with firefox under Windows. When it is explained to them the risks
taken going to sites like that, often the response is more
along the lines of "I didn't realize that, screw this" and they
move on.
Education is very important IMHO.
> I've come around to that point of view.
>
> Unfortunately, Microsoft is, overall, a pernicious influence and is
> making a mad grab for control of too many things.
That's because Microsoft is in a battle for survival.
The financials don't show this, yet, however long term
Microsoft knows that Linux and Apple are taking business
from them and they are using every trick in their book to fight
back.
They have a lot of tricks.
>
> It's even worse than XP. XP could at least use Win 2000 drivers, IIRC.
>
> Microsoft seems to claim they have modularized Vista.
>
> Someone needs to modularize Microsoft.
That's funny <me smiles>!
waterskidoo
>> Joe bought his Slingbox and it worked with Windows with no effort
>> on his part.
>
> You definitely have the flatfish rhythm down pat.
I don't follow you? What is a flatfish rythm?
> A good way to make friends!
True.
> Not necessarily. Most of it is in hardware internals, isn't it?
I would suppose so. I remember one video card manufacturer actually hard
coding "The quick brown fox etc" into ROM because the bench marks
being used at the time relied on how fast that phrase could be rendered.
They were eventually caught.
> But, there's no accounting for corporate paranoia. It worked for
> Microsoft.
So it seems.
Hadron
> On 2007-07-17, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> The same could be said more or less for pre-installed Linux systems however
>>> Joe bought his Slingbox and it worked with Windows with no effort
>>> on his part.
>>
>> You definitely have the flatfish rhythm down pat.
>
> I don't follow you? What is a flatfish rythm?
>
Because you are being open minded and *honest* about Linux, Linonut (who
has become a sycophantic COLA ass kisser) is assuming you are a troll
and here to make trouble. You are better off killfiling him since his
dual personality changes make him a difficult customer to fathom.
It is especially rich coming from him as he is (supposedly) a
professional programmer for ... Windows systems.
>
>
>> A good way to make friends!
> True.
>
>> Not necessarily. Most of it is in hardware internals, isn't it?
>
> I would suppose so. I remember one video card manufacturer actually hard
> coding "The quick brown fox etc" into ROM because the bench marks
> being used at the time relied on how fast that phrase could be rendered.
> They were eventually caught.
There were a lot more than that. Drivers were pre-seeded to recognise
certain 3d benchmark patterns and diverted the execution path off to optimised
code specifically for that.
>> But, there's no accounting for corporate paranoia. It worked for
>> Microsoft.
> So it seems.
No "seems" about it.
Linonut
> I've found that when people encounter a site like that the knee
> jerk reaction is to blame the browser, and this happens even
> with firefox under Windows. When it is explained to them the risks
> taken going to sites like that, often the response is more
> along the lines of "I didn't realize that, screw this" and they
> move on.
> Education is very important IMHO.
I wish I could educate my daughter. She is always having problems.
Her wireless situation has gone totally belly up, and I'm sure her
machine is (once again) a festering hole of malware. My wife told
her to pay the Geek Squad.
I'd like to help, but experience has shown that it usually ends up in a
shouting match when I try to help. Sigh.
--
Tux rox!
AB
> I wish I could educate my daughter. She is always having problems.
> Her wireless situation has gone totally belly up, and I'm sure her
> machine is (once again) a festering hole of malware. My wife told
> her to pay the Geek Squad.
>
> I'd like to help, but experience has shown that it usually ends up in a
> shouting match when I try to help. Sigh.
Your wife is right. Tough love is what makes people see the light, not
rescuing them because you can.
In this case, though, I suspect tough love will end up with dad getting
loved toughly. Part of making people wake up is to make *them* pay the
bills.
--
Conformity constipates creativity!
The Ghost In The Machine
<water....@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:43:00 +0000 (UTC)
<f7ge7k$hge$1...@registered.motzarella.org>:
We do get the occasional Wintrool on here who claims
that Linux is hard to install on certain hardware --
such as esoteric audio, video, or RAID boards/equipment.
It is far from clear that most home users would have such
equipment; the typical system might have a cheap audio
card, basic inbuilt video, and maybe RAID0 (software)
capability at the most. (Remember what RAID stands for:
Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks.)
The Creative array of newer soundcards are a problematic
issue; Creative Labs has not seen fit to grace us with
either specs or drivers AFAIK. Nvidia's more forthcoming;
I have an older model Nvidia card with a binary driver.
I've heard hints of a freeware driver variant but have
not seen it yet (mostly because I've not had to go
driver-hunting). For its part ATI has had both for awhile.
RAID I'm simply not that familiar with.
No doubt the power user will run into some issues, but
for the most part -- 99.9% = 999 million, IINM, or more
than 3x the population of the US -- Linux will work on
most x86-based equipment, and will also work on a fair
amount of non-x86-based equipment, which for Windows is
nearly impossible.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tim Smith
Get a person of normal human intelligence or higher, plus a time
machine. Go back in time, taking the normal human with you, to when
your daughter was conceived. Do something to prevent your past self
from being with your wife that night, and somehow substitute the person
of normal human intelligence.
That should clear up your daughter's problem.
Tim Smith
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> Are they still a monopoly? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. Do they
>> still have a lot of power, possibly monopoly power? Maybe, maybe not.
>
> However not to worry, Justice Kollar-Kotelly clarified that Microsoft is
> indeed a monopoly:
>
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
>
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
>
> STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
>
> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
> MEMORANDUM OPINION
That's nice. What does it have to do with whether or not Microsoft is a
monopoly *now*?
Has all your nym shifting got you so confused you can't even tell what
year it is?
Linonut
> On 2007-07-17, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> claimed:
>
>> I wish I could educate my daughter. She is always having problems.
>> Her wireless situation has gone totally belly up, and I'm sure her
>> machine is (once again) a festering hole of malware. My wife told
>> her to pay the Geek Squad.
>>
>> I'd like to help, but experience has shown that it usually ends up in a
>> shouting match when I try to help. Sigh.
>
> Your wife is right. Tough love is what makes people see the light, not
> rescuing them because you can.
No, you don't understand. When I try to talk my daughter through it,
there's a number of handicaps: she doesn't know the system side of
Windows, at all; she won't listen, and clicks ahead; I get irritated,
she gets irritated, and nothing more can be done.
> In this case, though, I suspect tough love will end up with dad getting
> loved toughly. Part of making people wake up is to make *them* pay the
> bills.
I think my wife is the enabler here.
--
Tux rox!
Erik Funkenbusch
Wow. That's harsh. Linonut isn't that bad, though I'm still scratching my
head about how he doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal
law.
Linonut
Timmy's fuming about my dissing of him, it seems. At least he hasn't
offered to stuff up my poop shoot like one poster did here.
I'm still waiting (not looking at the moment, though), for an
unambiguous link concerning civil/criminal versus Microsoft/felony.
My gut tells me you are right, but I'd still like to see it layed out
with certainty.
--
Tux rox!
7
> On Jul 15, 4:16 pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> > Enjoy.
>>
>> >http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000
>> PX03096.pdf
>>
>> > ?There?s an interesting article in the April 2007 issue of Harper?s
>> > magazine about panels, audits, and experts. It is called
>> > CTRL-ALT-DECEIT and is from evidence in Comes v. Microsoft, a class
>> > action suit in Iowa. Here?s a paragraph from a document admitted into
>> > evidence, called ?Generalized Evangelism Timeline,? about guerrilla or
>> > evangelical marketing:
>>
>> > Working behind the scenes to orchestrate ?independent? praise of our
>> > technology is a key evangelism function. ?Independent? analysts?
>> > reports should be issued, praising your technology and damning the
>> > competitors (or ignoring them). ?Independent consultants should write
>> > articles, give conference presentations, moderate stacked panels on our
>> > behalf, and set themselves up as experts in the new technology,
>> > available for just $200/hour. ?Independent? academic sources should be
>> > cultivated and quoted (and granted research money).
>>
>> > They advise cultivating ?experts? early and recommending that they not
>> > publish anything pro-Microsoft, so that they can be viewed as
>> > ?independent? later on, when they?re needed. This type of evangelical
>> > or guerilla marketing is apparently quite common in the high-tech
>> > fields, and seems to be used liberally by open source developers.
>>
>> > The document admitted into evidence also says, ?The key to stacking a
>> > panel is being able to choose the moderator,? and explains how to find
>> > ?pliable? moderators?those who will sell out.
>>
>> > It is all a big money game. Most activists in any field know of
>> > countless ?hearings,? in which hundreds of citizens would testify
>> > before a panel, only to be ignored in favor of two or three industry
>> > ?experts.? When a panel is chosen, the outcome seems to be a foregone
>> > conclusion. As with elections, they don?t leave anything to chance.?
>> > (a post from a Mark E. Smith about exhibit PX03096 ?Evangelism is War?
>> > from Comes v. Microsoft).
>>
>> This all sounds like rhetoric taken from a political organisation
>> and applied to a commercial organisation with money poured into
>> it to turn a corporation into a political movement and all controlled
>> and distorted through money than with consensus..
>>
>> I see it now.
>>
>> Stormtroopers getting ready to storm heaven itself
>> and remake heaven in their own image.
>> For Mic0shaft Corporation,
>> creating Hell on Earth with their dumb viri ridden
>> operating system wasn't enough for them.
>> They must now go out and conquer standards bodies and media and destroy
>> all their percieved enemies systematically too through
>> politically subversive use of their money.
>>
>> Leading the charge is the Fifth Column of Mic0shaft
>> Corporation's league of Asstroturfers.
>> Lifeless bum boys who speak on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation for money.
>
>
> Meth will kill you, you know.
Clearly Meth hasn't worked for you!
Take bigger doses next time!!!
The Ghost In The Machine
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com>
wrote
on Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:04:03 -0000
<139q4l3...@news.supernews.com>:
> On 2007-07-17, High Plains Thumper <highplai...@gREMTHISmail.com> wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> Are they still a monopoly? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. Do they
>>> still have a lot of power, possibly monopoly power? Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> However not to worry, Justice Kollar-Kotelly clarified that Microsoft is
>> indeed a monopoly:
>>
>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
>>
>> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
>>
>> STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant.
>>
>> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
>> MEMORANDUM OPINION
>
> That's nice. What does it have to do with whether or not Microsoft is a
> monopoly *now*?
Microsoft is not a monopoly in all markets. At best, it is
a monopoly in a limited subsegment of the desktop market.
At worst, it is merely a majority player.
Of far more importance is abusive behavior,
which might include such things as hidden APIs,
embrace/extend/extinguish, and FUD.
>
> Has all your nym shifting got you so confused you can't even tell what
> year it is?
It is 2007 -- The New Year Of Microsoft. Clearly,
Microsoft has turned over a new leaf and is ready to
promote openness and tool excellence, as witnessed by
such efforts such as OOXML.
And if anyone believes that (at least, without large
amounts of notable evidence to the contrary), I have a
few bridges for sale...cheap.
I'm not about to say "once a monopolist, always
a monopolist", but Reagan got it right when he said
"trust but verify", regardless of what others think of
his policies. ;-) Keep an eye on Microsoft; they'll be
a major player -- and hopefully an honest one -- for some
time to come.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
Tim Smith
> Wow. That's harsh. Linonut isn't that bad, though I'm still scratching my
> head about how he doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal
> law.
It's the same reason he made those ridiculous claims about GPL in the
CUPS thread: he's ignorant, and prefers to remain that way.
waterskidoo
> Because you are being open minded and *honest* about Linux, Linonut (who
> has become a sycophantic COLA ass kisser) is assuming you are a troll
> and here to make trouble. You are better off killfiling him since his
> dual personality changes make him a difficult customer to fathom.
He seems to be reasonable concerning Linux issues.
I'm certainly no zealot, but I *do* believe that Linux is
a better operating system than Vista, if given the chance.
I do not however disregard the fact that some 90 percent of
the computer using public is using Microsoft. Microsoft
got the market early on and these people are locked into
Windows one way or another. For some of them that's fine
but for others Linux or OSX is a much better solution.
> It is especially rich coming from him as he is (supposedly) a
> professional programmer for ... Windows systems.
Couldn't say as I'm not a programmer unless you consider
typing in all those pokes and peeks in the C64
handbook in order to make the balloon fly *programming*.
> No "seems" about it.
I don't think anyone reasonable would argue that Microsoft
doesn't own the market, currently. How long that continues
to be true though is a matter of discussion, which is what
this group is about, at least in part.
I try to be objective but I am human and I have my
views, which are not cast in stone. For example, I used
to hate Linux. I really thought it sucked and at the time
I attempted to use it, Linux *did* suck. The applications
were amateurish, the hardware support was terrible and the
fonts looked awful. I put away my Linux diskettes (yes that's
a long time ago) and waited because I knew a little Unix
and I had a good feeling about Linux. I tried some versions
along the way and was amazed at how quickly Linux had progressed
but even still it needed work, at least for *my* needs.
I sat back and waited some more until Suse 9.something came
along and I was hooked. Linux was like the little boy that
lived next door who suddenly grew up into a man.
I've been with Linux ever since now using PClinuxos as
my main system and trying various distributions now
and then just to level set.
Linux is easily as good as Windows XP for the average person
and better than Vista for sure. It still needs some better
interfacing with external devices, but for the most part
things can be made to work and with a little effort the
advantages far outweigh the minor device support issues.
Linux will only improve with time.
Can the same thing be said of Windows?
I have not yet met a person who feels Vista is better than
Windows XP *overall*. After the eye candy wears off, the
problems begin and it's a massive amount of troubles
the average person is having. Just read the Vista
forums for details. It seems the only people not having
troubles are new users who have purchased a Vista PC and
use only what came in the box.
Others migrating from XP are not having such a good time
of it.
In conclusion, is Linux for everyone?
Of course not. Linux is NOT a Windows replacement.
Linux is different. It requires some alternative thinking,
applications and configuration. However, with a minor
amount of training, and this is only to learn the grisly
details, the average person can move to Linux with
little worry. Put a person in front of a properly configured
Linux machine and chances are they will think it's a new
version of Windows and will be surfing, doing email and AIM
in no time at all.
People who have highly specialized vertical applications
may or may not be able to use Linux, yet. That's fine because
they should use the OS that supports their applications.
waterskidoo
>
> We do get the occasional Wintrool on here who claims
> that Linux is hard to install on certain hardware --
> such as esoteric audio, video, or RAID boards/equipment.
OIC.
Thanks for cluing me in.
waterskidoo
> That's nice. What does it have to do with whether or not Microsoft is a
> monopoly *now*?
I'm not really sure if Microsoft is a monopoly per se'.
What I do know is that Microsoft is a very nasty, dangerous
company to do business with. I feel that history already
proves that to be so. A monopoly implies that other choice
is not allowed or available. Surely alternatives to Windows
exist.
People are free to choose them if they desire.
However, it becomes a gray area when hardware vendors choose to
offer competing systems, such as Linux, and are attacked or
penalized by Microsoft. That is clearly wrong.
So maybe in that vein, Microsoft really are a monopoly.
I really don't know.
AZ Nomad
>On 2007-07-17, Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> That's nice. What does it have to do with whether or not Microsoft is a
>> monopoly *now*?
>I'm not really sure if Microsoft is a monopoly per se'.
>What I do know is that Microsoft is a very nasty, dangerous
>company to do business with. I feel that history already
>proves that to be so. A monopoly implies that other choice
>is not allowed or available. Surely alternatives to Windows
>exist.
Oh really? Try buying a computer from a department store with something but
windows installed. About the only exception is walmart crap with
lindows^H^H^Hspire.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> Are they still a monopoly? I don't know, maybe. Maybe not. Do they
>>> still have a lot of power, possibly monopoly power? Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> However not to worry, Justice Kollar-Kotelly clarified that Microsoft
>> is indeed a monopoly:
>>
>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/2002/Lit11-1.pdf
>>
>> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
>>
>> STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
>> Defendant.
>>
>> Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK)
>> MEMORANDUM OPINION
>
> That's nice. What does it have to do with whether or not Microsoft is a
> monopoly *now*?
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid
=5L0E01NFIASVSQSNDLQSKHSCJUNN2JVN?articleID=198500075
[quote]
Microsoft Still Acting Like A Monopoly, EU Complains
The focus shifts from Microsoft's influence on the desktop to its
dominance of the workgroup server market.
By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
March 22, 2007 01:00 PM
The European Union's top competition watchdog on Thursday accused
Microsoft of failing to live up to the terms of an agreement under which
the company pledged not to engage in monopolistic behavior. [/quote]
> Has all your nym shifting got you so confused you can't even tell what
> year it is?
Yawn .... you really are boring:
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/01/tim-smith-troll.html
--
HPT
waterskidoo
>
> Oh really? Try buying a computer from a department store with something but
> windows installed. About the only exception is walmart crap with
> lindows^H^H^Hspire.
So?
In that same department store you can most likely buy an Apple machine.
Where I live Apple machines are right next to Windows machines,
Kind of kills your theory now doesn't it?
AB
In the US, department stores rarely have anything other than x86 _if_
they even have that. The recent vintage Apples are rare, just as their
PPC forerunners were.
Electronics stores that cater primarily to computers sometimes do have
Macs. The Macs'll be the ones in the back in the places that carry
them, usually with a far smaller section and a limited bit of hardware
and software. I realize that's partly due to the size of demand, so
don't think I'm complaining that they're dissing Mac. It's just that
they're rarely "right next to" an ordinary x86.
Microcenter seems to be the only ones I've seen trying to give Apple a
fair shake. Around here Macs are in a separate room that's easy enough
to find, they're well displayed, and they're sometimes set up over in
the room with the regular PCs so people can see the contrast.
But try finding Mac at Best Buy or Circuit City. And CompUSA seems to
be either downsizing or liquidating, taking the Macs they were selling
in the same direction.
--
A friend in need always finds your new phone number.
Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper <highplai...@gREMTHISmail.com> wrote:
> > year it is?
>
> Yawn .... you really are boring:
What does that have to do with your nym shifting?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
> >I'm not really sure if Microsoft is a monopoly per se'.
> >What I do know is that Microsoft is a very nasty, dangerous
> >company to do business with. I feel that history already
> >proves that to be so. A monopoly implies that other choice
> >is not allowed or available. Surely alternatives to Windows
> >exist.
>
> Oh really? Try buying a computer from a department store with something but
> windows installed. About the only exception is walmart crap with
> lindows^H^H^Hspire.
The last two PCs I bought for home did not have Windows. Nor did the
last five that I had something to do with at work. (And, of course,
none of my Macs had Windows).
If a particular store doesn't have computers with the OS you want, then
buy someplace else.
--
--Tim Smith
Kier
Maybe so, but your insult to him about his daughter wasn't called for, IMO.
--
Kier
Mark Kent
> After takin' a swig o' grog, AB belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 2007-07-17, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> claimed:
>>
>>> I wish I could educate my daughter. She is always having problems.
>>> Her wireless situation has gone totally belly up, and I'm sure her
>>> machine is (once again) a festering hole of malware. My wife told
>>> her to pay the Geek Squad.
>>>
>>> I'd like to help, but experience has shown that it usually ends up in a
>>> shouting match when I try to help. Sigh.
>>
>> Your wife is right. Tough love is what makes people see the light, not
>> rescuing them because you can.
>
> No, you don't understand. When I try to talk my daughter through it,
> there's a number of handicaps: she doesn't know the system side of
> Windows, at all; she won't listen, and clicks ahead; I get irritated,
> she gets irritated, and nothing more can be done.
>
I recognise this problem well; unfortunately, when people have been
"clicking" the same sequence for years, they do get into the habit of
doing it. Your talking through is, to her, just a means to an end. She
has no intention of learning about why the solution is a solution, so
anything to save time will be perceived as a good thing.
You need the patience of several saints to handle these situations - I'm
rarely up to the job.
>> In this case, though, I suspect tough love will end up with dad getting
>> loved toughly. Part of making people wake up is to make *them* pay the
>> bills.
>
> I think my wife is the enabler here.
>
To payment?
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Linonut
> In conclusion, is Linux for everyone?
> Of course not. Linux is NOT a Windows replacement.
I agree.
Even if a lot of the trouble is simply expectations, and the desire to
access a lot of silly/dangerous/expensive Windows-only content.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> People are free to choose them if they desire.
> However, it becomes a gray area when hardware vendors choose to
> offer competing systems, such as Linux, and are attacked or
> penalized by Microsoft. That is clearly wrong.
> So maybe in that vein, Microsoft really are a monopoly.
> I really don't know.
How many other implementations are there of the de facto consumer
operating system?
None.
That's a monopoly. And it is business-sactioned and
government-sanctioned, for the most part.
Compare it to UNIX implementations and POSIX standardization.
It's an incredible phenomenon to me. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T, and, er...
Microsoft.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On 2007-07-18, AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote:
Not where I live. It's all Windows at Walmart, Office Depot, and
Staples. Probably at Best Buy, too.
> Kind of kills your theory now doesn't it?
Not really, as long as there is only one implementation of Windows.
--
Tux rox!
AZ Nomad
Not really. Apple is in less than 1% of retail stores selling computers.
Linonut
Tim is full of shit, Kier. And he's actually more offensive than DFS.
Pretty funny, considering my post /quoted/ the GPL.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 22:47:09 +0000, Tim Smith wrote:
By the way, it has not escaped my attention that Erik made sure I would
see this despicable insult, even though he knows that I do not wish to
see Tim's patronizing drivel.
--
Tux rox!
Mark Kent
Erik has a history of attacking people at a very very personal level
indeed.
Hadron
It's beginning to look that way. He's also a bullshitter about
development applications.
High Plains Thumper
> waterskidoo belched:
>
>> People are free to choose them if they desire. However, it becomes a
>> gray area when hardware vendors choose to offer competing systems, such
>> as Linux, and are attacked or penalized by Microsoft. That is clearly
>> wrong. So maybe in that vein, Microsoft really are a monopoly. I really
>> don't know.
>
> How many other implementations are there of the de facto consumer
> operating system?
>
> None.
>
> That's a monopoly. And it is business-sactioned and
> government-sanctioned, for the most part.
>
> Compare it to UNIX implementations and POSIX standardization.
>
> It's an incredible phenomenon to me. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T, and,
> er... Microsoft.
Go to http://www.consumerfed.org/, a US consumer advocate organisation and
type in "Microsoft" in the search section.
There will be a considerable number of hits.
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/WINXP_anticompetitive_release.pdf
is a press release item on the anti-competitive actions they were
addressing with the US Justice Department.
Paper Title: "Citing Consumer Harm From Microsoft Monopoly, Groups Ask
Administration to Include Windows Xp in Antitrust Case"
Concerns are expressed by these four consumer organisations:
[quote]
(Washington, D.C., Wednesday, Sept. 26, 2001)— Four of the nation’s
leading consumer organizations warned today that Microsoft’s new bundle
of software and Internet services will extend and deepen the company’s
illegal monopoly and cause significant harm to the nation’s consumers.
These warnings were issued while Microsoft itself was racing to put its
new operating system —Windows XP— into computers before a potential
judicial order could require major changes to its structure. Windows
XP/.NET Continues, Deepens Antitrust Violations
An analysis released today by the Consumer Federation of America,
Consumers Union, Media Access Project and U.S. Public Interest Research
Group (U.S. PIRG), reveals how the tight integration of Windows XP with
other basic computer applications, restrictive licensing terms, and other
anticompetitive conditions imposed by Microsoft not only mimic
Microsoft’s previous violations of the anti-trust laws, but also
significantly add to them.
CU’s Internet and Telecommunications Counsel, Christopher Murray, said
that “Microsoft has failed in its attempt to frame the case against it
as ‘anti-innovation.’ Innovation is the crux of the case, but the real
issue is whether innovation is driven by a vigorous competitive process or
managed by a single, dominant firm that can choose, at any moment and with
a vast and ever-expanding store of anti-competitive tactics, to protect
and promote its interest at the expense of consumers.”
[/quote]
Among what items were they concerned about? .Net, Passport and Windows
XP.
Anticompetitive practises have been recently addressed in the article,
[quote]
Microsoft sued over 'Vista Capable' claims
By Adam Turner
Tuesday, 03 April 2007
Microsoft deceived customers by allowing PC makers to label computers as
"Windows Vista Capable" even though they couldn't handle Vista's key
features, according to lawsuit lodged in the US.
To avoid a pre-Vista lull in sales, Microsoft and PC makers assured
consumers that "Windows Vista Capable" machines could run Vista, but they
only meet the requirements for Windows Vista Home Basic. Buyers got less
than they bargained for, according to a proposed class action filed on
behalf of computer buyer Dianne Kelley of Washington's Camano Island,
reports the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
[/quote]
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/310004_msftsued03.html
has the pdf describing the lawsuit.
The one who has suffered most from the lack of choice and continued
anti-competitive practices seems to be the US consumer.
--
HPT
waterskidoo
>
> How many other implementations are there of the de facto consumer
> operating system?
>
> None.
Apple has always offered systems.
Any company is free to write an OS for x86 and sell it.
As for other implementations of Windows, Microsoft owns Windows
and last time I looked they were not licensing the code
to be modified into say "Walmart brand Windows" etc.
> That's a monopoly. And it is business-sactioned and
> government-sanctioned, for the most part.
I don't agree, except for the government sucking up to Microsoft,
that is true.
> Compare it to UNIX implementations and POSIX standardization.
Mostly because initially the OS was tightly coupled to the hardware.
That's not so true anymore.
> It's an incredible phenomenon to me. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T, and, er...
> Microsoft.
In one sense yes, but in another sense no. Microsoft is certainly
a predatory company and their rise to power is littered with the
bodies of the various companies they destroyed along the way.
However, Apple was always an alternative and at one point
had the educational market in it's back pocket. I do however
believe that Microsoft is using it's power to foster
monopolistic like tactics to crush it's competitors so in that
sense the government should intervene.
Hadron
> Go to http://www.consumerfed.org/, a US consumer advocate organisation and
> type in "Microsoft" in the search section.
>
> There will be a considerable number of hits.
>
> http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/WINXP_anticompetitive_release.pdf
>
> is a press release item on the anti-competitive actions they were
> addressing with the US Justice Department.
Not only are you incredibly boring, but this is also anti charter and
off topic.
Any idiot can post link after link located using Google. As you so
admirably prove.
Tim Smith
> operating system?
>
> None.
At least two: Wine and ReactOS.
Tim Smith
>>> CUPS thread: he's ignorant, and prefers to remain that way.
> Tim is full of shit, Kier. And he's actually more offensive than DFS.
>
> Pretty funny, considering my post /quoted/ the GPL.
No, you did not quote GPL in the post I was responding to. This was
your post:
======================================== begin ===============================
<Path:
g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bignumber.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!bignews1.bellsouth.net.POSTED!2fed4928!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
From: Linonut <lino...@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Apple buys CUPS
References: <5tsli.5966$EZ1....@newsfe18.lga>
<slrnf9clv8....@mlsrock.launchmodem.com>
<f75lgf$kvn$03$2...@news.t-online.com>
<1184265091.5...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<46966de0$0$16393$8826...@free.teranews.com>
<d-idnbkkg_wgHwvb...@comcast.com>
<1184275330.6...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<hdKdnU8sNJJeWgvb...@comcast.com>
Reply-To: lino...@bellsouth.net
X-Real-Name: Chris.Ahlstrom
Message-ID: <slrnf9es8q....@mlsrock.launchmodem.com>
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Debian)
Lines: 11
X-Complaints-To: ab...@bellsouth.net
X-Abuse-Info: Please forward a copy of all headers for proper handling
X-Trace:
pcpocbcnbdmdhgfgdbdpiflmbcekedmfhojhikkbagflhcbooponmkapnfijjogfalgonfpanbejpclgmbhdpgmglfnpicphdjbogdekdfnimmlnehckbfgdpnebgdamdlkhkbaocdkpipkoafglmkdbpcfidnol
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:33:25 EDT
Organization: BellSouth Internet Group
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 12:33:25 GMT
After takin' a swig o' grog, Nedd Ludd belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> It's contract law 101.
Actually, one needs to cite copyright law here.
Sounds like Apple (a la Tivo) thinks they found a legal loophole in the
GPL.
======================================== end =================================
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/f9176f712473734d?dmode=source>
Apple does not think they found a legal loophole. The simply are aware
of elementary GPL and copyright facts, as explained here:
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense>
and here
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCReleaseUnderGPLAndNF>
You did quote GPL in this post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/ab50da89473fb4de?dmode=source>
but you tried to draw conclusions from it that aren't valid, as can be
seen from the two FSF links I provide above. (It could also be figured
out by noticing that Debian, which stays very close to the FSF's ideals,
includes CUPS, which has had the Apple license exception since May,
2002 or earlier).
Tim Smith
> see this despicable insult, even though he knows that I do not wish to
> see Tim's patronizing drivel.
That's amusing. You are the one who was complaining that your daughter
can't be educated, implying that she's not the brightest bulb in the
lamp. How is it despicable to suggest that the problem is not with her,
but with her dumb father?
Erik Funkenbusch
I agree, although it was not really an insult of his daughter, it was an
insult of Linonut, I still think it was uncalled for.
Erik Funkenbusch
First of all, no. I didn't know that. If you've kill-filed him, I was
unaware.
Second, I responded because I didn't think you deserved that kind of
insult... Regardless of what I think of you, dragging family that is not
involved in COLA into it is in poor taste.
Third, I haven't been paying much attention to COLA in recent weeks, so I
didn't realize how big of an ass you'd become. Despite that, I still don't
think the insult was called for.
Look, I know how these things snowball and ego's come into play all too
well, but you're paranoid if you think I responded just to make sure you
saw it.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Not where I live. It's all Windows at Walmart, Office Depot, and
> Staples. Probably at Best Buy, too.
Best Buy sells Macs, both in-store and online.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcmcat103700050065&type=category
chrisv
>Third, I haven't been paying much attention to COLA in recent weeks, so I
>didn't realize how big of an ass you'd become.
He's got a long ways to go before he gets to your level, Fuddie.
Linonut
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:43:03 GMT, Linonut wrote:
>
>> By the way, it has not escaped my attention that Erik made sure I would
>> see this despicable insult, even though he knows that I do not wish to
>> see Tim's patronizing drivel.
>
> First of all, no. I didn't know that. If you've kill-filed him, I was
> unaware.
>
> Second, I responded because I didn't think you deserved that kind of
> insult... Regardless of what I think of you, dragging family that is not
> involved in COLA into it is in poor taste.
>
> Third, I haven't been paying much attention to COLA in recent weeks, so I
> didn't realize how big of an ass you'd become.
Hey, I've been an ass for a long time. Nothing new. You hit my
bullshit threshold, you get the treatment.
You act nice, I act nice.
You act bad, and catch me at the wrong moment, you get some pushback.
> Despite that, I still don't
> think the insult was called for.
>
> Look, I know how these things snowball and ego's come into play all too
> well, but you're paranoid if you think I responded just to make sure you
> saw it.
I take back what I said, and apologize.
Just remember, though, that if you say something I think is asinine, I
may well act like an ass in return. I try not to, I really do, but
sometimes....
--
Tux rox!
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Third, I haven't been paying much attention to COLA in recent weeks, so I
>> didn't realize how big of an ass you'd become.
>
> Hey, I've been an ass for a long time. Nothing new. You hit my
> bullshit threshold, you get the treatment.
Lol, fair enough.
> You act nice, I act nice.
I admit, most of the time that's true.
> You act bad, and catch me at the wrong moment, you get some pushback.
As should be expected.
>> Look, I know how these things snowball and ego's come into play all too
>> well, but you're paranoid if you think I responded just to make sure you
>> saw it.
>
> I take back what I said, and apologize.
Ok, cool. Now, back to our regularly scheduled arguments...
The Ghost In The Machine
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:33:41 -0000
<139sn85...@news.supernews.com>:
HURD, FreeBSD, and FreeDOS are also includable (though
HURD isn't quite finished yet and FreeBSD and FreeDOS are
more likely to be used by specialists). If one expands
the scope sufficiently one can also include WinCE (or
perhaps WinXP Embedded Edition now), MacOS/MacOSX (Mac
and some Intel equipment), and Symbiani (dominant in the
mobile phone area)
There are also special-purpose programs such as Norton Ghost.
This proves that Microsoft is not a monopoly in some
markets, though it does not prove anything about antitrust
issues/monopolistic behavior.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_8_132/ai_n18609305
includes the NY Times editorial declaring Gates & co a monopoly (by
referencing the Penrose Jackson findings) and Gates' rebuttal.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
is an unofficial copy of the findings (from none other
than the DoJ itself). Which of these are still relevant
(because of appeal court actions and product expiration)
is not clear to me without reading through the decision.
The OS definition used in the findings (point #2) would
be more along the lines of OS + base libraries + utility
libraries (part of a distro, in other words), but Judge
Jackson doesn't go into details regarding such things as
the illegal instruction firewall or interrupt handling,
as he doesn't really need to. Besides, does Joe User
care about interrupt 0x80 or the asmlinkage sys_read()
subroutine in the kernel? Probably not. But he will care
if things start to malfunction or are too higly priced;
these are far more visible to him. (Certain software
can be likened to a crowbar at times, prying open
otherwise-closed bits of a system's functionality.)
Point #4 is slightly wrong but the corner cases are at this
point ridiculously esoteric. However, it is possible to
run an Intel-compatible PC OS on a non-Intel-compatible
PC if one uses an emulator. At one point, in fact, HP was
selling a PC emulator (though I don't think it ran Windows
-- just DOS), and Apple's MacCharlie [*] and the Amiga's
"Transformer" were also known at one point (ditto).
#7 isn't quite right, though I'm not sure it's clear at
this point. My understanding is that Windows 1.0 was
part of Word. Win3.1 is when Windows really became a
viable, useful product, though Win2 might have been sold
separately. I'd have to look.
#8 is an interesting paragraph, and Andrew Schullman
dedicates an entire book as to how integrated Windows
95 really was. ("It's not, but that's OK" might be
what Mr. Schullman says, boiled down to one sentence.
The details in the book are interesting to the
technically-minded, and very dry.)
#11 is a good synopsis of the Internet, #12 the Web,
#13+#14 "internet content providers" (nowadays known as
web servers, web sites, or web page developers).
#33 (section III), assuming it's accurate (I'll admit
to wondering where this is fleshed out in the court
proceedings), is an interesting definition of monopoly,
and works to some extent. The whole idea of a market,
after all, is competition, or price pressure. No
pressure, no competition; no competition, one has a
monopoly from an effective standpoint, regardless of
whether competitors can attack niches or not.
BeOS is mentioned in #49, Linux in #50. #52 does not
mention WinE, but does mention that the WinAPIs are --
and always will be, unless Microsoft freezes up and dies --
a moving target.
I'd go on but this post runs overlong already. SubSection
E of Section V does go into some detail as to how IE came
to hold such a commanding lead in a market where Netscape
once enjoyed dominance, and now is in near-oblivion
(Mozilla is a mutant, but is doing very well though).
Clearly most of the errors I can find are minor ones.
And the conclusions -- at the very end -- are sobering.
[*] IINM, Charlie Chaplin -- or a lookalike -- was used
to sell IBM PCs for awhile, for some unfathomable reason.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Hadron
Almost as nauseating as Mark Kent constantly boring everyone with
stories about his #1 and #2 sons. Yawn.
Hadron
You have to love Kier. Always in with an admonishing, wagging finger. He'd make a
great primary school teacher.
Hadron
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:43:03 GMT, Linonut wrote:
>
>>
>> By the way, it has not escaped my attention that Erik made sure I would
>> see this despicable insult, even though he knows that I do not wish to
>> see Tim's patronizing drivel.
>
> First of all, no. I didn't know that. If you've kill-filed him, I was
> unaware.
>
> Third, I haven't been paying much attention to COLA in recent weeks, so I
> didn't realize how big of an ass you'd become.
Yup. Glad someone else has noticed. Linonut used to be quite
reasonable. Now he has truly gone to the COLA dark side. Hypocritical
(windows programmer) COLA "advocate" who would call the sun the moon if
it had a penguin on it.
Hadron
>
> You act bad, and catch me at the wrong moment, you get some pushback.
>
*guffaw*
And he's now turned into an Internet 'copter pilot. Stop. The laughing
is hurting my ribs.
Linonut
Hmmm, never noticed one here, but could well have overlooked it.
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:35:44 GMT, Linonut wrote:
>
>>> Third, I haven't been paying much attention to COLA in recent weeks, so I
>>> didn't realize how big of an ass you'd become.
>>
>> Hey, I've been an ass for a long time. Nothing new. You hit my
>> bullshit threshold, you get the treatment.
>
> Lol, fair enough.
Unfortunately, even at work that can be true. I always feel bad
afterward. I generally get along well with people, but, when I least
expect it, KABOOM. Then I feel like a schmuck for awhile.
>> You act nice, I act nice.
>
> I admit, most of the time that's true.
Nah, it's always true. I'm really a nice guy. Just a bit hotheaded and
impetuous! And condescending. And sneering. And sarcastic.
Anyway, here's an interesting tale about assholes (personalities):
http://www.halberd.org/2005/06/17/irrelevancy-is-for-losers/
Theo de Raadt is a huge asshole, both online, in person and now, in
print. OpenBSD claims of 'quality' are frankly overblown.
Many a time, its design has been picked apart by other security
researchers (e.g. Dave Aitel's amusing and caustic critique of
OpenBSD's stack overflow protection). It's not a bad
OS, and its implementation of pf and carp are great additions to the
greater community. But if Theo is wondering why he's being left
in the dust by Linux, he only needs to look in the mirror (and in the
archives of the openbsd mailing lists where he inevitably
flames new users). Simply put, Linus Torvalds, while also an
asshole, is a far better manager and far better at promoting Linux
(mainly by overcoming his natural programmer asshole-ness with humor)
than Theo could ever hope to be with OpenBSD (since Theo is incapable
of humor). This difference has attracted hundreds of developers
to the linux kernel alone (as opposed to the 60 syncophants that
surround Theo).
So, when I act like an ass, it may well just be my "natural programmer
asshole-ness"!
P.S. Here's Theo's quotes in Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/intelligentinfrastructure/2005/06/16/linux-bsd-unix-cz_dl_0616theo.html
--
TUX ROX, GODDAMMIT!
Linonut
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Smith
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com>
> wrote
> on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:33:41 -0000
> <139sn85...@news.supernews.com>:
>> On 2007-07-18, Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>> How many other implementations are there of the de facto consumer
>>> operating system?
>>>
>>> None.
>>
>> At least two: Wine and ReactOS.
(I was actually referring to commercial implementations, sold through
standard business outlets.)
--
Tux rox!
Linonut
Now now, chrisv! Don't be an ass <grin>.
--
Tux rox!
High Plains Thumper
It is anticompetitive against Linux, you incompetent jerk.
--
HPT
Hadron
No it isn't. Linux is freely available for download. The problem is that
for too long Linux was crap and simply not ready for the prime time
desktop. It is now. But it's missed the boat. And people like you
whining all the time about MS isn't going to change that. Grow a set of
balls and advocate LINUX and stop whinging like schoolgirl about the
Market Leader.
Kier
While you make a great fuckhead. You spend most of your time attacking
others, then whine about me. You found Tim's remark acceptable? Typical of
you.
--
Kier
The Ghost In The Machine
<lin...@bellsouth.net>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:51:40 GMT
<slrnf9svb4....@mlsrock.launchmodem.com>:
BeOS was an operating system that competed with Microsoft
for a while, until Be, Inc died. (It originally was
supposed to go on the BeBox.) Dunno if it could run
iNtel PE/Windows executables or not.
RedHat is presumably sold through enterprise channels.
Novell SuSE might have a variant. Both probably have WinE,
which allows for the execution of many Windows programs,
as an option.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };
Erik Funkenbusch
> BeOS was an operating system that competed with Microsoft
> for a while, until Be, Inc died. (It originally was
> supposed to go on the BeBox.) Dunno if it could run
> iNtel PE/Windows executables or not.
Be was already dead by the time they ported to x86, the corpse just didn't
know it yet. Apple had dealt the death blow when they chose NeXT over BeOS
for the next version of MacOS. Be had put all it's effort into being
bought by Apple.
After Apple stabbed them in the back, they quickly tried a number of other
options, including x86 and set top box markets, but they just couldn't
recover.
And no, it couldn't run Windows apps, though there was a product called
Sheep Shaver that let PPC Be boxes run Mac apps. I think it was later open
sourced and is now targeted at PPC Linux.
AZ Nomad
In colorado and arizona, best buy doesn't sell mac. I don't know about
elsewhere. Of course, erik may as well be lying again.
The Ghost In The Machine
<hadro...@googlemail.com>
wrote
on Wed, 18 Jul 2007 23:45:21 +0200
<4jtzs15...@googlemail.com>:
Hadron does have a point, though the Halloween papers do
point to Microsoft's concerns about how to effectively
stifle Linux/OSS.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
This was back in 1998, folks, when the GUIs [*] still had some
rather rough edges. Gnome 1.0 wasn't released until March 99,
according to http://www.guidebookgallery.org/timelines/gnome.
KDE got out a little earlier, with 1.0 coming out in July 98.
In particular, Halloween I has the interesting quotes:
OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to
Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic
parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not
replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a
long term developer mindshare threat.
(Boo hoo. Oh boo hoo hoo.)
OSS is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat
it.
(Boo hoo. Oh boo hoo hoo.)
Linux has been deployed in mission critical, commercial environments
with an excellent pool of public testimonials. ... Linux outperforms
many other UNIXes ... Linux is on track to eventually own the x86
UNIX market ...
(and apparently, now we do; Solaris/x86 is effectively
dead, and FreeBSD is thriving but obscured by the Linux
"buzz". It's kind of a pity, as FreeBSD is an excellent
server product in its own right.)
Linux can win as long as services / protocols are commodities.
The obvious solution, apparently, is to "de-commoditize
[the] protocols". Presumably, this is "Microsoft-speak"
for making communications between client and server
proprietary again, and thereby ensuring vendor lock-in,
and increase value to the customer while doing so until
Linux dies and drops off the radar.
The tactics are apparently yet another variant of "embrace,
extend, extinguish". More from the article:
Blunting OSS attacks
(um....what are we supposed to be attacking?)
Generally, Microsoft wins by attacking the core weaknesses of OSS
projects.
(Yes, we have weaknesses. The major one is arguably
lack of predictability of releases...and that's not all
that big a deal unless one really really needs the new
functionality.)
De-commoditize protocols & applications
OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server
applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized,
simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new
protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
(If OSS doesn't anticipate you.)
David Stutz makes a very good point: in competing with
Microsoft's level of desktop integration, "commodity
protocols actually become the means of integration"
for OSS projects. There is a large amount of IQ being
expended in various [Internet Engineering Task Force:
http://www.ietf.org/] working groups which are quickly
creating the architectural model for integration for
these OSS projects.
(At this point Eric Raymond makes the very valid point that
Microsoft is calling for locking up of the open protocols
and the crushing of the IETF to stop OSS. Well, Eric,
the good news is that IETF is still alive and kicking,
so we've not been crushed just yet. :-) The bad news:
Microsoft's dragged in patents.)
Client Integration. How can we leverage the client
base to provide similar integration requirements
on our servers? For example, MSMQ, as a piece of
middleware, requires closely synchronized client and
server codebases.
(In other words, lock out other clients and servers by
extending the protocol.)
Middleware control is critical. Obviously, as servers
and their protocols risk commoditization higher order
functionality is necessary to preserve margins in the
server OS business.
("preserving margins" is a variant of "keeping the prices
artificially high".)
Organizational Credibility
(In other words, make sure OSS doesn't gain mindshare.
Presumably, this is done through advertising and sales
leaning on would-be switchers.)
Is this anticompetitive, or merely aggressively good business tactics?
Good question. I'd vote for the former.
[*] I count KDE and Gnome as two separate but interusable systems.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
Hadron
Yeah, or "AZ Nomad" could just be demonstrating why NO ONE should pay him
the least bit of attention.
Hint : Erik provided a link
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcmcat103700050065&type=category
Sheesh.
graeme
(snips)
> RedHat is presumably sold through enterprise channels. Novell SuSE might
> have a variant. Both probably have WinE, which allows for the execution
> of many Windows programs, as an option.
No official Wine and Samba packages for current Suse AFAIK. Gee how did
that happen.
AB
It doesn't in Missouri, Kansas or Illinois either. I can't say for
certain, but I'm pretty sure they weren't for sale in a couple of other
states where I've gone into Best Buy.
--
No problem is so big you can't run away from it.
Erik Funkenbusch
>>>> Best Buy sells Macs, both in-store and online.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcmcat103700050065&type=category
>>
>>>Hmmm, never noticed one here, but could well have overlooked it.
>>
>> In colorado and arizona, best buy doesn't sell mac. I don't know about
>> elsewhere. Of course, erik may as well be lying again.
>
> It doesn't in Missouri, Kansas or Illinois either. I can't say for
> certain, but I'm pretty sure they weren't for sale in a couple of other
> states where I've gone into Best Buy.
That's not true, Midget.
I just did a quick test. I went to the bestbuy site, and looked at their
"in-store" weekly ad for Chicago, IL. Guess what I found on Page 5?
iMac's for 1499 and 1999. Gee, now why would their in-store ad show a
computer that you can't buy from their store?
Well, maybe that's a fluke, right. So I went to St. Louis, MO, and lo and
behold, page 5 also lists iMac's. What's going on here? They claim
they're an authorized apple reseller. How could that be? You said they
don't sell macs.
I will grant you, it does say "Available in Select stores" in small print,
but you are so certain no stores in Missouri, Kansas and Illinois have
them. Have you been to each and every BestBuy in those states? Have you
looked for Macs in all of them?
Mark Kent
> Fuddie wrote:
>
>>Third, I haven't been paying much attention to COLA in recent weeks, so I
> He's got a long ways to go before he gets to your level, Fuddie.
>
Considering his previous personal attacks, I find his sudden conversion
to acceptable behaviour less than convincing.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> >> In colorado and arizona, best buy doesn't sell mac. I don't know about
> >> elsewhere. Of course, erik may as well be lying again.
> >
> > It doesn't in Missouri, Kansas or Illinois either. I can't say for
> > certain, but I'm pretty sure they weren't for sale in a couple of other
> > states where I've gone into Best Buy.
>
> That's not true, Midget.
>
> I just did a quick test. I went to the bestbuy site, and looked at their
> "in-store" weekly ad for Chicago, IL. Guess what I found on Page 5?
> iMac's for 1499 and 1999. Gee, now why would their in-store ad show a
> computer that you can't buy from their store?
>
> http://bestbuy.shoplocal.com/bestbuy/Default.aspx?action=browsepagesingle&stor
> eid=2413339&rapid=426041&pagenumber=5
>
> Well, maybe that's a fluke, right. So I went to St. Louis, MO, and lo and
> behold, page 5 also lists iMac's. What's going on here? They claim
> they're an authorized apple reseller. How could that be? You said they
> don't sell macs.
>
> I will grant you, it does say "Available in Select stores" in small print,
> but you are so certain no stores in Missouri, Kansas and Illinois have
> them. Have you been to each and every BestBuy in those states? Have you
> looked for Macs in all of them?
There was a pilot program to sell Macs in Best Buy. The announced in
April that it is expanding to 200 stores. They have sold Macs online
through BB for quite a while.
They are also now fitting some of the stores with Apple
store-withing-a-store sections:
<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/07/18/some_best_buy_stores_fitte
d_with_snazzy_new_apple_displays_photos.html>
It's interesting how not only do some of the people quoted above not
know about this, they did not believe you EVEN AFTER YOU GAVE A LINK.
Evidently, if Roy hasn't posted about it, they don't know it happened.
--
--Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper
>> High Plains Thumper writes:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>> High Plains Thumper writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Go to http://www.consumerfed.org/, a US consumer advocate
>>>>> organisation and type in "Microsoft" in the search section.
>>>>>
>>>>> There will be a considerable number of hits.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/WINXP_anticompetitive_release.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> is a press release item on the anti-competitive actions they were
>>>>> addressing with the US Justice Department.
>>>>
>>>> Not only are you incredibly boring, but this is also anti charter and
>>>> off topic.
>>>>
>>>> Any idiot can post link after link located using Google. As you so
>>>> admirably prove.
>>>
>>> It is anticompetitive against Linux, you incompetent jerk.
>>
>> No it isn't. Linux is freely available for download. The problem is
>> that for too long Linux was crap and simply not ready for the prime
>> time desktop. It is now. But it's missed the boat. And people like you
>> whining all the time about MS isn't going to change that. Grow a set of
>> balls and advocate LINUX and stop whinging like schoolgirl about the
>> Market Leader.
>
> Hadron does have a point,
Hadron uses a very common trolling technique. Rather than participate in
the discussion, attempts to deflect the issues by flinging insulting
retorts, such as homophobic name calling and referring to a poster's
expressions as "whines". In his insulting, extolls a competing operating
system by calling it a market leader. This confirms he is here to troll.
He misrepresents the truth, showing that he truly is not an advocate,
referring to Linux as crap. Yet 10 years ago, Linux was a complete and
suitable desktop product. As you show in the following explanations
regarding Microsoft concerns expressed through the Halloween papers.
> though the Halloween papers do point to Microsoft's concerns about how
> to effectively stifle Linux/OSS.
>
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/
>
> This was back in 1998, folks, when the GUIs [*] still had some rather
> rough edges. Gnome 1.0 wasn't released until March 99, according to
> http://www.guidebookgallery.org/timelines/gnome. KDE got out a little
> earlier, with 1.0 coming out in July 98.
>
> In particular, Halloween I has the interesting quotes:
>
> OSS poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to
> Microsoft, particularly in server space. Additionally, the intrinsic
> parallelism and free idea exchange in OSS has benefits that are not
> replicable with our current licensing model and therefore present a
> long term developer mindshare threat.
<SNIP>
KDE and Gnome are interusable; distros like Debian, SuSE, Ubuntu
allow one to choose which environment during login.
--
HPT
Linonut
How about Charleston, SC (actually N. Charleston)?
Let's keep digging! We'll find some real Microsoft in-store competition
somewhere, I can feel it!
--
Mac rax!
Tim Smith
High Plains Thumper <highplai...@gREMTHISmail.com> wrote:
> Hadron uses a very common trolling technique. Rather than participate in
> the discussion, attempts to deflect the issues by flinging insulting
> retorts, such as homophobic name calling and referring to a poster's
> expressions as "whines". In his insulting, extolls a competing operating
> system by calling it a market leader. This confirms he is here to troll.
And what does your nym shifting confirm?
--
--Tim Smith
Hadron
Clearly not true. I always argue my corner. You are getting sillier by
the day.
> expressions as "whines". In his insulting, extolls a competing operating
> system by calling it a market leader. This confirms he is here to
> troll.
It is whining.
>
> He misrepresents the truth, showing that he truly is not an advocate,
Example please?
> referring to Linux as crap. Yet 10 years ago, Linux was a complete and
> suitable desktop product. As you show in the following explanations
10 years ago, Linux was NOT a "complete" and "suitable" desktop
product. Please. Don't be ridiculous.
> regarding Microsoft concerns expressed through the Halloween papers.
>
LOL. Poor HPT - still googling and gurgling like crazy.
Hadron
Well, its everywhere where I live.
Maybe some of the Linux "advocates" here should get out more.
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper writes:
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> Hadron wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem is that for too long Linux was crap and simply not ready
>>>> for the prime time desktop. It is now. But it's missed the boat. And
>>>> people like you whining all the time about MS isn't going to change
>>>> that. Grow a set of balls and advocate LINUX and stop whinging like
>>>> schoolgirl about the Market Leader.
>>>
>>> Hadron does have a point,
>>
>> Hadron uses a very common trolling technique. Rather than participate
>> in the discussion, attempts to deflect the issues by flinging insulting
>> retorts, such as homophobic name calling and referring to a poster's
>
> Clearly not true. I always argue my corner.
Oops! I opened the door and look what the cat drug in. Silly me, my
mistake, here is the reference:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
[quote]
Subject: 3.4 The nasty Troll
If anyone does anything which will interfere with the troll's ability to
cause mayhem, they can become very nasty, posting from obviously incorrect
variations of the name etc. insults, call them netcops, netnannies,
homosexuals.
[/quote]
.... here you go, into your corner like a good little troll <PLONK>
--
HPT
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Hadron uses a very common trolling technique. Rather than participate
>> in the discussion, attempts to deflect the issues by flinging insulting
>> retorts, such as homophobic name calling and referring to a poster's
>> expressions as "whines". In his insulting, extolls a competing
>> operating system by calling it a market leader. This confirms he is
>> here to troll.
>
> And what does your nym shifting confirm?
You oddly seem to follow Hadron around, you his sock puppet?
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
[quote]
Subject: 7.5 Sockpuppet
A Sockpuppet is when a poster has several usenet identities, either just
different names and email addresses from a single account. Alternatively
several email identities with valid email addresses and email accounts.
[/quote]
Have fun playing with yourself .... <PLONK!>
--
HPT
http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
The Ghost In The Machine
<www.ril...@no.spam.wanted>
wrote
on 19 Jul 2007 15:09:09 +1200
<pan.2007.07...@no.spam.wanted>:
It must be Al Qaeda. Quick! Invade Redmond! :-)
Hmmm....if WinE isn't an option, what does Microsoft
provide to replace it? I could see some options here,
of varying silliness:
[1] Just buy Windows. Go on. You know you want to.
We'll replace your GRUB or LILO boot block during the next
major software update.
[2] Buy Windows, put it in VmWare, let it run in its sandbox.
We don't care. We got your money. Twice.
[3] Buy Windows, put it in QEMU. Same deal.
[4] Port the important stuff to Linux. Now Microsoft
is going to get mad, nervous, or both. ;-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows. When it absolutely, positively, has to crash.
Hadron
You do realise that saying "whinging like a little girl" is not the same
as calling someone "homosexual" or "homophobic"?
So, other than the fact I just removed the "Quark" from my posting name
and standardized on "hadronquark@googlemail" as opposed to
"hadronquark@gmail" or "qadro...@gmail.com" which could (conceivably)
be called "nym shifting" it would appear that yet again your weak
attempt at using google to support your increasingly irrelevant views
has failed. It would appear you are exhibiting all the characteristics
that you claim to despise so much. And don't forget we know who you nym
shifted from. Which is your prerogative IMO.
So, as usual, rather than face the *reasons* Linux has a poor acceptance
rate and improving it, yet another COLA advocate prefers to sit there
whinging and whining all the time about nasty MS and nasty trolls rather
than actually suggesting something positive to improve the publics
mindset about Linux.